Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71710
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAH8MpnngUXdq5=7F2p64hRoogp=31E2p5oaJMZVvKLTD1H_qUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH8MpnngUXdq5=7F2p64hRoogp=31E2p5oaJMZVvKLTD1H_qUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:39:16 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGa2bXZbEOtBq1hA4mqgo6bpMYXm3CLNMptMTZHNo67XF2tmQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3435b6370b4104f112db54
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Improved TLS Defaults
From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki)

--047d7b3435b6370b4104f112db54
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Daniel,

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've created a new RFC to discuss improving default TLS encryption
> settings:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/improved-tls-defaults
>
> This RFC complements the previously accepted TLS Peer Verification RFC.
>
> I've proposed these (relatively straight-forward) changes in RFC form
> because there does exist the potential for minimal BC breakage. I see thi=
s
> breakage as a good thing because it enhances security, however everyone m=
ay
> not share this view.
>

I haven't read the RFC carefully yet, but it's great proposal!

You probably reviewed this page already.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS

Quoting from the page

The general purpose ciphersuite at the time of this writing is:
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-=
GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:DHE-DSS-=
AES128-GCM-SHA256:kEDH+AESGCM:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SH=
A256:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:EC=
DHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA=
-AES128-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA2=
56:DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:AES128-GCM-SHA256:AES256-GCM-SHA38=
4:ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA:ECDHE-ECDSA-RC4-SHA:AES128:AES256:RC4-SHA:HIGH:!aNULL:!=
eNULL:!EXPORT:!DES:!3DES:!MD5:!PSK

Is your recommendation from OpenSSL project or else?
I couldn't find a page with quick search.

@STRENGTH
Additionally the cipher string @STRENGTH can be used at any point to sort
the current cipher list in order of encryption algorithm key length.
https://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/ciphers.html

@STRENGTH orders cipher as mozilla recommend? It seems this option is for
this and/or similar purpose.
Slight differences do not matter much so having @STRENGH is secure and
easier to maintain, probably.

Regards,

--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohgaki@ohgaki.net

--047d7b3435b6370b4104f112db54--