On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:46:01 +0200 Hanno Böck wrote: > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:46:02 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Sigh... https also makes MITM attacks possible, especially if SSL > > or TLS < 1.2 is used or are allowed and protocol version downgrade > > attack may be performed. > > None of that is true. > > You're probably referring to attacks that were specific to certain > browser weaknesses, but they're irrelevant for this use case. Some attack are indeed implementation specific, but there are several which are design flaws, e.g.:
1) BEAST attack[1]: TLS 1.0 is vulnerable regrardless of implementation (and all SSL versions). 2) BREACH attack[2]: basically this is a side-channel attack for compressed traffic. All TLS versions are still vulnerable, the only practical mitigation is to disable compression. It can be argued if this is a vulnerability in TLS or TLS protocol has nothing to do with side channels, but if a protocol is vulnerable to a side-channel implementation-agnostic attack, it is considered by many as a protocol misdesign. Really SSL/TLS are very good examples of how crypto solutions should not be designed and implemented. [1] https://www.gracefulsecurity.com/what-is-beast/ [2] http://breachattack.com/ Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpHlWZBJH1hu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
