From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1A0138A1F for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0950DE09AA; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lyseo.edu.ouka.fi (unknown [82.128.138.2]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1B1E093A for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.178.212.91] (85-76-67-221-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.67.221]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lyseo.edu.ouka.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 445D7193F980 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 19:40:17 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Heartbleed fix - question re: replacing self-signed certs with real ones References: <201404171649.57228.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <201404200927.54238.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <53538F12.7080600@gmail.com> <201404201338.53817.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> From: Matti Nykyri Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) In-Reply-To: <201404201338.53817.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> Message-Id: <801A9D1D-60CA-40B6-889F-AA84F470E0D4@iki.fi> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 19:40:06 +0300 To: "gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Archives-Salt: 6db1142e-8705-4bb9-8093-a1e3a6ad0a43 X-Archives-Hash: d3d2340fe8d29cbeff3ad7f5caa5f31c On Apr 20, 2014, at 15:38, Mick wrote: > On Sunday 20 Apr 2014 10:10:42 Dale wrote: >=20 > Just a 1/3 of all websites offer TLSv1.2 at the moment and hardly any publ= ic=20 > sites offer it as an exclusive encryption protocol, because they would loc= k=20 > out most of their visitors. This is because most browsers do not yet supp= ort=20 > it. MSWindows 8.1 MSIE 11 now offers TLSv1.2 by default and has dropped t= he=20 > RC4 cipher (since November last year). I understand they are planning to d= rop=20 > SHA-1 next Christmas and have already dropped MD5 because of the Flame=20 > malware. This should push many websites to sort out their encryption and S= SL=20 > certificates and move away from using RC4 and SHA1 or MD5. As I said RC4 h= as=20 > been reverted to by many sites as an immediate if interim defence against t= he=20 > infamous BEAST and Lucky Thirteen attacks. This is a problem all Microsoft's customers are facing. I wonder why they do= n't demand more. I hope this publicity that snowden and heartbleed has broug= ht to an average user will change their interests to demand better privacy. A= nyways I just wonder who trusts software whose source code isn't open and an= d reviewed by a large community that don't have a financial interest on you.= > According to the Netcraft SSL Survey (May 2013) only a third of all web=20= > servers out there offer Perfect Forward Secrecy to ensure that even if the= =20 > encryption keys were to be compromised, previous communications cannot be=20= > retrospectively decrypted. >=20 > Elliptic Curve algorithms are not yet included in many browsers and in any= =20 > case the security of these in a post-Snowden world should be questionable=20= > (well, at least the arbitrarily specified NIST-NSA sponsored curves, which= =20 > OpenSSL is heavily impregnated with). >=20 > What I'm saying is that there may be no perfect banking website out there,= =20 > because Internet security is screwed up at the moment, but it is always wo= rth=20 > looking for a better bet. It is really hard to fight for privacy, because we have large companies and a= gencies that actively are lobbing politicians and standards for their own pe= rsonal interests. In order for the security to get better an average user ne= ed to gain an interest to it. This seems unlikely because now a days everybo= dy is uploading all their secrets to a cloud computing service etc. But I ho= pe this publicity will change it even slowly. Another thing is that system administrators need to gain more knowledge on s= ecuring their services. For that I think this conversation is quite helpful.= A lot of people read this list and it can be found by google. Openssl and g= nupg are not very easy to use for someone who doesn't have any knowledge on c= ryptography. For example openssl will try to use md5 by default even in gent= oo if you just try to create x509 cert. And many manual pages are way behind= ... Newest algorithms are almost never listed there. So you have to truly di= g in or ask somebody to find safe and up-to date answers. --=20 -Matti=20