Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

It's Time for TLS 1.0 and 1.1 to Die

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the die-die-die dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

As TLS 1.3 inches towards publication into the Internet Engineering Task Force's RFC series, it's a surprise to realise that there are still lingering instances of TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1.

The now-ancient versions of Transport Layer Security (dating from 1999 and 2006 respectively) are nearly gone, but stubborn enough that Dell EMC's Kathleen Moriarty and Trinity College Dublin's Stephen Farrell want it formally deprecated.

This Internet-Draft (complete with “die die die” in the URL) argues that deprecation time isn't in the future, it's now, partly because developers in recalcitrant organisations or lagging projects probably need something to convince The Boss™ it's time to move.

The last nail in the coffin would be, formally and finally, to ban application fallback to the hopelessly insecure TLS 1.0 and 1.1 standards.

Deprecation also removes any excuse for a project to demand support for all four TLS variants (up to TLS 1.3), simplifying developers' lives and reducing the risk of implementation errors.

[...] The publication of TLS 1.3 into the RFC stream is imminent – it's reached the last stage of the pre-publication process, author's final review. When it's published, it will carry the designation RFC 8446.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
It's Time for TLS 1.0 and 1.1 to Die | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 26 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday June 21 2018, @03:25AM (1 child)

    by darkfeline (1030) on Thursday June 21 2018, @03:25AM (#695983) Homepage

    By that definition, being vulnerable to SQL injection attacks or storing passwords hashed using MD5 and unsalted is not "hopelessly insecure". Hell, ROT13 might barely escape being "hopelessly insecure", given the average person's comprehension skills.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday June 21 2018, @07:31AM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday June 21 2018, @07:31AM (#696079) Journal

    ...which underscores that I feel that "hopelessly insecure" is a very strong statement.
    If the average person that understands the security purpose of a device/security control cannot trivially break it, then I believe "hopelessly" is an overstatement.

    Note that not all SQL injection may not fall under this: I'd be surprised if you couldn't learn within 5 minutes to type "test; DROP DATABASE" into a form field.