9 ms·
How's my SSL?
- PeterWhittaker 13y agoExcellent! (I mean the site. Not so crazy that FF 26 under OSX 10.9.1 is listed as BAD, but I understand and accept the reasoning.) Hopefully this will spur the various vendors to abandon old, broken protocols and ciphers.
- trentmb 13y agoIt only took changing two settings in about:config to get FF 26 to 'pass.' security.tls.version.max = 3 security.ssl3.rsa_fips_des_ede3_sha = false
- thirdsight 13y agoThanks. Just did that on my FF 26.0 on windows and it passes now as well. Rather surprised it was dumping down TLS 1.0!
- gcp 13y agoNew TLS versions (1.1/1.2) have been included since Firefox 24, but won't be enabled by default until Firefox 27. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733647 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733647 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861266 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861266
- mathrawka 13y agoWhy is that not set by default?
- gcp 13y agoBreaks on some broken websites without a bunch of fallbacks/workarounds in place. They are in newer Firefox versions, though.
- handsomeransoms 13y agoTLS 1.2 will be enabled by default in the next release, Firefox 27, which will be released the week of February 4th. So, in less than 4 weeks, Firefox release will be "good".
- FPSDavid 13y agoAre there any downsides of changing these settings?
- trentmb 13y agoSome (poorly configured) servers may not play nicely.
- MWil 13y agoanything wrong with setting both the min AND max to 3?
- djcapelis 13y agoSome websites may not work over TLS if they don't support it.
- jjjeffrey 13y agoSay I change security.tls.version.max to 3, which changes it's status from 'default' to 'user set'. In the future, if the default for security.tls.version.max is changed to, say, 4, would the fact that my setting has the 'user set' status prevent it from incrementing to the better default? I'm not proposing that this is a risk or that Firefox behaves this way---I have no idea. Does anyone else know?
- djcapelis 13y agoI believe it would, but I'm not certain. This is one of reasons not to mess with it and just wait until the next version which will be out RSN (real soon now) that has a better default. For whatever it's worth though, while I'm not sure how they're doing their version numbers and it may be quite awhile until this is relevant, you could probably just set the integer really high (like 99 or something) and that would effectively translate into "try the highest version you've got" which might break things sometimes, but it wouldn't leave you stuck in a lower version later at least.
- erichurkman 13y agoOften with settings like this, they will flip the preference name to something like `security.tls.max_version` or something so user-set and extension-set overrides are invalidated. They've done this with other common, significant settings that users often overrode.
- hsivonen 13y agoThe (non-about:config) UI for these settings was removed for a reason. Even though it makes sense for these to be configurable for testing, end users are more likely to break their browser (make it less secure or make it incompatible with real sites they need to use) by tweaking these settings. Firefox developers have had to reset these settings in the past in order to save users from self-inflicted insecurity. Without an explicit effort by Firefox developers to reset these prefs, the prefs won't automatically reset to make sense in the future if the value space of the prefs grows. There is no guarantee of what explicit effort might be taken to deal with non-default values of these prefs in the future. In my opinion, anyone who wants https://www.howsmyssl.com/ https://www.howsmyssl.com/ to tell them they are probably okay today should install Firefox Beta (or Aurora or Nightly) instead of manually changing these settings. (Disclosure: I'm a Gecko developer but I don't work on TLS. Disclaimer: The above is my personal understanding and opinion, not any sort of official statement.)
- jftuga 13y agoThanks. This made my FF 26.0 go from Bad to Probably Okay.
- ddp 13y agoI recommend disabling all the RC4 suites as well.
- breser 13y agoFor what it's worth FF 27 from the beta channel on OS X 10.9.1 is passing.
- IvyMike 13y agoThumbs up on everything here. > Google Chrome 32.0.1700.72 (Official Build 243157) m > OS Windows
- ToastyMallows 13y agoI got bad for my Chrome, 31.0.1650.63 m, Windows 7
- zachnedwich 13y agoBottom of about page is broken in IE8 http://i.imgur.com/7Mfrw3n.png http://i.imgur.com/7Mfrw3n.png FY.
- evv 13y agoUnfortunately "Bad" results for cURL: $ curl https://www.howsmyssl.com/a/check https://www.howsmyssl.com/a/check | python -mjson.tool
- sebcat 13y agoI think that would depend on how cURL is built, and not curl itself. OpenSSL 0.9.8 versions (still widely deployed) did not support TLS 1.[12], I think that was added in 1.0.1c. You can check which version of OpenSSL curl is using by doing $ curl -V
- Spittie 13y agoNice site, I've been looking for something simple like that (It sure beat https://cc.dcsec.uni-hannover.de/ https://cc.dcsec.uni-hannover.de/ in niceness, the website I've used before to "check" my browser). Anyway I'm getting a nice "Probably Okay" using the latest Firefox Nightly.
