Firefox cannot guarantee the safety of your data on digitalsecurity.intel.com because it uses SSLv3, a broken security protocol. Advanced info: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap
For some reason, many sites, including amazon recommendations, fail to support 256 bit ciphers. I don't understand why.
I assume you mean AES-256 vs AES-128. If a site is preferring AES-128 ciphers (particularly in combination with other modern cipher suite choices (ECHDE, SHA2, etc)) that's actually a pretty good indication they know what they are doing.
AES-256 offers no practical advantage over AES-128. There are no known practical attacks against AES-128, and stretching the key to 256 bits just wastes CPU cycles.
In fact, most of the attacks out there that weaken AES to any meaningful degree are those that attack the key schedule used in the 192 and 256 bit versions.
tl;dr; Save the planet. Use AES-128.
I'm running Firefox 36.0.4 on OS X 10.8.5. I see a "grey warning triangle" using Mozilla parlance. Clicking on that says "the connection to this website is not fully secure ...".
Firefox refuses to show me Intel's certificate at all. It does say "This website does not supply identity information".
How is an average user to know what to do if even a single application, e.g. Firefox, presents different messages to different users? IMO the message you received: "cannot guarantee the safety of your data" is much different than the one I got: "not fully secure". So which is it, and what is the difference?
Bah. Right now I switch to a separate OS X user for my banking and credit card sites. But it's probably better to devote an entire computer (not a VM) to access just those few sites. It's 2015 and things are worse and more confusing than ever.
http://i.imgur.com/tZ3IcwJ.png
The left side is what the app picks up as the text of the article. The right side is the page itself loaded in a browser, after it has finished loading all of the scripts and automatically scrolled itself past some contest thing.
I'm on a dual-core Atom with 2GB of RAM and the site lags the entire thing. I mean, it's not as impressive as if it were the latest MacBook like some sites lag on, but still. Pretty shitty.
Very odd. I'm using Chrome with chrome://flags/#ssl-version-min set to TLS 1.2, and I can connect just fine, although the certificate is signed with SHA-1.
Recall RC4. We now consider it broken. But it is still allowed on many servers, and even on 34.0.5 Firefox.
I agree, when one goes to disable legacy functionality, one should be prepared to suffer consequences. That's why my original question was "why".
Anyone who prefers AES-256 over AES-128 should take a basic cryptography course.
In fact, there are _more_ attacks against AES-256 thanks to the extended key schedule.
I disabled RC4 long time ago.