Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-prohibiting-rc4-01.txt

[Alyssa Rowan <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 02/10/2014 20:13, Bodo Moeller wrote:
>> No, not sure I follow your reasoning here:
> If you're not using TLS 1.2 but an earlier protocol version, then 
> obviously backwards compatibility is of concern (and there's
> really no non-crappy cipher suite available).

Then reasonable behaviour would be to choose the least weak cipher
available that's still sort of acceptable¹?

RC4 is not sort of acceptable. It's not even the least weak.

> It seems that you can get by without RC4 when using TLS 1.2, but 
> obviously sites do still see a need to support RC4 with older 
> protocol versions.

And this is _exactly_ the behaviour that we're warning needs to stop ASAP.

This isn't some compatibility kludge. This is a weak cipher.

___
[1] And _definitely_ issue the fallback SCSV, in case you're being
tricked into using weak with a new client when you could use strong.

- -- 
/akr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=3Wem
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----