Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "ssl40".
2015 Mar 26
2
FYI: SSH1 now disabled at compile-time by default
...that only support v2.
IMHO: part of security is making the user conscious of weaknesses and
motivating them to make change.
Experience: I have some hardware, on an internal network - that only
supports 40-bit ssl. I am forced to continue to use FF v17 because that was
the last browser to provide SSL40-bit support. My security is weakened
because I cannot update that browser, and I continue to lose plugins
because they do not support FF17 anymore. All other browsers stopped
support earlier as well.
So, complete removal, with no alternative means I cannot update to newer -
safer - technology. But...
2015 Mar 27
3
FYI: SSH1 now disabled at compile-time by default
...2:53:05PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Thursday 26 March 2015 11:19:28 Michael Felt wrote:
> > Experience: I have some hardware, on an internal network - that only
> > supports 40-bit ssl. I am forced to continue to use FF v17 because that was
> > the last browser to provide SSL40-bit support. My security is weakened
> > because I cannot update that browser, and I continue to lose plugins
> > because they do not support FF17 anymore. All other browsers stopped
> > support earlier as well.
>
> Please put the device behind a stunnel and don't put y...
2015 Apr 01
2
FYI: SSH1 now disabled at compile-time by default
...6 March 2015 11:19:28 Michael Felt wrote:
> > > > Experience: I have some hardware, on an internal network - that only
> > > > supports 40-bit ssl. I am forced to continue to use FF v17 because
> that
> > > > was
> > > > the last browser to provide SSL40-bit support. My security is
> weakened
> > > > because I cannot update that browser, and I continue to lose plugins
> > > > because they do not support FF17 anymore. All other browsers stopped
> > > > support earlier as well.
> > >
> > > Plea...
2015 Mar 25
3
FYI: SSH1 now disabled at compile-time by default
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:48 +1100, Damien Miller wrote:
> Our ability to influence people who run truly obsolete software is
> extremely limited.
+1, mostly because those who still use something that outdated in their
products are either dead, or simply don't care about their customer's
security (which is typical in the embedded devices area).
Just by us (or anyone else) saying