On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Zelenka <bu...@php.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Niklas Keller <m...@kelunik.com> wrote: > >> Morning Internals, >> >> I plan to distrust SHA-1 certificates by default in PHP 7.2. All major >> browsers will no longer trust SHA-1 certificates starting already >> 2017-01-01. >> >> Unfortunately, PHP doesn't even provide a way yet to limit the accepted >> algorithms for certificates. The RFC fixes that and introduces new >> defaults >> for PHP 7.2. The "signature_algorithms" context option will also be >> backported to PHP 5.6, which is only supported until the end of 2016 with >> regular releases, but after that there will be two more years of >> security-only updates. Therefore I'd like to get this done before the end >> of 2016. >> >> Currently the RFC aims for BC and doesn't restrict the algorithms on older >> versions. As all major browsers start distrusting those certificates on >> 2017-01-01 I'm not sure whether that's the correct choice. I'd like to go >> secure-by-default there and disable SHA-1 also on older versions. People >> which really need longer can always opt-out and add the needed algorithms >> again. Unfortunately, we didn't announce any plans regarding SHA-1 yet, so >> this might be a bit last-minute. >> >> You can read the full RFC in the wiki: >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/distrust-sha1-certificates >> >> > I think you should change the format to match the one supported by OpenSSL > [1] which is also simpler. > > In general I'm not a big fan of such defaults especially when new values > can be added later (e.g. EdDSA that is specified in TLS 1.3) so we have to > keep it up to date which was kind of issue in the past. However I see the > point that we should make it easier for users to have it secure by default > so it's probably a good choice. It's not actually just about SHA > > Ah sent before I finished it. :) I wanted to say that it's not just about SHA-1 but also MD5 that I think we might still support but would have to double check that...
