back to article It's time for TLS 1.0 and 1.1 to die (die, die)

As TLS 1.3 inches towards publication into the Internet Engineering Task Force's RFC series, it's a surprise to realise that there are still lingering instances of TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1. The now-ancient versions of Transport Layer Security (dating from 1999 and 2006 respectively) are nearly gone, but stubborn enough that Dell …

  1. Hopalong

    Received an e-mail from PayPal yesterday saying that I may have to upgrade my browser or not be able to login to PayPal after the 30th June.

    They are dropping support of TLS < 1.2 as of the 30th.

    My browser passed the test.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      So we're to expect a raft of browser updates then ?

      I wonder if Microsoft is going to update Internet Explorer . . .

      1. Waseem Alkurdi
      2. Sandtitz Silver badge
        Thumb Down


        IE has supported TLS 1.2 since 2008 or so. Nice trolling, nevertheless.

        1. Sgt_Oddball

          Re: @Pascal

          You mean I've got to stop using Safari for Windows? Sad times....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Pascal

          Chrome and Firefox support TLS 1.3.

          Remind me, which versions of IE support it?

          Nice trolling.

          1. Sandtitz Silver badge

            Re: @Pascal @Coward

            "Chrome and Firefox support TLS 1.3."


            "Remind me, which versions of IE support it?"

            None yet, and I didn't even allude to TLS 1.3 support. The article was about dropping support for TLS <1.2.

            TLS 1.2 is not going to be deprecated soon. No-one is going to drop TLS 1.2 soon. Not because of IE but because of most mobile devices don't have don't have TLS 1.3 implemented. Plenty of web servers and cryptographic libraries still don't have TLS 1.3 support.

            Here's a small tidbit about TLS 1.2:

            TLS 1.2 was ratified back in 8/2008. IE had it implemented in 7/2009 when Win7 was released. Firefox/Chrome implemented TLS 1.2 in summer of 2013.

            Care to comment on that?

            "Nice trolling."

            You didn't even have the balls to post with your screen name, silly person.

      3. Roland6 Silver badge

        >I wonder if Microsoft is going to update Internet Explorer . . .

        Probably not if you are still running IE6....

        Interestingly, it does seem that it is the security updates (protocols, certificates and such like that support secure communications) that are forcing XP systems off the Internet(*) and I expect they will do similar to Win7 post 2020.

        (*) Firefox on XP/Vista goes EoL this month.

        1. martin__r

          Anyone still running Windows XP probably knows why, and the reason is *NOT* MSIE 8 (or 7 or 6).

          Redmond was never good at browsers and MSIE / Edge are at best "graphical download tools for a real web browser".

          Windows XPsp3 is still the the version of Microsoft Windows with the least amount of serious security holes (no kidding!), it is still under active maintenance (just needs a registry key set to keep downloading patches), and earlier this year, Microsoft actually did ship an implmenetation of TLSv1.2 update for it: KB4019276

  2. fnusnu

    I set my browser to support TLS1.2 as a minimum about 6 months ago. It's interesting to see what breaks and requires an alternative browser *cough* English Heritage *cough*

    1. Alan J. Wylie

      Not only do they only support TLS1.0, but including RC4-SHA in their cipher list? Really?

      Supported Server Cipher(s):

      Preferred TLSv1.0 128 bits AES128-SHA

      Accepted TLSv1.0 256 bits AES256-SHA

      Accepted TLSv1.0 128 bits RC4-SHA

      Accepted TLSv1.0 112 bits DES-CBC3-SHA

      Accepted TLSv1.0 128 bits ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA Curve P-256 DHE 256

      Accepted TLSv1.0 256 bits ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA Curve P-256 DHE 256

      Accepted TLSv1.0 128 bits RC4-MD5

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TLS ? Our customers still demand ssl3 support

    No joke, some of our customers are still using SSL 3.0 and want our software to support it!

