Re:Why TLS 1.3 isn't in browsers yet
by jve on Thursday December 28, 2017 @03:49AM
(#16021022)
Except it is INSECURE:
> However, insecure downgrades are called insecure for a reason. Client downgrades are triggered by a specific type of network failure, one that can be easily spoofed. From the client’s perspective, there’s no way to tell if this failure was caused by a faulty server or by an attacker who happens to be on the path of the connection network. This means that network attackers can inject fake network failures and trick a client into connecting to a server with SSLv3, even if both support a newer protocol. At this point, there were no severe publicly-known vulnerabilities in SSLv3, so this didn’t seem like a big problem. Then POODLE happened.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Ofcourse CL should never downgrade to non-secure versions. SSLv3 is discouraged so CL wont try this. But 1.2 still ok.
Re:Why TLS 1.3 isn't in browsers yet
by syncsynchalt on Thursday December 28, 2017 @04:45PM
(#16025160)
TLS 1.2 is insecure. Prove me wrong.
So I guess we can't downgrade to it, and we should make 1.3 work without re-negotiation.
That's what they said about SSL 3 some time ago.