Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99233
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jakub.php@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR02MB105296D31608DCE6E83D1E69BAF30@HE1PR02MB1052.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CANUQDChAh6pQb4P5Rk_39rwGyYtyq9_aSC6BSdC+od0mU-ceFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c83w0HrPssGvn72EBdGwUqrnPHCeuknaAgNfyE0QhLdUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDCgt6yY42-zhcb5YgE+dkRHfoQ7SyfH7xzZMi9Jm_UAxJg@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR02MB105296D31608DCE6E83D1E69BAF30@HE1PR02MB1052.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:52:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAGTP3+ep+PG+a8hFSx=sptACiEF_eFXaVxe9mJyUSCh9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anatol Belski <ab@php.net>
Cc: Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07fba8e103680550af07fc"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Improved SSL / TLS constants
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--94eb2c07fba8e103680550af07fc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Anatol Belski <ab@php.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >       I'd really prefer if this RFC targeted current patch branches. I
> see
> > minimal BC impact from the change (issues may only arise when
> communicating
> > with broken TLS implementations), while *not* making the change is
> effectively
> > a BC break as more servers stop supporting TLS 1.0.
> >
>
> >       For the lifetime of the 7.0 and 7.1 releases, it appears much more
> likely
> > to me that there will be more servers not supporting TLS 1.0 than servers
> > supporting only TLS 1.0 *and* having a broken version negotiation
> > implementation.
> >
> Nikita, IMHO there's too much uncertainty. It's not, that TLS 1.2 and co
> is not supported at all. Basically, it is an app responsibility and issues
> that which we should not try to fix. Real world is not going easy with the
> changes of this kind. There are still and will be both that change rapidly
> and those that stay longer. The linked doc from the original thread
> https://blog.pcisecuritystandards.org/migrating-from-ssl-and-early-tls,
> originally posted 2015, talks about "extending the migration completion
> date to 30 June 2018 for transitioning from SSL and TLS 1.0 to a secure
> version of TLS". Well, ...
>
> The issue I see to proceed this way into stable is, that the reliable
> stats are missing and unlikely to get. The only info for now is the
> original report, that *some* servers switched to TLS 1.2 only, and that
> there are policy changes in payment card industry which recommends an
> upgrade already for two years. From another point, I spoke to some
> arbitrary companies and individuals I could reach, where the situation is
> not different from "moving slow". Fe a company with up to 10-20 employs
> still has to support old encryption protocols, because a switch would mean
> they would have to throw away a half of their current hardware. It can ofc
> go different depending on the industry branch, where to see is even sectors
> like payment things go quite sluggish. Not telling it's a good situation,
> but kinda usual.
>
> We didn't have a policy about default TLS versions till now, so a change
> like that might be unexpected, depending on what OpenSSL wants to do under
> the hood. Perhaps, regarding such a policy, we could say, that any PHP.next
> whatsoever should support the latest available TLS version by default. An
> app can always use an explicit TLS scheme if required, or it can upgrade
> PHP.
>
> >
> > Same here, but Anatol suggested releasing this with PHP 7.2 first and if
> nobody
> > complains, backport it to PHP 7.1 and 7.0.
> >
> Well, it was said before the patch was changed to touch ssl:// as well. In
> the current approach, yes for 7.2 for sure. Otherwise, at least 7.0 is
> already nearly half its lifetime old, so a controversial change like this
> is probably too late without a good reason.
>
>
I agree with Anatol. I don't think we should backport those changes.
Especially for the tls:// changes that have a real BC (yes there are server
that hang when 1.2 is negotiated and I have experienced it). That said I
think it's good for 7.2!

Regards

Jakub

--94eb2c07fba8e103680550af07fc--