Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

On Windows Server 2008 R2 I can enforce 128bit SSL for a website by executing:

appcmd set config "Default Web Site" -section:access -sslFlags:Ssl,Ssl128 -commit:apphost

Is there a downside to that? Are there any reasons not to do this, or good reasons to always do this ?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

No reason not to do it, unless you know you have customers with ancient or government-restricted browsers that cannot do 128-bit encyrption. In 2012, you probably don't.

share|improve this answer
    
Hmm... it seems even IE6 has support for 128 bit encryption. Not sure whats left after that ehow.com/… –  TheLQ Sep 10 '12 at 23:23

It's basically a tradeoff between security and performance. A 128-bit cipher will provide better performance (concurrency) than a 256-bit cipher but at a reduced level of security. In general though a 128-bit cipher has effective security.

share|improve this answer
    
I thought I'd ensure nobody uses less than 128bit... I'll have to check whether this prevents 256bit, too. –  marapet Sep 7 '12 at 13:27

Most browsers have supported at least one 256bit cipher since 2006-2008. You can't assume 256bit for the general public yet (though you'd be blocking out a very small minority at this point), but you can safely assume 128bit is supported these days.

Also, there are 4 different 128-Bit ciphers that are commonly implemented (RC4, 3DES, AES, and Camellia). Each has pros and cons. RC4 is the fastest, and probably least secure. 3DES has problems up and down, and should be disabled in my opinion. AES and Camellia are fairly secure, though FIPS requires AES currently.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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