1. 40

  2. 3

    I’m thinking of redirecting https://cipherli.st/ to the Mozilla generator. Did it once before to the wiki, but that was disliked.

    1. 3

      Ah, I love cipherli.st! Thanks so much for providing it, it’s been a handy reference on several occasions.

      The Mozilla generator is good but cipherli.st is more comprehensive.

      1. 2

        Quick question for an upcoming project: is there a rather canonical, maintained list of cypher considered “state of the art” that doesn’t come in the form of a webserver config around somewhere?

        1. 2

          No! cipherli.st is more comprehensive than Mozilla’s ssl-config, if includes more services (e.g. dovecot, etc)

          1. 2

            Disliked by whom? Want me to put you in touch with the author of the config generator?

            1. 1

              I like cipherli.st! I’d be sad if it just would be a redirect to the Mozilla generator.

            2. 2
              # modern configuration
              ssl_protocols TLSv1.3;

              Am I the only one that thinks that these tools are really toxic? Folks will just copy-paste all of these things without realising that they’re precluding their users from being able to access the sites. There’s a good reason most real companies (Google included) are still happy to serve you over TLSv1.0. Mozilla markets such configuration as “Old”, with a note that it “should be used only as a last resort”. I guess Google is using a last resort. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              1. 6

                But it defaults to “Intermediate” and there are short explanations of each on the radio box. “Modern” does say “[…] and don’t need backward compatibility”.

                1. 3

                  Which up-to-date browsers do not support TLS v1.3? Sure, you could run IE7 or FF 3.0, etc, but I’d want to do everything in my power to discourage folks who are running outdated browsers from using them to browse the web, including denying them access to any website(s) I am running.

                  Google has different motives: show ads to and collect info from everyone.

                  1. 3

                    It seems to be a common misconception that the internet’s sole reason of existence is now to deliver content to Firefox and Chrome. While this is perhaps true for some people - and may be true for you - it’s certainly not a base assumption you should operate on. There are still TLS libraries out there who don’t support TLSv1.3 (such as libressl) and thus there are tools which can’t yet use TLSv1.3. There is - as far as I’m aware - little need from a security POV to prefer TLSv1.3 over v1.2 if the server provides a secure configuration. If you want to discourage people from using old browsers, display some dialogue box on your website based on their user agent string or whatever.

                    Removing support for TLS versions prior to 1.2 is most certainly a good idea, but removing support for TLSv1.2 is just jumping the gun, especially if you look at the postfix configuration. If you want to enforce TLSv1.3 for your users, fine. But to enforce it when other mailservers try to deliver email is just asking for them to fall back to unencrypted traffic, effectively making the situation even worse.

                    On a completely unrelated note: It’s funny that server side cipher ordering is now seemingly discouraged in intermediate/modern configurations. I guess that’s probably because ever cipher supported is deemed “sufficiently secure”, but it’s still a funny detail considering all the tools that will berate you for not forcing server cipher order.

                    1. 1

                      Thanks for the reminder that some libraries (e.g. libressl) still do not support TLS v1.3. Since practically every browser I use (which extends beyond the chrome/FF combo) supports it, I hadn’t considered libraries like that.

                  2. 1

                    I was also surprised when I noticed this. I’d used this site before, but then “Modern” meant only supporting TLS 1.2+, which I think is suiting.