Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 11 2015, @04:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the failure-to-communicate dept.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/12/sha1-sunset-will-block-millions-from-encrypted-net-facebook-warns/

SHA1 certificates for secure SSL/TLS communications are deprecated due to known computational vulnerabilities. To ensure secure communications, a forced deprecation sounds reasonable (i.e. refuse to connect to these). That has the side effect that it will lock out many users who are unable to use stronger hashes such as SHA256. However, if a fallback to SHA1 is provided (as Facebook is proposing), everyone will be vulnerable to SHA1 downgrade man-in-the-middle attacks.

What to do?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:14PM (#275034)

    Who the fuck cares what Facebook warns about? Fuckerberg can go choke on a bucket of dongs.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Offtopic=1, Insightful=4, Overrated=1, Underrated=2, Touché=1, Total=9
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by SomeGuy on Friday December 11 2015, @06:15PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday December 11 2015, @06:15PM (#275077)

    Really, secure connections should only be needed for truly sensitive data like banking. It is a rather sad state of affairs that a login to some dumb social media site is considered a matter of life and death.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:21PM (#275081)

      Well you might like having all your non critical communications in plaintext and monitored by a half dozen countries, but I don't.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:52PM (#275096)

      Secure connections should be used for all transmission of credentials.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @07:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @07:44PM (#275112)

      It is a rather sad state of affairs that a login to some dumb social media site is considered a matter of life and death.

      Maybe not death but life. So much can go wrong. False flag etc. Ready to be "gang raped" by the system and everyone who thinks you're a pedophile?

      And why are you SomeGuy? Is that your real name or is your real name truly sensitive data too? A matter of life and death?

      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:47AM

        by cafebabe (894) on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:47AM (#275330) Journal

        At times like this, I wish that I had picked a witty username like WitnessProtected or TheFBI [bash.org].

        --
        1702845791×2
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @10:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @10:26PM (#275188)

      > Really, secure connections should only be needed for truly sensitive data like banking.

      No, secure connections should be used for ALL data. Otherwise it calls attention to itself and makes it easy for attackers to focus on the most valuable network traffic.

      This is a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats."