From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A couple of questions and concerns about Emacs network security Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 20:15:13 +0300 Message-ID: <83fu0sgwke.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83o9g2uhju.fsf@gnu.org> <20180705115826.73c1d95e@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83a7r4n5ht.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgaoaf2f.fsf@gmail.com> <877em7o09z.fsf@gmail.com> <87r2kcmu7q.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1531156411 3684 195.159.176.226 (9 Jul 2018 17:13:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, perry@piermont.com, wyuenho@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 09 19:13:26 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fcZj1-0000nM-It for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 19:13:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43499 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcZl8-0000Rq-LP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:15:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38976) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcZkz-0000Re-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:15:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcZkv-0002Md-Hv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:15:25 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42526) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcZkl-0002Hq-J0; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:15:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4762 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fcZke-0005QW-KI; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 13:15:05 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Mon, 09 Jul 2018 15:43:43 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:227162 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: Emacs-Devel devel , "Perry E. Metzger" , Eli Zaretskii , Paul Eggert , rms@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 15:43:43 +0200 > > Jimmy Yuen Ho Wong writes: > > > I thought about this, but there's no standard that bans TLS 1.1, nor > > TLS client implementations that disabled it by default. Besides, all > > the problems TLS 1.1 has is already checked by the other checks. This > > reason I'm checking for TLS 1.0 is somewhat arbitrary, as all the > > problems it has is already checked by other checks too. So maybe even > > checking for 1.0 is already too strict, but PCI DSS does ban it, so... > > For those who don't understand security acronym soup, the latter means > "Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard". > > And I don't think that's the level we should be considering for Emacs, > even at the "high" level, because it's pretty... excessive. Last time > I checked. So maybe for 'paranoid'?