Hi Phil,

Sorry to redirect again, but this mailing list probably isn't the right
place either (it's mainly about certificates, not TLS).  The best thing to
do is probably to file a bug on this.  That will get the attention of the
folks who can diagnose and fix this issue.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=NSS&component=Libraries

Thanks,
--Richard

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Phil Raptor via dev-security-policy <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello Experts,
> We have a server that supports TLS1.0/1.1/1.2 and restricts SSL. FF 52
> beta's tls config is min=1 and max=4 by default. Upon trying to access our
> server with FF 52, we are getting the below error -
>
> Secure Connection Failed
>
> The connection to xx.xx.xx.xx was interrupted while the page was loading.
>
>     The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the
> authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
>     Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
>
> Packet captures show Client Hello to be carrying SSL record layer instead
> of TLS record layer. This happens if the max value is set as 3 or 4. For
> other values, Client Hello is properly sent.
> With FF 51.0.1, everything worked just fine.
>
> So, we would like to know-
> Why is FF 52 sending SSL record layer when it is configured to send TLS
> record layer?
> As this is beta version, would you recommend using this version and the
> final version will have a proper implementation?
>
> I have also raised a case in the common Mozilla forum and was advised to
> touch base here - https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Firefox/How-does-FF-
> determine-what-SSL-protocol-to-use-in-Client-Hello/m-p/
> 1365371/highlight/false#M1034432
>
> Kindly advise!
> _______________________________________________
> dev-security-policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
>
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to