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

    Obsolete Cipher Suite Message

    IT Discussion
    5
    27
    3.1k
    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.
    • D
      Dashrender @tonyshowoff
      last edited by

      @tonyshowoff said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

      @Dashrender said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

      In this case, SHA-1 has still not been short circuited from a hacking perspective so the risk is truly minimal.

      It has, for a long time: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html

      I'll read this in a min, but if this is what i heard about, there's a possible collision in something like the first half, or quarter or something.. which is a work toward the whole.. but definitely not a finished product by any means.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        Dashrender @tonyshowoff
        last edited by

        @tonyshowoff said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

        @Dashrender said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

        In this case, SHA-1 has still not been short circuited from a hacking perspective so the risk is truly minimal.

        It has, for a long time: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html

        OK now I've read it.. interesting.. if this is really the case, then why isn't it getting more attention? And that was from 2005. Eleven years ago... this is borderline NSA/Snowden like stuff.

        T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • T
          tonyshowoff @Dashrender
          last edited by

          @Dashrender said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

          @tonyshowoff said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

          @Dashrender said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

          In this case, SHA-1 has still not been short circuited from a hacking perspective so the risk is truly minimal.

          It has, for a long time: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html

          OK now I've read it.. interesting.. if this is really the case, then why isn't it getting more attention? And that was from 2005. Eleven years ago... this is borderline NSA/Snowden like stuff.

          Well, MD5 was defeated as early as 1996, and to this day it's huge, and only recently did SHA-1 replace it in many places. So it's about the same timeframe, Google's on the right track like you said.

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

            I don't think it is an SHA issue.

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

              @BRRABill said in Obsolete Cipher Suite Message:

              I don't think it is an SHA issue.

              Yes it is, especially because of how fast you can actually collide in SHA-1. Consider, though, MD5 support for certificates wasn't even broadly removed until about 17 years after it was first found to be weak, I think Google just wants to speed things up. Me personally, I think we should all use SHA-512 (a part of SHA-2), it's what I use for everything I can. 256 will do though 😉

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

                @tonyshowoff

                Is HMAC-SHA1 the same as SHA1?

                T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • T
                  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.

                  B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • B
                    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?

                    T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • T
                      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)

                      B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • B
                        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

                        T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • T
                          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
                          • B
                            BRRABill
                            last edited by

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

                            T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • T
                              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
                              • B
                                BRRABill
                                last edited by

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

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

                                  @BRRABill Yes

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

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

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