On Fri, 15 May 2015 07:51:34 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015, at 03:07, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 May 2015 17:32:53 +0200, Adam Major wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > >> But I don't think disable TLS 1.0 is ok.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > TLS 1.0 is dead and is even now banned in new
installations according to
> > > > the PCI DSS 3.1 standards. Nobody should expect TLS 1.0 to
be supported
> > > > by *any* HTTPS site now.
> > >
> > > Maybe is dead but is used in many old browser / software still
used.
> > >
> > > In PCI DSS 3.1 merchants must remove SSL and TLS 1.0 to 30 June
2016.
> > > (new installations "in theory" should not be built on
TLS 1.0).
> > >
> > > So we have 1 year and FreeBSD forum is not e-commerce site ;)
> >
> > People seem determined to make sure freebsd forums are one of the
first
> > sites to ban TLS 1.0, as some sort of best-practice example.
> >
> > I admit my knowledge of TLS issues is scant. I'd like to know
whether
> > allowing TLS 1.0 - with fallback from later levels denied, as it
already
> > is - endangers the server, or only the client? If there's a
clearly
> > stated and immediate danger to the forum server, I can accept that,
but
> > I'd have thought https://www and svnweb would be more at such
peril?
> > Will there be any notice before they're denied TLS 1.0 access
also?
> The danger is decryption. Your username/password could be stolen if
> someone captures your traffic after successfully initiating a downgrade
> attack.
So the danger is only to myself, from some MITM, and not to the server?
And despite the forum cert setup shown at
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=forums.freebsd.org :
Downgrade attack prevention Yes, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV supported (more info)
which refers to RFC 7507, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7507/
which I've read, are we not trusting that mechanisn to prevent some
successful initiation of a downgrade attack - which I rather imprecisely
called "with fallback from later levels denied" above?
> You can't login to www.freebsd.org or svnweb. The most they can do is
> see what you're browsing, which isn't private anyway.
Alright.
> > If it's just for making the sort of point that Mark is
advocating, to
> > force people to join this 'rolling automatic update' model so
beloved of
> > Microsoft and their captive hardware vendors, then I think doing
that,
> > without any sort of prior notice, is rather less than I've come
to
> > expect from the FreeBSD project over 17 years.
> >
> > But I'm a grandpa too; guess I have old-fashioned expectations :)
> Microsoft has nothing to do with this. They're setting a good example.
Alright, the leopard has changed its spots; wonders will never cease.
> OSX is sort-of on that train too. FreeBSD has always been ahead of the
> curve with the ports tree being a rolling-release model. We need the
> Linux distros to get their heads on straight now, too.
The latter should be simple enough :)
> Just a reminder: I don't speak for the project in these matters.
I'm
> just telling you what best current practices are. I have no idea who
> made that decision for the forums, or if it's even worth having the
> forums on https anyway.
Other forums I use allow http connections, read only, only requiring
switching to https for login and thus posting, which is fair enough,
and I have almost always only read a few forum posts, but see below ..
Noone has yet seen fit to even comment on the matter of no prior notice;
there is usually at least some heads-up warning, 'better upgrade now',
before access is denied to some FreeBSD service from older browsers.
> If it was up to me I probably wouldn't even put
> https on the forums even though Google will penalize it in search
> results. (Sure, you have a user account there... but it doesn't really
> do anything... you're not using the same credentials everywhere are
> you?)
Of course not. And I just checked, being unsure I'd ever posted there,
to find my password server-allocated anyway, so I must have posted once.
> Actually, that might be the reason -- Google search results. Perhaps
> Google is also logging what protocols/ciphers your HTTPS has and is
> using that in search rankings.
You're seriously suggesting that the FreeBSD project should set security
policies to favour higher rankings from an advertising company?
cheers, Ian