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

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 4.0b2

Status

()

Firefox
Page Info Window
--
trivial
RESOLVED FIXED
9 years ago
8 years ago

People

(Reporter: u369415, Assigned: tmyoung)

Tracking

Trunk
Firefox 4.0b2
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(URL)

Attachments

(2 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

9 years ago
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

Updated

8 years ago
Component: General → Page Info
QA Contact: general → page.info
Version: unspecified → Trunk
(Assignee)

Comment 1

8 years ago
Confirmed on this URL: https://alyoung.com/css/sigaltrans2.png1260910140
Severity: normal → trivial
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
OS: Windows 7 → All
Hardware: x86_64 → All

Comment 2

8 years ago
    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.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

8 years ago
(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.
Assignee: nobody → mozilla.bugs
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(Assignee)

Updated

8 years ago
Summary: when i tried to access a local site that is secured by https unsigned and has a cipher of AES-256 firefox shows two 256 in the technical information frame in the page info dialog → Page Info > General lists AES-256 cipher as AES-256 256
(Assignee)

Comment 4

8 years ago
My only question is which punctuation option would we like?
go with "High-grade encryption (AES-256, 256 bit keys)"
(Assignee)

Comment 6

8 years ago
Created attachment 457008 [details] [diff] [review]
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.
Attachment #457008 - Flags: review?(db48x)

Comment 7

8 years ago
> 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

8 years ago
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.
(Assignee)

Comment 9

8 years ago
Created attachment 457022 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v. 1.1

Patch without the ...2 string keys.
Attachment #457008 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #457022 - Flags: review?(db48x)
Attachment #457008 - Flags: review?(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
Attachment #457022 - Flags: review?(db48x) → review+
(Assignee)

Updated

8 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
tmyoung: thank you for listening to my talk and being responsive to it :-) That's much appreciated.

Gerv
pushed, http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/62c95ee60a06
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 8 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(Assignee)

Updated

8 years ago
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 3.7b2

Comment 13

8 years ago
Could we PLEEEASE have Localization notes explaining what %S's in those strings are? This would be really helpful.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---

Updated

8 years ago
Keywords: l12y
Created attachment 459085 [details] [diff] [review]
Add localization note and use positional arguments in l10n
Attachment #459085 - Flags: review?(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
Attachment #459085 - Flags: review?(db48x) → review+
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.
Attachment #459085 - Flags: approval2.0?

Updated

8 years ago
Attachment #459085 - Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+

Updated

8 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed

Updated

8 years ago
Depends on: 579747
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.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 8 years ago8 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed, l12y
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Comment 18

8 years ago
I had an impression that new comments on closed bugs are often ignored. And new bugs aren't as visible as reopening either...
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.