- #Reactos ssl certificate verification failed software
- #Reactos ssl certificate verification failed windows
(Personally, I think most sites should still support RSA as a fall-back for those of us with older software as long as we're aware of the risk. So sites have been switching to "ECDHE" for performance reasons. The only problem with the DHE algorithm is that it takes a lot of server CPU, unless elliptic-curve cryptography is used. The best they can do is a man-in-the-middle attack to decrypt future encrypted traffic. But the Snowden revelations showed there was a weakness in RSA: an eavesdropper (whether the NSA or just some hacker group) could record all encrypted traffic with a given server, then, if they were later able to steal or extort the server's private key, they could go back and figure out all the different random keys that were used, and therefore could decrypt all the prerecorded traffic.Īs a result, sites have been switching to a different key exchange algorithm called "Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral." With this algorithm, even if an eavesdropper steals a server's private key, they can't go back and decrypt any prerecorded encrypted traffic. The traditional key exchange algorithm used in SSL and TLS is based on the RSA public-key cryptography algorithm. Actually there's a third part: the hash algorithm used for digital signatures, but I'll ignore that for now.) The cipher is used to encrypt and decrypt the data being transmitted, but the key exchange algorithm is needed so that a randomly-generated cipher key can be shared between the client and server secretly.
(The combination is called the cipher suite. But there are two parts to TLS encryption: the cipher itself, and the key exchange algorithm. The AES cipher was an important addition, because all the other supported ciphers are now known to have weaknesses. My understanding is that SP3 (plus post-SP3 POSReady '09 updates) added support for AES, not ECC. I'll try to explain, but it's going to be a long post. Sn't native support for ECC crypto one of the touted addidtions in XP-SP3? I guess it's more subtle than support versus no-support, the issue may be one of incomplete/buggy support for some flavor of ECC. (Sfor, for example, has a need for TLS 1.2 support for some of his software.) So I still plan to investigate. Sorry it didn't work out nevertheless, it would still be useful to get native TLS 1.2 support on XP. So there was at least a chance it would work.
MbedTLS.dll does support ECC, however, which is why I suggested the ReactOS schannel.dll: it was originally the Wine version of schannel.dll but was rewritten use MbedTLS.dll for its cryptography functions. (To see what will and won't connect to, you can go to and enter Takes a few minutes to run all the tests.) The only cipher suites supported by use elliptic curve cryptography for key exchange, and stock XP doesn't support ECC. supports TLS 1.0, and according to it will connect using TLS 1.0 to IE 7 (!) on Vista. Apparently that site does support one cipher suite which is compatible with TLS 1.0, so I no longer think TLS 1.2 will help connect to it.Īnd reports that even Chrome 49 won't connect to that site on XP. It's true that the problem connecting to isn't TLS 1.2.
#Reactos ssl certificate verification failed windows
The actual problem is the Windows XP no ECC certificates can be administrated or not registered and these are recognized as invalid. The problem is not TLS 1.2, which is supported on Google Chrome, as well as ECC certificates. Off-topic rant : why are ECC-based certs seemingly gaining wider use ? Of course they sport smaller key-lengths, but ISTM their security against progress in cryptanalysis is even less assured than RSA, whose mathematics are much better understood.Īdded remark/question about ECC crypto and XP-SP3 isn't native support for ECC crypto one of the touted addidtions in XP-SP3 ? I guess it's more subtle than support versus no-support, the issue may be one of incomplete/buggy support for some flavor of ECC. This was certainly true of XP until SP2, but. In addition, what Heinoganda said and you quoted here is in doubt:«The actual problem is the Windows XP no ECC certificates can be administrated or not registered and these are recognized as invalid.» The OP even asserted Firefox on XP does support the otherwise offending certs - which you decided to ignore :=)
The question is whether it's possible to fix XP's native crypto libraries in order to accept the ECC (or whatever fancy) certs, not whether non-native crypto such as in Qtweb, Opera-Presto support them. Which was what the OP was told initially, but decided to ignore.
0 kommentar(er)
