Re: cryptographic primitive choices [was: Re: Microsoft Warns Customers Away From RC4 and SHA-1]

[Marcus Meissner <meissner () suse de>]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:18:33AM -0800, Chris Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried () redhat com> wrote:
>
> > Compatibility, for example HTTPS, you can disable a lot but if you
> > only allowed one cipher chances are a good chunk of clients wouldn't
> > be able to connect. There's a LOT of software out there, some open
> > source, some commercial, some written in house, it all uses encryption
> > and signing (usually wrongly, sigh) and a lot of it cannot or will not
> > be updated any time soon, if at all. Think of all the devices that act
> > as a web client and will never have TLS 1.2 support (e.g. "smart" TVs)
> > for example. Would I prefer the world to ditch SSL, TLS 1.0 and 1.1
> > and move to TLS 1.2 entirely? Of course. Is it going to happen? Not
> > for a loooong time.
> >
> > Think of all the things that currently use (often older versions of)
> > OpenSSL/PolarSSL/GnuTLS/etc and will never get updated...
>
> I posit that there is a strong correlation between un-updated,
> un-updatable software that did not ship with (for example) support for
> modern cipher suites and protocols, and software that should be
> recalled for a variety of reasons. Random example:
>
> https://securityledger.com/2013/08/samsung-smart-tv-like-a-web-app-riddled-with-vulnerabilities/
>
> Let's unpack your use of the passive voice: Who, exactly, is choosing
> not to update the OpenSSL they ship? Why do we forgive that?

You cannot easily update an openssl 0.x version to 1.0.x if you ahd
no symbol versioning set up as the symbols overlap and you would need
to rebuild _all_ software using libssl, inlcuding libcrypto.

Ciao, Marcus