- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:08:10 +0200
- To: "Doyle, Bill" <wdoyle@mitre.org>
- Cc: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, pbaker@verisign.com, johnath@mozilla.com, yngve@opera.com, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
For context: http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#def-strong-algos On 2008-06-11 13:46:06 -0400, Bill Doyle wrote: > I like it - Thanks. > SSLv3 is deprecated - supported ciphers are no longer strong enough, > industry moves forward. I'm happy to add this one to the list of things that you really must not consider strong. Which brings me to another point: It's probably worth using RFC 2119 verbiage when we enumerate what's considered weak or strong. I've made that change in the latest version, and would actually be tempted to change this further to say that: SSLv3 SHOULD NOT be considered strong. I also wonder if it's worth saying a word about MD5-based certs. > Is the IETF grouping ciphers in a way that enables weak ciphers to be > noted? Export grade is easy, not sure about others. Not that I'd know. Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 18:08:46 UTC