Re: [RFC] Improved TLS Defaults

> I haven't read the RFC carefully yet, but it's great proposal! Thanks! > You probably reviewed this page already. > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS > Yes I have! The cipher list proposed in the RFC was gathered from disparate research sources that did not include the Mozilla site. However you'll see that the excluded ciphers in the RFC actually match up directly with those in Mozilla's "Mandatory discards" section. Is your recommendation from OpenSSL project or else? > I couldn't find a page with quick search. > This is not surprising: the OpenSSL documentation is fairly outdated in most areas. However, I've made an effort to provide references for my reasoning with regard to the individual ciphers listed in the RFC. In response to your question, I've added more links (including references to the relevant Mozilla project page) and updated some of the relevant information in the RFC text. These changes are marked in the revision history at the top of the wiki page and I've incremented the RFC's version number from v0.1 to v0.2 to reflect the updates. @STRENGTH orders cipher as mozilla recommend? It seems this option is for > this and/or similar purpose. > The @STRENGTH element simply allows us to prefer algorithms with longer key lengths (e.g.256-bit ciphers preferred to 168-bit preferred to 128-bit). Because TLS clients will negotiate the cipher according to their preference order it's sensible to add this annotation. The exception to this rule is when a server specifies the "Honor Cipher Order" option (also proposed for addition as part of the RFC). For these cases the @STRENGTH specification still applies because as servers we still should prefer stronger ciphers by default.