- mathrawka 13y agoAnd for testing your servers: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html
- josho 13y agoThanks for that. I'm surprised to find that Apple's OSX Server (Mavericks) ships without TLS 1.1 or 1.2 support. Are these not widely deployed? Or no sense of urgency since 1.0 isn't broken.
- outside1234 13y agoApple still ships a server? Didn't know that.
- cvburgess 13y agohttps://www.apple.com/osx/server/ https://www.apple.com/osx/server/
- 72deluxe 13y agoServer software as an add on downloadable from the App Store on the Mac, not a physical server like XServe. They recommend a Mac Mini with two hard disks installed as a SOHO server but obviously aren't catering for large neworks - no hot-swappable drives or fancy RAID for example (unless you use an external Thunderbolt caddy). They're leaving that market to Windows AD and Linux (mostly Windows AD I suspect). Oddly, the server software on the Mac gets less and less features each release since Snow Leopard apparently. I think Ars Technica has a review of the server software, and is pretty in-depth.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- DiabloD3 13y agoIIRC they just ship Apache, so just follow the normal instructions for enabling perfect forward secrecy on Apache.
- falcolas 13y agoSome info on how to correct this on common browsers where it can be corrected (I use FF 26; marked bad, and comments in this thread say that some of the problems can be fixed) would be a great improvement.
- gcp 13y agoYou can "fix" the result on this webpage by flipping some settings in Firefox, but it will cause some websites to no longer work (guess why they aren't defaulted?). Newer versions (27 and up) will detect this and work around appropriately. They also have those settings by default. If you absolutely require this website to tell you you're safe so you get a warm fuzzy feeling and can sleep at night, update to Firefox Beta. Don't just randomly go and change the settings, then wonder 2 weeks later why your banking website no longer works. Also note that the site marks Firefox as Bad with TLS 1.0 because it can't verify for sure whether you have BEAST mitigation. But Firefox has BEAST mitigation.
- ivanr 13y agoCorrect. Firefox and all other modern browsers use the so-called 1/n-1 split technique to mitigate the BEAST attack. It's actually possible to test if the mitigation is present; it's just that this site has not implemented it.
- gcp 13y agoThe documentation of the site actually just changed to imply they test for record splitting (it said they didn't before). However, testing with Firefox 26 shows it's still incorrectly flagged.
- ivanr 13y agoThere's a commit from about 2 hours ago that enables 1/n-1 detection. So perhaps that's what they are running now. But it does not seem to be implemented correctly: when I access the site with a Java client (which does implement the split), the site says that it's vulnerable.
- DorianMarie 13y agoDo you have some stats? I'm interested in the "TLS Compression" part (e.g. can I remove the breach-mitigation-rails gem from my project)
- ivanr 13y agoThe compression-related issue in the TLS protocol is known as CRIME. BREACH actually applies to HTTP response body compression. So, chances are that you should continue to use the breach-mitigation-rails gem, even if your server does not support compression at the TLS level. (Disclaimer: I am not familiar with this gem; just inferring its purpose from the name.)
- poizan42 13y agoOn the built in browser in CyanogenMod 10.1.3: > Bad: Your client is using TLS 1.0, which is very old, possibly susceptible to the BEAST attack, and doesn't have the best cipher suites available either. Interestingly I get "Probably good" using the Chrome browser on the same phone.
- orik 13y agoOpera seems to be good across the board on Win8.1 and OSx 10.8.5
- 72deluxe 13y agoWhich version? The classic 12 branch or the new "rebadged Chrome" version?
- orik 13y agoOh sorry for the late reply. The Chromium based Opera builds. I actually never used Opera on the presto engine, and although I miss having more horses in the race, I think Opera based off of chromium is great.
- RRRA 13y agoRC4 and MD5 are secure now?!
- stuartd 13y agoSafari 6.1.1 is BAD because it allows TLS 1.0 and there seems to be no way to fix it..
- huxley 13y agoOn a positive note, Safari 7.0.1 does better, it seems to only lack session ticket support (rating is "Your SSL client is Improvable")
- LukeHoersten 13y agoAwesome! Thanks for putting this together. The clearer the better.
