ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Obsolete Cipher Suite Message

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    27 Posts 5 Posters 3.3k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • BRRABillB
      BRRABill @tonyshowoff
      last edited by

      @tonyshowoff

      Is HMAC-SHA1 the same as SHA1?

      tonyshowoffT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • tonyshowoffT
        tonyshowoff @BRRABill
        last edited by tonyshowoff

        @BRRABill No, and it's more secure than SHA-1, so long as the key is safe. The SHA1 part of HMAC-SHA1 refers to how it's calculated.

        BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • BRRABillB
          BRRABill @tonyshowoff
          last edited by

          @tonyshowoff said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

          @BRRABill No, and it's more secure than SHA-1, so long as the key is safe.

          The reason I asked because https://www.microsoft.com (for example) is using HMAC-SHA1.

          Hence why I said it isn't a SHA-1 issue causing this, at least on that site, and others.

          Or am I mistaken there?

          tonyshowoffT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • tonyshowoffT
            tonyshowoff @BRRABill
            last edited by

            @BRRABill said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

            @tonyshowoff said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

            @BRRABill No, and it's more secure than SHA-1, so long as the key is safe.

            The reason I asked because https://www.microsoft.com (for example) is using HMAC-SHA1.

            Hence why I said it isn't a SHA-1 issue causing this, at least on that site, and others.

            Or am I mistaken there?

            In this case there really is no difference as confusing as that is, but I don't see SHA-1 there, instead SHA-2 (256)

            BRRABillB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • BRRABillB
              BRRABill @tonyshowoff
              last edited by

              @tonyshowoff said

              In this case there really is no difference as confusing as that is, but I don't see SHA-1 there, instead SHA-2 (256)

              This is what I am seeing...

              0_1461725685350_hmac-sha1.png

              tonyshowoffT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • tonyshowoffT
                tonyshowoff @BRRABill
                last edited by

                @BRRABill said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

                @tonyshowoff said

                In this case there really is no difference as confusing as that is, but I don't see SHA-1 there, instead SHA-2 (256)

                This is what I am seeing...

                0_1461725685350_hmac-sha1.png

                That's SHA-2 (TLS 1.2 uses this), message authentication is a different aspect of it, in the simplest terms, it's to avoid corrupt messages.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • BRRABillB
                  BRRABill
                  last edited by

                  So in my original post, what is Chrome having an issue with?

                  tonyshowoffT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • tonyshowoffT
                    tonyshowoff @BRRABill
                    last edited by tonyshowoff

                    @BRRABill said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

                    So in my original post, what is Chrome having an issue with?

                    In TLS 1.2 if it's not using the ECDHE with GCM it is obsolete according to Chrome. If the signature, however, uses SHA-1, Chrome I don't even think will just accept it without going red or whatever. I think that's where some confusion comes from, the cipher of the protocol itself versus the signature of the certificate.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • BRRABillB
                      BRRABill
                      last edited by

                      So the net net here is that it is probably OK, but should be upgraded if possible?

                      tonyshowoffT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • tonyshowoffT
                        tonyshowoff @BRRABill
                        last edited by

                        @BRRABill Yes

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • BRRABillB
                          BRRABill
                          last edited by

                          Now THIS is the kind of chatter this thread deserved, LOL.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • 1
                          • 2
                          • 2 / 2
                          • First post
                            Last post