News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.
Re:Why TLS 1.3 isn't in browsers yet by wav-part on Thursday December 28, 2017 @03:56AM (#16021041)
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.

Re:Why TLS 1.3 isn't in browsers yet by majewsky on Thursday December 28, 2017 @07:12AM (#16021613)
That's what they said about SSL 3 some time ago.
Re:Why TLS 1.3 isn't in browsers yet by wav-part on Thursday December 28, 2017 @07:27AM (#16021658)
If a client and server both dont upgrade to secure version and still use old now-broken version, there is nothing to be done.

This thread is just now getting repeatitive.