TicketBleed (CVE-2016-9244) (F5 BIG-IP)

Re:TicketBleed (CVE-2016-9244) (F5 BIG-IP) by problems on Thursday February 09, 2017 @11:38AM (#13608185)

In the Alexa top 1M there were less than 1000 sites.

And sites smaller than that top 1M are even less likely to be using it.

I don't find that a very large impact personally. F5 knows who their customers are and can easily contact them.

We don't need a big media panic blitz and dedicated domain name for this.

Fact of the matter is SSL accelerators just aren't all that popular now, SSL got cheaper with session resumption and newer ciphers, CPUs got fast and accelerated instructions for AES and all but a few people just use CDNs when their needs go beyond that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TicketBleed (CVE-2016-9244) (F5 BIG-IP) by tyingq on Thursday February 09, 2017 @02:17PM (#13609924)

These days, the F5 is valued more for it's intelligent load balancing than for the SSL offload. The SSL termination is there more for being able to view the request details / payload (for load balancing, app level routing, credit card tokenization, etc) than to specifically offload the crypto work. It's fairly common, in fact, for the downstream services to also be SSL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TicketBleed (CVE-2016-9244) (F5 BIG-IP) by yuhong on Thursday February 09, 2017 @07:35PM (#13612362)

Old article from 2003:

http://www.bus.umich.edu/KresgePublic/Journals/Gartner/resea...

I wonder how many of these are/were TLS version or extension intolerant.

[ Parent | on HN ]