Hacker News Reader

Comment by egberts1 | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for the input. I really don’t care for Chrome users and their inability to do pure TLSv1.3. Also, my server decides the selection of algorithms in TLSv1.3, not the web browsers: and that’s ChaCha/Poly.

Yeah, it’s also a JS-free website.

Migration to IPv6 is a work-in-progress.

Hurricane Electric ISP also has a weird login condition; they want you to create a second account so you can pass your IPv6 certification (first was for DNS/IPv4). So I am looking for a secondary DNS provider for IPv6.

View on HN

Dude your config is FUBAR. Why enforce TLS1.3 when you don’t understand that the way cipher suites are negotiated changed in TLS 1.3?

> Also, my server decides the selection of algorithms in TLSv1.3, not the web browsers

SMH. Either use Caddy with an empty config file or follow Mozilla’s recommendation: https://ssl-config.mozilla.org/#server=nginx&version=1.17.7&...

    # modern configuration
    ssl_protocols TLSv1.3;
    ssl_prefer_server_ciphers off;

Also lol are you trying to host your site via HE’s free tunnel?

Would the cypher negotiation be the problem? I checked that Chrome supports Chacha/Poly, and it seems it does.

- https://chromestatus.com/feature/5355238106071040

Chrome seems to support TLS 1.3 since v70, and I'm on 99.

There's only the 0-RTT/EarlyData as far as I can tell that may be messing things up, is it required for TLS 1.3? It's not enabled by default yet (still in dev?).

- https://chromestatus.com/feature/5447945241493504

- https://developers.cloudflare.com/ssl/edge-certificates/addi...

Yes, you’re not supposed to specify the cipher suites with TLS1.3

This guy also forces secp521r1 (the NSA curve which is impossible to implement correctly, is unsupported by Chrome and eventually by Firefox, and is dog slow) instead of using DJB’s x25519. This is what roleplaying as an SRE looks like.

Thanks for the details!

dog slow does not necessarily mean less secured.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128792

so far, absolutely no justification for Google to drop P-521: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1129077

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/100991/why-is-s...

The linked Mozilla bug report provides an excellent reason to drop P-521.

If you look at the telemetry for last actual Firefox release, only 8 (yes, eight!) out of 1.67 BILLION handshakes used a P-521 curve. This is a good indication that P-521 isn't needed, at least for certificates verified by web browsers.

Well, I need it. So, I get to have this. Isn’t the Internet awesome?

FUBAR, in terms of speed, but of course.

because, TLSv1.3 negotiation capability is there.

My server dictates the selection, lest the client gets the sideway algo slip.

try it through your enterprise TLS transparent proxy.

also, no HE IPv6 tunnel.

> I really don’t care for Chrome users and their inability to do pure TLSv1.3.

You "don't really care" for a majority of users, based on what? TLS 1.2 is perfectly fine to use with strong ciphers. I salute your static website which is free of JS/cookies/bloat/external stuff (similar to my own blog), but at the same time you're actively sabotaging accessibility.

Not concerned with accessibility as opppsed to security.

If they are astute in cybersecurity, they will be using other (and secured) browsers.

What is your threat model here?

Also, I use Vanadium with JS disabled, which is already decently hardened imho. Yet, your choice of key exchange bars me from your site.

Choose a better set of keys.

Of course, it’s Chromium-based which in turn is Chrome-based, or something.

Meanwhile, https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/googles-topics-adver...

Thank god I don't use Chrome then.

also a JS-free website

That's great. I would love to see more JS-free sites and more lightweight sites.

> I really don’t care for Chrome users and their inability to do pure TLSv1.3.

I am confused why even provide a link to a website which is configured to be inaccessible to most readers. May as well say "My work: an unpublished manuscript; message me for a copy".

Because a real cybersecurity aficionado would use the right tools.

And my website is for those who do do use the right tools.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com