It's actually the opposite; you use TLS exactly because you're not supposed to t... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		tptacek on July 11, 2009 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Follow-up on the 'Firefox v3.5 fiasco' It's actually the opposite; you use TLS exactly because you're not supposed to trust the TCP stack. But your basic point holds. There's lots of Win2k deployed in sensitive production locations, and if they didn't have secure random numbers, we'd have bigger problems than Firefox.

swolchok on July 12, 2009 | [–]

I thought I used TLS because I didn't want my sensitive data going over the wire in plaintext.

rbanffy on July 13, 2009 | | [–]

"we'd have bigger problems than Firefox"

It's not like win2K is super-secure...

Seriously, it _really_ scares me when I see medical equipment running any Windows (not only win2k or earlier) being networked in hospitals.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact