Re: [TLS] Prohibiting SSL 3.0

[Hubert Kario <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday 29 October 2014 17:43:42 Yoav Nir wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Hubert Kario <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wednesday 29 October 2014 17:06:51 Yoav Nir wrote:
> >>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Hubert Kario <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Wednesday 29 October 2014 13:18:59 Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:51:39AM +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> >>>>> Hubert Kario <[e-mail]> writes:
> >>>>>> Even the TLS 1.3 draft says that a client SHOULD NOT send a SSLv2
> >>>>>> compatible client hello with server support being stated as MAY.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Good grief, it's still allowing SSLv2 after nearly *twenty years*? 
> >>>>> This
> >>>>> should have been MUST NOT for both client and server years ago, and at
> >>>>> an
> >>>>> absolute minimum SHOULD NOT SSLv3 as well.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Checking SSL pulse (which I think scans global Internet, not all kinds
> >>>> of
> >>>> odd internal sites nobody cares about) gives ~19% for SSLv2 (this isn't
> >>>> the compatiblity hello, this the whole protocol!), which is scary.
> >>> 
> >>> In my scans (a bit bigger set than SSL Pulse), I see over 1% of servers
> >>> that don't support anything but SSLv2!
> > 
> > I also don't check for CN mismatch (as some clients don't check CNs too…)
> 
> Are you validating certificates?  Could some of these sites be showing the
> Apache default page with a self-signed certificate?

Yes, I'm validating them against the Mozilla set of CA certificates. No, the 
stats exclude sites that serve either self signed or corporate signed 
certificates.

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario