News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why SSL was renamed to TLS in late 90s (2014).

Re:Why SSL was renamed to TLS in late 90s (2014) by disruptiveink on Sunday June 15, 2025 @06:04PM (#44285273)
Wait, but didn't TLS 1.0 have significant improvements over SSL 3.0? The article makes it seems that just a couple of things were tweaked just to make it different for the sake of being different.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SSL was renamed to TLS in late 90s (2014) by layer8 on Sunday June 15, 2025 @06:13PM (#44285310)
Indeed there are significant changes and improvements, though it’s not a complete redesign like SSL 3.0 was.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SSL was renamed to TLS in late 90s (2014) by mcpherrinm on Sunday June 15, 2025 @10:58PM (#44286312)
The main difference is in the padding. When the POODLE attack was pre-announced as only affecting SSL3 and not TLS1.0, that was enough to predict it was going to be a padding oracle.

I think it’s fair to say they’re very similar, with a few “bug fixes”. It’s been a while since I’ve thought about either though, and might be forgetting a few things. I’ve only ever implemented SSL3 and TLS1.0 together, so there may be some details I’m forgetting.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SSL was renamed to TLS in late 90s (2014) by nextgens on Monday June 16, 2025 @03:26AM (#44287343)
TLS1.0 introduced modularity via the concept of "extensions". It's everything but a minor evolution of the protocol.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why SSL was renamed to TLS in late 90s (2014) by timdierks on Monday June 16, 2025 @03:42PM (#44292748)
The tweaks were minor (smaller than for any other version revision), and mostly just the IETF marking its territory and doing something other than blessing the SSL 3.0 protocol as-is.
[ Parent | on HN ]