539174 - Page Info > General lists AES-256 cipher as AES-256 256

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: Page Info Window, defect)

Description

[u369415]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.6
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.6

in technical details it says
......
Connection Encrypted:High-grade Encryption (AES-256 256)
.....
notice the mention of 256 twice being the error

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.unsigned certificate
2.aes 256 ciper on the cert
3. try a local ip
4.run the normal cert that xampp server has builtin
Actual Results:  
it still showed 256 twice

Expected Results:  
it still showed 256 twice

shown 256 once

Comment 1

[Tanner M. Young [:tmyoung]]

Confirmed on this URL: https://alyoung.com/css/sigaltrans2.png1260910140

Comment 2

[Philip Chee]

    hdr = pkiBundle.getFormattedString("pageInfo_StrongEncryption",
                                       [info.encryptionAlgorithm, info.encryptionStrength + ""]);

So the first "256" is part of the name of the encryption standard.
WONTFIX/INVALID? Or just change the formatting to make it clearer.

Comment 3

[Tanner M. Young [:tmyoung]]

(In reply to comment #2)
>     hdr = pkiBundle.getFormattedString("pageInfo_StrongEncryption",
>                                        [info.encryptionAlgorithm,
> info.encryptionStrength + ""]);
> 
> So the first "256" is part of the name of the encryption standard.
> WONTFIX/INVALID? Or just change the formatting to make it clearer.

I would favor the latter.  I'll see what I can do about it quickly.  My thought is that we could separate the two and make it something like "High-grade encryption (AES 256 - 256 bit)" or "High-grade encryption, AES 256 (256 bit)" or "High-grade encryption - AES 256 (256 bit)" that way no information is lost, and it's clearer why we have it repeated and it's something that would make this clearer no matter what value is used.

Comment 4

[Tanner M. Young [:tmyoung]]

My only question is which punctuation option would we like?

Comment 5

[Daniel Brooks [:db48x]]

go with "High-grade encryption (AES-256, 256 bit keys)"

Comment 6

[Tanner M. Young [:tmyoung]]

Attachment: Patch v. 1.0

This works the way Daniel wanted for both Strong Encryption and Weak Encryption, and I have faithfully followed the string renaming convention after Gerv's lightning talk.

Comment 7

[Philip Chee]

> This works the way Daniel wanted for both Strong Encryption and Weak
> Encryption, and I have faithfully followed the string renaming convention after
> Gerv's lightning talk.
Hmm. You aren't changing the semantics only the formatting. I'm not sure if it is necessary to rename the strings.

Comment 8

[Axel Hecht [:Pike]]

To follow up on an irc conversation that I didn't have, I think this should get a key change.

I'm no fan of ...2 etc at all, I think that there are better names to use, like pageInfo_StrongEncryptionWithBits or so.

Comment 9

[Tanner M. Young [:tmyoung]]

Attachment: Patch v. 1.1

Patch without the ...2 string keys.

Comment 10

[Daniel Brooks [:db48x]]

Comment on attachment 457022 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v. 1.1

Yes, a semantic name change is better than using a number. r=db48x

Comment 11

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

tmyoung: thank you for listening to my talk and being responsive to it :-) That's much appreciated.

Gerv

Comment 12

[Daniel Brooks [:db48x]]

pushed, http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/62c95ee60a06

Comment 13

[Rimas Kudelis [use needinfo to ping]]

Could we PLEEEASE have Localization notes explaining what %S's in those strings are? This would be really helpful.

Comment 14

[Alexander L. Slovesnik]

Attachment: Add localization note and use positional arguments in l10n

Comment 15

[Daniel Brooks [:db48x]]

Comment on attachment 459085 [details] [diff] [review]
Add localization note and use positional arguments in l10n

Ah, an excellent suggestion. I was remiss for not thinking of it myself. r=db48x

Comment 16

[Alexander L. Slovesnik]

Comment on attachment 459085 [details] [diff] [review]
Add localization note and use positional arguments in l10n

Asking for approval, as this patch will make localization easier.

Comment 17

[Dão Gottwald [:dao]]

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/821bee90a685

You should not reopen bugs for follow-up fixes when the original bug actually remains fixed. File a new bug (preferred) or attach your patch to the resolved bug.

Comment 18

[Rimas Kudelis [use needinfo to ping]]

I had an impression that new comments on closed bugs are often ignored. And new bugs aren't as visible as reopening either...