Let's be real here -- is this a problem with the device, or with site operators?
All the major players that promote TLSv1.2 -- Mozilla, Microsoft, Google -- serve their websites over TLSv1.0 just fine. Because they understand that they have to serve old devices to sell products and make money even from such outdated clients, which are still plentiful by the absolute numbers when it's billions of users that we're talking about.
In fact, most people aren't even aware of this, but www.google.com itself still works without HTTPS at all. This can easily be verified with curl. Looks like www.bing.com is the same in this aspect; because they gotta make the money from every user as well.
But what doesn't work? Wikipedia. Ironically, it's Wikipedia that intentionally engages in planned device obsolescence. Does the read-only access to an encyclopedia editable by anonymous users even require any TLS at all? Really?! And why is noone talking about this?
The worst part is that the overwhelming tech community is doing absolutely nothing about this injustice -- about planned device obsolescence by the likes of Wikipedia. Most of these obsoleted TLSv1.0 devices have very fast CPUs and gigabytes of RAM, and are still perfectly capable of browsing most of the internet, and non-technical people are genuinely unaware about these politics w.r.t. TLSv1.2. There's not a single advocacy group that I'm aware of that advocates for the rights of people who cannot use TLSv1.2. Mozilla SSL Configuration Generator is intentionally giving misleading TLS advice that Mozilla itself doesn't adhere to.
Let's be real here -- is this a problem with the device, or with site operators?
All the major players that promote TLSv1.2 -- Mozilla, Microsoft, Google -- serve their websites over TLSv1.0 just fine. Because they understand that they have to serve old devices to sell products and make money even from such outdated clients, which are still plentiful by the absolute numbers when it's billions of users that we're talking about.
In fact, most people aren't even aware of this, but www.google.com itself still works without HTTPS at all. This can easily be verified with curl. Looks like www.bing.com is the same in this aspect; because they gotta make the money from every user as well.
But what doesn't work? Wikipedia. Ironically, it's Wikipedia that intentionally engages in planned device obsolescence. Does the read-only access to an encyclopedia editable by anonymous users even require any TLS at all? Really?! And why is noone talking about this?
The worst part is that the overwhelming tech community is doing absolutely nothing about this injustice -- about planned device obsolescence by the likes of Wikipedia. Most of these obsoleted TLSv1.0 devices have very fast CPUs and gigabytes of RAM, and are still perfectly capable of browsing most of the internet, and non-technical people are genuinely unaware about these politics w.r.t. TLSv1.2. There's not a single advocacy group that I'm aware of that advocates for the rights of people who cannot use TLSv1.2. Mozilla SSL Configuration Generator is intentionally giving misleading TLS advice that Mozilla itself doesn't adhere to.