- fexl 13y agoDoes anyone know how to disable TLS 1.0 in Firefox 26.0 (on Linux)? I found this article: http://www.spotht.com/2010/06/how-to-enabledisable-ssl-30-and-tls-10.html http://www.spotht.com/2010/06/how-to-enabledisable-ssl-30-an... However, the Options in my browser do not include a tab called "Encryption", as the article discusses.
- ecaron 13y agoYou want to use about:config. More details on it are at https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/967266 https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/967266
- Spittie 13y agoI think you should look at security.tls.version.min (in about:config): http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.*
- hundchenkatze 13y agochange security.tls.version.min to 2 in about:config 0 = SSLv3 1 = TLSv1.0 2 = TLSv1.1 3 = TLSv1.2 For reference: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.*
- logn 13y agoAnd change security.tls.version.max to 3 (to enable TLS 1.2). Also about:config will let you disable security.ssl3.rsa_fips_des_ede3_sha Making those changes gives me "Probably Okay" rating on howsmyssl.com
- agwa 13y agoQuite a few servers (for example, any server using the version of OpenSSL in Debian Squeeze) do not support anything newer than TLS 1.0, so you'll get quite a bit of breakage if you disable it. TLS 1.0 in Firefox 26.0 should be secure; it implements 1/n-1 record splitting, so it's safe against BEAST even though this website reports otherwise.
- qoo 13y agoLoading https://www.howsmyssl.com/ https://www.howsmyssl.com/ results in: Secure Connection Failed An error occurred during a connection to www.howsmyssl.com. Peer attempted old style (potentially vulnerable) handshake. (Error code: ssl_error_unsafe_negotiation) My firefox config "security.ssl.treat_unsafe_negotiation_as_broken" is set to true
- suprgeek 13y agoVery useful Site - Thanks! Reminded me of an old favorite "Shields Up" https://www.grc.com/shieldsup https://www.grc.com/shieldsup - Great way to quickly test your Router
- zurn 13y agoA router's job is to forward traffic between its multiple interfaces to ensure packets get where they are addressed to go. They generally look like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cisco-CCNA-CCNP-LAB-2500-2501-ROUTER-2924-SWITCH-RACK-/140334479842 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cisco-CCNA-CCNP-LAB-2500-2501-ROUTER... I think you mean "firewall" or maybe "NAT box".
- jtheory 13y agoThe vast majority of the times I hear the word "router" nowadays, it refers to the box everyone with broadband internet has at home, connecting the internet (via DSL/cable modem) and the home network (via ethernet/wifi). Are you saying that's not a router? I'm pretty sure there are more of those deployed than the big kind.
- fulafel 13y agoThis is probably the most authoritative source in the Internet context: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt Like the RFC says, routing is forwarding IP packets unmodified. If you mess with the insides of the packets, you're just a no good packet munging middlebox.
- mcpherrinm 13y agoTrying to take the word "router" away from the typical home all-in-one network appliance is a silly way to waste everyone's time. Yes, the device on my shelf at home doesn't support BGP, doesn't have any TCAM, and probably falls over with more than 10 routes, and is unlikely to ever have more than the default one. But we call them routers. The layer 3 switches I work on can do BGP, can do layer 3 routing at hundreds of gigabits per second, but still isn't a router. Language is flexible, terms aren't strictly used, and I don't think anyone was helped by your "correcting" the grandparent poster.
- cryptolect 13y agoLooks like they miss a step where they provide or link to instructions on how to improve, rather than just detect and explain why your client is bad.
- ausjke 13y agoOK I got all good for chrome, and half bad for firefox, what should I do...
- gcp 13y agoRead the comments explaining why the site is (mostly) wrong?
- kseistrup 13y agowget, w3m, lynx, and links are all rated “bad” here… :( Is there any way to improve this?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- davidjgraph 13y agoSite doesn't load on IE 6. I wonder if you've configured the SSL certs with SNI? Would have been nice to see the page turn red, but I guess I know the answer without having to run it... Edit: It's not an SNI issue, IE 8 on XP can load the site.
- DiabloD3 13y agoMSIE6 does not support new enough SSL to be considered secure. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of sites no longer work with MSIE 6 over the next two years as sites transition to turning RC4 and SHA1 off.
- davidjgraph 13y agoWe all know this. My point is, the site gives some indication as to how effective any particular browser's SSL is, yet the site doesn't function for the worst offenders.
- jhgg 13y agoHow exactly does this work? Is it sniffing the user-agent and comparing it against known values, or does it actually inspect the connection?
- slashdotaccount 13y agoWill it make my client more unique (so identifiable) for a third-party passive advisory (who can sniff traffic) if I fine-tune my browser's settings for example to support only TLS 1.2 and by removing all the RC4 encryption methods?