    You know that business critical legacy system in the back of the server room, that will go puff one day and will be really hard to resuscitate because spares are no longer available, expertise is expensive, the original developers have moved on or retired, and the source code is stored on a defective proprietary disk that nobody has tested in decades .... and nobody dares a migration because, well, it is such a clusterfuck that it will end up being the last thing you do at the company ... it still works, so why bother ...

    1. Giovani Tapini

      Re: TLS ? Our customers still demand ssl3 support

      And that's exactly why formal deprecation has been requested.

      It is however, not an unfamiliar story. Even large organisations seem to have at least one of this type of system running somewhere.

      1. Alistair

        Re: TLS ? Our customers still demand ssl3 support


        I would have put "at least" in bold, underlined, and block caps.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TLS ? Our customers still demand ssl3 support

      I've run into this issue a few times with ancient B2B devices. Luckily, there are SSL proxy devices on the market that can sit in front of a problem client or server that can step up from or down to depreciated crypto versions (or no encryption at all).

      If I can take a Commodore 64 running a web server and protect it with TLSv1.2 and PFS, you should be able to do the same with your servers.

  4. Hans 1
    Paris Hilton

    If you have Avast, TLS 1.3 is pointless because Avast thought it was a great idea to MiM your secure connections, think that their software is immune to bugs, their MiM tactic is definitely perfect and cannot be 0wned ... maybe they implemented the famous backdoor that governments wanted, which might be why Kaspersky got some flack, they probably refused to implement the MiM.

  5. 0laf

    These old standards are everywhere, absolutely everywhere.

    So much stuff will break if we mandate 1.2 or 1.3. Much of it requires no security at all anyway. They'd be better off with http only.

    1. Velv

      Yeah, tough.

      In the UK all cars go through an annual safety inspection (MOT, Ministry Of Transport test). If they don’t meet basic safety standards they’re not legally allowed on the road. You can still drive them (off the public road), you make your own risk assessment over how that may impact your life versus how much it will cost to fix.

      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        However, that MOT is based on the standards of safety equipment, emissions, etc, that applied at the time the vehicle was first registered.

        This is a bit like saying ALL cars must pass current standards and so most over a few years old are then automatically off to the scrappers.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          >This is a bit like saying ALL cars must pass current standards and so most over a few years old are then automatically off to the scrappers.

          My understanding that was (still is?) the case in Japan.

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            No idea about Japan but if they have classic cars on the road it can't be the case.

            The UK MOT test has changed over they years and got tighter (e.g. now a warning light for ABS or engine management fault is an automatic fail even if it passes brake efficiency/missions), but the underlying test criteria like seatbelts (must be sound if fitted, but not obligatory on old cars), exhaust emissions in terms of CO/particulates, etc, are those at the time it was first sold.

            1. WatAWorld

              Hum, doesn't this accurately describe how emissions tests place new standards on old cars in the UK?


              Yeah, classic cars get an exemption. But classic cars aren't used for everyday driving. They're used sparingly by collectors and museums.

        2. WatAWorld

          "This is a bit like saying ALL cars must pass current standards and so most over a few years old are then automatically off to the scrappers."

          Exactly, which is what we should be copying.

          This is the case in Canada too. And California. And probably the rest of the USA.

          Classic cars get an exemption -- but then classic cars are driven sparingly by their owners, and not driven commercially.

          In the UK a car has to be pre-1980 to get the exemption. In Canada before 1988.

          1. Updraft102

            I've lived in California and still in the USA, and I've never had a car that was required to pass the current year emission standards rather than the ones in effect the year the car was made. People don't pay tends of thousands of dollars for a car that will have to be scrapped in a couple of years because the emission laws changed once again. That's just nuts.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            ummm - not sure what part of Canada you are referring to, but here in Ontario the emissions test is based on the original requirements - not current standards...

            and in fact, any car over a certain age is automatically exempt from the tests...furthermore, unless you are trying to sell an old car, the condition or drive ability is not checked for passenger vehicles - if it has insurance you can renew plates without doing ANY safety validation

        3. robidy

          I thought that's why seat belts etc. get retro fitted.

