This question already has an answer here:

What are the difference between Transport layer security(TLS) and secure sockets layer(SSL). what could be the weakness of them

marked as duplicate by Xander, Steffen Ullrich, schroeder Nov 6 '15 at 18:28

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Just Google the same – haseeb Nov 6 '15 at 17:38
  • PLEASE NOTE: All versions of SSL plus TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are deprecated. All new installations should be configured to accept TLS 1.2 ONLY. Given that the most recent update of TLS 1.2 was published in March, 2011 (RFC 6176 which only added a requirement that fall back to SSL 2.0 be disabled), all browsers and most applications have had more than enough time to be compatible. The exceptions should be very few, very narrow and well justified. – JaimeCastells Nov 6 '15 at 17:59
  • @JaimeCastells that's a little over-optimistic. Not every browser has made the change. It is still an issue. – schroeder Nov 6 '15 at 18:28
  • While many (all?) browsers still support earlier encryption standards, I am not aware of any that do not support TLS 1.2. From the perspective of a firm publishing a web site, it is a safe assumption that your audience will be able to connect. @schroeder, do you know of a browser that does not support TLS 1.2? I suppose an argument could be made for old versions or browsers that are no longer under support/development, but there is a "reasonable person" criteria for how long a firm needs to support dated browsers. – JaimeCastells Nov 7 '15 at 15:58
  • @JaimeCastells "reasonable person" is moot if your target audience uses an older browser. As a Security Architect for a SaaS company, I can tell you that this is still a real issue. – schroeder Nov 7 '15 at 17:43

SSL is the code name for three successive protocols that were designed by Netscape, back in the 1990s. The acronym stands for "Secure Sockets Layer". The three protocols are very different from each other (SSL 1.0 was never published but has been described as "embarrassing"; SSL 2.0 was published as draft; and SSL 3.0 was considerably modified to try to fix a number of shortcomings in SSL 2.0).

Then the whole concept was given to the IETF, who became responsible for maintaining the SSL 3.0 protocol. The subsequent protocols were called TLS, starting with TLS 1.0, then 1.1 and 1.2. The name change was partly meant to convey the idea that the protocol could be applied to any bidirectional transport medium, not just Internet sockets; and partly to avoid any potential issues with the reuse of the "SSL" acronym which might have been a Netscape trademark.

In any case, TLS 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 are quite similar to SSL 3.0 in their definition and functioning; there is a much larger gap between SSL 2.0 and SSL 3.0, than between SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.2. Thus, trying to keep "SSL" and "TLS" apart from each other does not make a lot of technical sense. The difference in terminology relates to administrative concepts.

Personally, I tend to use "SSL" as a designation of the whole concept (thus encompassing all versions, from SSL 1.0 to TLS 1.2), and "TLS" only to designate the IETF incarnations of that concept. In many cases, I write "SSL/TLS" when I want to avoid any vain debate.

See also this answer.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.