Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Moving On From SSL 2.0
Juha-Matti Laurio writes "Plans are afoot to remove support for SSL version 2.0 in Mozilla Firefox, reports MozillaZine portal. Mozilla Foundation is eager to disable support for SSL 2.0 and have all Firefox installations use only the newer and more secure SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 protocols." From the post: "Netscape Communications Corporation introduced SSL 2.0 with the launch of Netscape Navigator 1.0 in 1994. Netscape Navigator 2.0 included support for SSL 3.0 when it was released in 1996. The specification for TLS 1.0, essentially a standardized version of SSL 3.0 with some differences, was published in 1999."
It shouldn't and if it does, than the Mozilla Corperation will urge that they use SSL 3.0.
Microsoft is like...no, it's much worse.
All the good times we have shared with SSL 2.0 now they will be gone. SSL 2.0 will locked in it's room sobbing and won't come out for a week. Well Firefox, I hope your satisfied, go on! Go off with your new Friends, see if SSL 2.0 cares.
Oh and SSL 2.0 want's it's ring back, otherwise there will be a messy lawsuit.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
What always amazes me about the Mozilla Foundation is the push to support the newest and latest.
Now everybody might be thinking this is good for security and all; but I like it because of other reasons: namely because it allows to me exude tech eliteness amongst normal Windows users. Yep, I'm serious. I'm an IT admin, and people will tell me, "Dude, how do I stop spyware?" What do I say?
I preach Firefoxism and nobody can argue back. What can they say? Um, IE has really awesome, um...Active-something controls...which causes the spyware in my computer to make my machine inoperable...um...yeah. It's great. And no matter what Microsoft puts out, it'll always be one step behind! Thanks Mozilla!
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
Hrm... wonder how long it take Microsoft to come out with a statement saying FF is becoming less secure, as they are taking out security functions.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
Age means absolutely nothing (for any technology), and instead any calls for replacement need to detail exactly what the weaknesses are and how they've been resolved in newer variants.
That's exactly what I keep telling my girlfriend!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Apache has 70% of the market, IIS has about 20%, yet the the former has only two unpatched holes.
Since Apache is more popular (by 3 1/2 times), you'd think it would have 3 1/2 unpatched vulnerabilities, eh?
So Apache 2 has had 27 Secunia advisories, with 2 still unpatched, and IIS 6 has only had 3, of which one is still unpatched. Seems to support the GP's theory pretty well. Your point?