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            No, fitting seat belts is just common sense.

            Some really old cars don't have any points you can sensibly attach belt mechanisms to (or are so valuable as "original" you don't want to and don't drive much either), but probably most cars post 1950s are OK. In fact many had them as extra cost options until the law changed to mandate them, first for front seats and then also for rear.

  6. Tomato42


    Primary reason to abandon TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 is SHA-1: both signatures made by server and the handshake transcript integrity depends on SHA-1.

    The SHA-1 HMAC in the TLS 1.0 era ciphers is still secure so they can be used with TLS 1.2, where they'll use SHA-256 for handshake transcript integrity (and a negotiated hash for server signatures).

  7. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

    Needing TLS 1.0 is not a surprise

    Modern OS aren't the problem, embedded kit is. There's a variety of embedded kit that supports either HTTP, or TLS 1.0, and it isn't getting updated beyond that point.

    It's all very well to say 'update to TLS 1.4', but when the response is 'where's 300 grand for new hardware and installation', even the more security conscious firms aren't likely to bite if the data involved aren't particularly sensitive. Then, beyond the 300 grand it turns out the new secure hardware isn't compatible with the old, so it needs work on both the client and server end, so add another ten grand plus by the time development and testing are complete.

    What TLS endpoint vendors should really be doing is selective endpoint validation. So the majority of TLS clients go to the normal site and stay nice and secure. The few expensive holdouts only browse to and are secured there.

    Alternatively there's running the endpoint in HTTP and having a load balancer/TLS offloader that does selective permitting of TLS 1.0 as mentioned.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Needing TLS 1.0 is not a surprise

      >Modern OS aren't the problem, embedded kit is.

      This will become even more of an issue with IoT.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Needing TLS 1.0 is not a surprise

        I'm sure someone will say "but almost all devices are able to update themselves these days" and while that may be true (ignoring the concerns over devices you never directly interface with updating themselves silently through a black box process) the problem will be that the vendors won't deliver updates.

        If you had purchased a device in 1999 and it guaranteed updates for five years (better than any Android phones you can buy today, so probably pretty unlikely to see a guarantee like that for IoT) it would be stuck with TLS 1.0 when the updates stopped in 2004. While that might not be a worry for a throwaway device like a light bulb, something that you typically would keep using a lot longer like a "smart lock" or thermostat or fire alarm panel is likely to be woefully insecure during most of the time you own it.

        Who's going to know - and if they do will they care - that most of their "smart home" tech is wide open to attack, even if they bought a brand name willing to give a 'really great' five year support guarantee?

        1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

          Re: Needing TLS 1.0 is not a surprise

          Some devices that I'm thinking of do have remote firmware update capability, but it definitely isn't automatic as this isn't sensible in a corporate environment. They're still 'supported' but are a legacy product and later firmware isn't going to be produced.

          It's also possible the hardware isn't capable of running TLS 1.4. In one instance I know of it does 'support' TLS 1.0, but badly. If TLS 1.0 is switched on fully (proper end to end certificate chain validation, etc) rather than its default setting of 'ignore the validation and assume everything is ok' (not ideal, but it does at least stop casual users snooping traffic), the commands it sends are delayed, which causes issues.

          Sometimes hardware has plenty of resource to spare, the system tools are comprehensive, and a lack of updated firmware is entirely down to vendor laziness/stingyness. At other times the hardware is difficult to code with limited resource and space. Not everyone is NASA with millions of pounds and bright minds to throw at problems.

          The other solution is to proxy the insecure device at the client end, but that solution has to be developed, installed, requires two power and network ports, and then you have two devices to secure..

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bigger issue

    Is that some browsers cant be updated. (the TLS wiki has a compat matrix)

    For instance, old Kindle Fires are stuck with Kitkat, and the version of Chrome on it is stalled at a version that supports 1.1 but not 1.2.

