I have been reading a fair bit on OpenSSL vulnerabilities and the various SSL protocols' strengths. As far as I understand it any protocols older than TLS 1.0 are to be avoided at all cost (some would argue that TLS 1.0 should be avoided too since it's only an "upgrade" from SSL 3.0). I also understand that this is due to weaknesses in the protocol and that this would affect any implementation.
To be able to make use of TLS 1.1 and newer protocols, you have to upgrade OpenSSL to at least the 1.0.1 suite. It seems that lately, the security community has done some amazing work in picking holes in the newer implementation of OpenSSL. It looks like every 2-3 months a new vulnerability is discovered and patched.
The way I see there are 3 options:
- either you stay with a weak protocol but a fairly stable software implementation
- or you upgrade to a less stable software (OpenSSL) implementation and risk that the protocols are not implemented correctly
- or you look at different software other than OpenSSL and risk more implementation holes
What do people think of that assessment?
I guess what I'm asking is what is the least bad of the two evils?