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."
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.
So in this case, it SHOULD have been replaced due to its age, not to mention its insecurity.
No, it sould have been replaced due to its insecurity. Period.
The age thing is the same sort of lame distraction that makes crypto-naives rush to whatever newly announced algorithm comes out, burning themselves when it is vetted and found to have dozens of weaknesses. You original message clearly put all of the emphasis on the age factor as if we all need to carbon date all of the technologies we use to determine worthiness.
How will this affect the end user? Will it break the online banking webs?
No - to be a Visa affiliate (partner, whatever its' called) you can't even accept SSL 2.0 connections.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That *is* what they're going to do.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}