    Disabling a protocol blocks access to those divices, and that's a hard sell to customers who sell to impoverished nations, etc.

  9. bolac

    TLSv1.1 is not insecure

    TLSv1.1 is not insecure, only TLSv1.0 is. However, TLSv1.1 has some insecure cipher suites (which are all deprecated by now, but badly configured clients and servers might use them), so it's still a good move to get rid of it.

    1. Updraft102

      Re: TLSv1.1 is not insecure

      It would be a good idea to get rid of it as far as the user of the hardware is concerned, but I object to any entity issuing an edict from on high that no one must ever use it because They Have Decided. Give me the facts and let me make my own decisions.

  10. tiggity Silver badge


    Made it a pain for devs

    .NET 3.5 and below default was 1.0 (and not really a viable nasty hack workaround without major grief)

    .NET 4, default 1.1 (1.2 not even supported unless you do a nasty hack)

    Needed 4.6 for 1.2 as default

    So, a lot of legacy .NET apps will have issues with TLS 1.1 / 1.2

    MS "it's all about the developers" ... really????

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Microsoft

      The dates:

      Things that were adequate in 2010 are out-of-date and inadequate now.

      Is it really that surprising given the rate that hackers and academics find obscure bugs.

      If we had to had to wait for ordinary profit-oriented criminal programmers to find the bugs, the products just might perhaps still be secure, against criminals for another year or two. But that would require living in an alternate reality.

      (Of course nothing is secure against major state signals intelligence agencies. They can always find ways in. Even TLS 1.4 connections won't be secure, because if outfits like the NSA can't find ways through it, they have many ways around it.)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Microsoft

      How did Microsoft make it a pain for devs, surely your code base follows some sort of obsolescence policy and you are keeping up to date with .Net frameworks they release, even if you have a n-1 policy you should happily be on 4.6. As for nasty hack, its a reg key or a couple of lines of code in your project to specify 1.2!

    3. Hans 1

      Re: Microsoft

      I wrote a PowerShell script the other day to download a bunch of stuff ... the script worked fine on Windows 10, not so well on Windows 7, because I was doing this:

      [Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [Net.SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12

      A Windows 7 box I had no control over did not like this, I was told it had the latest patches, I cannot tell if it is a limitation in Windows 7 and do not really care, if it is ... I was just trying to help a few coworkers stuck on SlurpOS.

      Sadly, the website where I was downloading stuff, FLOSS stuff, was correctly configured TO MANDATE TLS 1.2.

      You have secure protocols, when you wish to communicate with third parties in a secure manner, well, guess what ? It makes no sense NOT to use the safest ... if you don't agree, well, I guess you are whatever you would call me.

      Corporate fallacy, legacy business critical (<--- THAT is nonsense, if it were business critical, you would get your act together), whatever your excuse, as I wrote back when IBM attempted to disable TLS 1.0 (yeah, TLS 1.0!!!) in its cloud and got flack from a bunch of n00bs - size does not matter in this one, you can be a multi-billion $ company with hundreds of thousands of employees, does not matter:

      If you do not take security seriously, insecurity will take care of your business, just not the way you would expect and you will end up making headlines ...

  11. WatAWorld

    Requiring old stuff to meet KEY new requirements is routine in the physical world

    Passenger aircraft. Railway tanker cars. Trucks. Cars.

    Procor is junking tens of thousands DOT-111 tanker rail cars when the new tanker car standard comes into force in Canada and the USA. These think aren't cheap.

