Този сайт ще има ограничена функционалност, докато се извършва тече неговата поддръжка. Ако дадена статия не може реши проблема ви и искате да зададете въпрос, нашата общност е готова да ви помогне на @firefox в Twitter и /r/firefox в Reddit.

Търсене в помощните статии

Избягвайте измамите при поддръжката. Никога няма да ви помолим да се обадите или изпратите SMS на телефонен номер или да споделите лична информация. Моля, докладвайте подозрителна активност на "Докладване за злоупотреба".

Научете повече

Why am i (or Firefox) not able to use some (stronger) cipher suites on certain sites? ... yes, they are supporting them, checked on ssllabs-test

  • 3 отговора
  • 1 има този проблем
  • 6 изгледи
  • Последен отговор от cor-el

more options

Can anyone enlighten me on this? I do not want to complain about anything i just try to understand what and why is this happening. (I have nothing better to do today,sorry.)

Under the "green lock" -pictures- the ciphers (i think) are TLS1.0 (ex.:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) based on these software's lists: - OpenSSL - GnuTLS - LibreSSL

So i tried to disable these ciphers (AES128&256CBC-SHA1) on the "about:config" page and leave AESGCM&CHACHA20 ciphers. Then comes the warning: "SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP" , on sites which normally support AESGCM suites.


There are some "missing" (mostly AESCBC-SHA256/SHA384) options from the config page (just for me?), does Firefox support them?:

- ECDHE-RSA-AES128(CBC)-SHA256 -The banking site supports this, tested on https://observatory.mozilla.org & https://www.ssllabs.com (but not available by me, must use CBC-SHA1 instead) - ECDHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA384 - ECDHE-RSA-CAMELLIA128(GCM&CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256(GCM&CBC)-SHA384

- DHE-RSA-AES128(GCM)-SHA256 - DHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA256 - DHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA384 - DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA128&256(GCM&CBC)-SHA256 - DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256(GCM)-SHA384

- ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128(CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA384 - ECDHE-ECDSA-CAMELLIA128(GCM&CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-ECDSA-CAMELLIA256(GCM&CBC)-SHA384


Also https://www.gog.com supports: - TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 - https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gog.com&s=193.59.178.35

-Firefox supports those too but i can't use them. If RSA-AES128-SHA and RSA-AES256-SHA are disabled the page won't load but it should because of AESGCM is supported on both side.

Why does Firefox switch back to CBC-SHA1 ciphers in these sites? Is it a server-side fault or Firefox "needs help" with this? - Are there any addons or settings that could force the cipher-order? - On Mozilla's Support site (here) everything is fine "i can play" between CBC and GCM (-picture-).

Any help,recommendation,explanation or suggestion appreciated.

Can anyone enlighten me on this? I do not want to complain about anything i just try to understand what and why is this happening. (I have nothing better to do today,sorry.) Under the "green lock" -pictures- the ciphers (i think) are TLS1.0 (ex.:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA) based on these software's lists: - OpenSSL - GnuTLS - LibreSSL So i tried to disable these ciphers (AES128&256CBC-SHA1) on the "about:config" page and leave AESGCM&CHACHA20 ciphers. Then comes the warning: "SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP" , on sites which normally support AESGCM suites. There are some "missing" (mostly AESCBC-SHA256/SHA384) options from the config page (just for me?), does Firefox support them?: - ECDHE-RSA-AES128(CBC)-SHA256 -The banking site supports this, tested on https://observatory.mozilla.org & https://www.ssllabs.com (but not available by me, must use CBC-SHA1 instead) - ECDHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA384 - ECDHE-RSA-CAMELLIA128(GCM&CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256(GCM&CBC)-SHA384 - DHE-RSA-AES128(GCM)-SHA256 - DHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA256 - DHE-RSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA384 - DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA128&256(GCM&CBC)-SHA256 - DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256(GCM)-SHA384 - ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128(CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256(CBC)-SHA384 - ECDHE-ECDSA-CAMELLIA128(GCM&CBC)-SHA256 - ECDHE-ECDSA-CAMELLIA256(GCM&CBC)-SHA384 Also https://www.gog.com supports: - TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 - https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gog.com&s=193.59.178.35 -Firefox supports those too but i can't use them. If RSA-AES128-SHA and RSA-AES256-SHA are disabled the page won't load but it should because of AESGCM is supported on both side. Why does Firefox switch back to CBC-SHA1 ciphers in these sites? Is it a server-side fault or Firefox "needs help" with this? - Are there any addons or settings that could force the cipher-order? - On Mozilla's Support site (here) everything is fine "i can play" between CBC and GCM (-picture-). Any help,recommendation,explanation or suggestion appreciated.
Прикачени екранни снимки

Всички отговори (3)

more options

Променено на от cor-el

more options

I checked other browsers that could solve these but i could not find a single "Mozilla/Firefox-based" one, and the conclusions are:

  • I realized that i use Firefox because of its addons.
  • Firefox does not allow users to set the ciphersuite-order or support some more from them, like Otter Browser and Dooble Browser.

I have also found a "chromium-based" browser called Iridium:

  • (+) Supports x25519 curve. - Firefox does not(!!!)
  • (+) Most of my favorite addons work also (KeePass,uBlock,etc).
  • (~) chromium killed the 'DHE cipher-suites'
  • (-) google fights against symantec's certificates -> always a warning if a site is using a cert signed by symantec

It would be nice to be able to set the client-side ciphersuite-order in Firefox regardless what the 'server-side-tls' topc tells about it.

Here are some pictures ,what other developers did and what should Firefox do:

Променено на от sanyy

more options

In Firefox you can disable cipher suites via security.ssl3 prefs on the about:config page. Current Firefox releases only support a very limited set of cipher suites and support for a lot of cipher suites has been removed because they are either too weak or shouldn't be used anymore. You can't change the order in which they are send to a server.