    Old buildings must meet current fire codes. And old buildings that are extensively renovated must meet current building codes (building codes being more complete than fire codes).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Requiring old stuff to meet KEY new requirements is routine in the physical world

      Generally old buildings don't need to meet ALL current fire codes. They pick and choose (it is up to JHA)

      Retrofitting old buildings with sprinklers is very expensive, and generally isn't enforced, at least not for all types of occupancy (i.e. might be for hotels, but not for offices)

  12. GnuTzu

    Kiddie Pool

    I remember when I started seeing that some servers would turn you away if they could tell that you allowed SSL v3. That's right, some servers will mistrust clients. But, some clients only allow it SSL v3 after renegotiation, so the server would only really know if SSL v3 is allowed if it forced renegotiation, which wouldn't really be a workable solution.

    On the other hand, with all the servers that I see with SHA1 as the strongest signing hash and/ unsafe legacy renegotiation (pre-RFC5746), and there are lots, it can be a real challenge to manage client applications that are strong and yet, ahem, reasonably compatible. Fortunately, 3DES is becoming rare, though I gag when I come across a server that allows SSL v2.

    What I've ended up doing is consigning these laggards to a kind of kiddie pool. It's still a compromise; but... well, a number of commenters here have already spoken to how business forces just won't spend the money to keep up.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hope Dell will upgrade all its managmwent interfaces to support TLS 1.3+....

    or we'll be cut out of a lot of kits if browsers stop supporting older standards.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hope Dell will upgrade all its managmwent interfaces to support TLS 1.3+....

      That's what firefox ESR is for

  14. Doctor_Wibble
    Paris Hilton

    I'm confiused

    An article with 'die die die' in the title and there's no mentions of Wesley Crusher anywhere, it's like reality folded in on itself and I'm just so lost now...

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear God, we need more brain on this planet. The crypto-cluelessness is depressing

    from the three TLS protocol versions




    TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 are essentially equivalent in security, and TLSv1.2 is the weakest of the three.

    Everyone with a crypto-clue should know that. TLSv1.2 contains stuff that is significantly weaker than in TLSv1.1 and TLSv1.0, such as "digitally signed", which newly added a ridiculously weak (rsa,md5) digital signture into TLS in 2008, at the time when (rsa,sha1) was supposed to put out of use end-of-2010.

    But instead of making (rsa,sha256) mandatory and minimum, the de-facto standard is (rsa,sha1), which is still significantly weaker than (rsa,sha1+md5) used by earlier version of TLS and SSLv3.

    And it is just mindboggling that implementers had to be persuaded to drop the (rsa,md5) support from their implementations, because it just didn't occur to a number of them just how obviously (a) stupid and (b) unnecessary it was to allow this mind-fart security problem from the TLSv1.2 spec in actual implementations.

    And while there is a silly hype about AES-GCM (TLSv1.2 AEAD) cipher suites, those are in no way more secure than AES_CBC cipher suites. And TLSv1.2 contains a serious design flaw, which made a few implemenations of AES_GCM fail catastrophically without those goof resuling in interop failures. AEAD is cryptoglycerin / fragile.

    Most of the so-called "attacks" that have been shown over the past decade, weren't weakness of the TLS protocol (based on the properties that the TLS is supposed to provide according to rfc5246 Appendix F), but instead security design flaws in web browsers, or abuse of the protocol for multiplexing arbitrary attacker-supplied data with data an attacker is not supposed to know _through_ the same TLS channel, such as "VPN tunnels", rather than using seperate and distinct tunnels for each data flow. Helping an attacker to perform inside attacks, which is what browsers are doing, means actively subverting TLS and going beyond its officially documented design limits. That is making TLS a scape goat for security design failures in web browsers.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    There's a litle boy with his finger in the dyke ! Can you hurry up a bit !

    Just change it already,

    All this upgrading and can't use this, have to replace that,

    Why can't we just plonk it in manually or something.

    D&D that's what I want, a drag and drop fix for TLS

  17. Drew Scriver

    About that pot and the kettle...

    "[...] it's a surprise to realise that there are still lingering instances of TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 [...]"

    Right. Like


    TLS 1.3 Yes

    TLS 1.2 Yes

    TLS 1.1 Yes

    TLS 1.0 Yes

    SSL 3 No

    SSL 2 No

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon