SOL access dead suddenly today , get "Safari can,t establish secure connection to the server storiesonline.net. has worked flawlessly for over 15 years.
SOL access dead suddenly today , get "Safari can,t establish secure connection to the server storiesonline.net. has worked flawlessly for over 15 years.
How did you make this post?
Last night the site's security certificates were renew automatically, and I guess some new settings were automatically put in place.
What device/system are you using when you get this error?
Access lost on my computer and tablet which are accessing the net via Cox.net
Message posted via cell phone which does not
I'm also having the same problem on an old android phone I use as a reader. My PC is able to connect just fine
I can access fine using Chrome on my Linux PC also using Chrome on my Android tablet. This is from Australia, by the way.
Ian
When I do a protocol trace with a browser that no longer works I see the following reply from the server:
TLSv1 Record Layer: Alert (Level: Fatal, Description: Protocol Version)
Content Type: Alert (21)
Version: TLS 1.0 (0x0301)
Length: 2
Alert Message
Level: Fatal (2)
Description: Protocol Version (70)
I get a 'tlsv1 version' error message when I try to connect with 'curl --tlsv1.0' or 'curl --tlsv1.1'. Connecting with 'curl --tlsv1.2' works. Older browsers will no longer work, try to upgrade if possible.
I also compared the current certificate (valid from 2020-05-04 to 2020-08-02) with the previous one (valid from 2020-03-03 to 2020-06-01) and found no differences other than the validity dates and the values of the keys.
Was the Apache server recently upgraded or did something change in its settings?
Nobody should be using TLS 1.0 or 1.1. There is a move to deprecate it in the browsers. See:
Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 (link to IETF).
SOL checks out with an 'A" on SSL Labs. Only thing 'missing' is the DNS certifiate record (CAA) which I'd suggest Lazeez add if he's able to.
SSL Report: storiesonline.net (66.228.43.229) (link to SSL Labs)
It used to be the done thing to use a cheap, slow, old expendable machine to access the internet.
The computer industry has struck back, forcing people to regularly buy new machines to continue to have access.
AJ
That was Google - they were the ones who updated their browser so that it complained on http (rather than https) pages, pretty much forcing our webmaster to use https.
I was using an XP machine to access this site up until five weeks ago, then the machine died a natural death.
The trouble is, TLS was depreciated for good reasons.
I was using an XP machine
I'm still using an XP machine because I'm using 32-bit mathematical modelling software.
There are so many issues with all the browsers and security and encryption regimes that I'm wondering if I shouldn't get a Linux machine for internet browsing. Does it provide updates for all the crap I don't want to care about, or will the computer industry still force me to keep upgrading hardware?
AJ
My oldest, still running machine has the following configuration:
- Built 2008
- AMD X2 processor (AM2 socket)
- 8 GB Memory, that may be overkill but 4 is probably the minimum. My XP Laptop only had 1GB.
It runs the current version of OpenSuse Linux and is fast enough unless I start watching videos.
Finding a version of Linux which runs on a 32-bit machine is getting difficult, why make trouble for yourself?
When you boot an OpenSuse machine it normally does a check for updates, it is looking at the OpenSuse repositories for new versions of all the software you installed normally. Anything it finds, it asks you if you want to install it. "ALL" is an acceptable response. Most other Linux distributions work the same way.
A new version of OpenSuse should be appearing at the start of July, at that point there will be three versions in support although the oldest one will fall out of support a month or three later. The now current version is from May 2019, that gives you an idea of the release cycles.
Finding a version of Linux which runs on a 32-bit machine is getting difficult, why make trouble for yourself?
They work now. Will they work in 2 years? I want something with an upgrade path to avoid problems such as the one which triggered this thread.
They work now. Will they work in 2 years? I want something with an upgrade path to avoid problems such as the one which triggered this thread.
Did you check the site? There are, for example, several Ubuntu distro's with a clear update path you can check on the Ubuntu site. Same for most others. I agree that 32 bit is dying a slow death but if any OS will offer the possibility in the long run if will be Linux, simply because there's a lot of embedded systems that are Linux or Linux based. Those will remain for a long time because they are smaller and often faster which is important for embedded systems.
Did you check the site? There are, for example, several Ubuntu distro's with a clear update path you can check on the Ubuntu site.
15. Slax - is designed to be run from an USB stick. "You can even try to customize the OS and make permanent changes on the fly if you require it." sounds really beginner-friendly.
14. Ubuntu MATE
A possibility, albeit with a strange look-and-feel.
13. Zorin OS Lite
A possibility. Updates?
12. Xubuntu
Probably the most likely option.
11. Linux Mint Xfce
An alternative to Xubuntu.
10. Peppermint
Only if you want to emulate a Netbook.
9. Lubuntu and 8. Linux Lite
The current versions no longer support 32-bit.
7. LXLE
A fork of Lubuntu? Limited choice of applications, and does it have a future?
6. CrunchBang++, 5. Bodhi Linux
The current versions no longer support 32-bit.
4. antiX Linux
Maybe.
3. SparkyLinux
Does it even support 32-bit?
2. Puppy Linux, 1. Tiny Core
Not serious options.
So around three of those 15 can be considered realistic possibilities. 64-bit hardware displaced 32-bit around 2006/2007, hardware older than that won't last much longer anyway (?).
Forget embedded systems, their requirements are completely different.
So around three of those 15 can be considered realistic possibilities. 64-bit hardware displaced 32-bit around 2006/2007, hardware older than that won't last much longer anyway (?).
Forget embedded systems, their requirements are completely different.
It was just a quick search in what was still available. You're right that 32 bit hardware is fast becoming very scarce and won't last for long anymore. For 32bit (and in some cases even 16bit) the embedded systems are important because a lot of the kernel code will be maintained for those systems, thus supporting the overall availability. Anyway, it won't be long before there are no longer 32bit 'normal' computers in existence which means the support for the 32bit applications will stop. The current problem is not the scarce availability of a 32bit OS but the applications that are available in 32bit versions.
The current problem is not the scarce availability of a 32bit OS but the applications that are available in 32bit versions.
Applications, libraries, you name it. That is why I rejected most of that list.
Linux Mint latest version has 32bit versions for 3 different desktop environments. It will only boot with BIOS not UEFI in the 32bit versions.
Ian
Linux Mint latest version has 32bit versions for 3 different desktop environments. It will only boot with BIOS not UEFI in the 32bit versions.
I don't see why that would be a problem. You can't switch to UEFI if the existing computer has an old BIOS. And that's what we were talking about: old computers. Those have a BIOS chip which means you need an OS that supports a BIOS, not UEFI.
The other way around should be possible in most cases if the UEFI implementation supports BIOS emulation.
It's a problem if you have an oldish Lenovo laptop with 32bit UEFI not BIOS
But is the processor 32bit or 64bit? If it's a 64bit processor with a 32bit UEFI your best bet is Ubuntu. It will take some tinkering because it's an edge case :)
32bit UEFI Support
Ubuntu on 32bit UEFI
Linux EUFI
Tee most important thing is to find the correct distribution for your specific machine. It might just install without any problems.
64bit processsor with 32bit UEFI. Thanks for that, if I end up trying again.
I did get an older laptop with 32bit processor and BIOS from one of my grandaughters and used that instead. Works fine using Linux Mint 32bit.
Ian
Finding a version of Linux which runs on a 32-bit machine is getting difficult, why make trouble for yourself?
I was thinking of buying a 64-bit machine for internet use. However I'm sure Microsoft already has plans to make everyone shift to 128-bit technology. After all, don't cat videos deserve it?
I keep hearing that Ubuntu is pretty idiot-proof (and I'd severely test that) and has a windows-like interface.
AJ
There are so many issues with all the browsers and security and encryption regimes that I'm wondering if I shouldn't get a Linux machine for internet browsing. Does it provide updates for all the crap I don't want to care about, or will the computer industry still force me to keep upgrading hardware?
It's probably safer on Linux but you know that the biggest security problem is always between the chair and the keyboard. On the other hand, with Linux you could downgrade your hardware. Works perfectly fine on older machines. Many distributions require less than a 1(one!) GB of disk space and there are live-installs you can run from a USB stick or CD. It all depends on what you want.
Many years ago, I gave up trying to keep up with the changes in IT/computing. There just wasn't sufficient time in a year to do so and still keep up with my primary career. I told myself I'd catch up when I retired.
Decades later, I've learned the latter was a pipe dream. Reading this thread just reinforced that feeling.
So to recap: If you're like me and need to keep your personal device's OS (which, for an iPhone, also means Safari) significantly out of date because your employer won't provide a work device on which to validate backwards compatibility, is there nothing that can be done to allow access to the site again? I'm not very familiar with networking, and if there's something I can do, like a DNS change or using a proxy, I'm totally okay with doing that; just about anything short of remotely controlling a computer with vnc would likely suffice.
If you're like me and need to keep your personal device's OS (which, for an iPhone, also means Safari) significantly out of date because your employer won't provide a work device on which to validate backwards compatibility
If your employer is actually demanding that you validate backwards compatibility using a personal device, the first thing you should do is tell them no, you aren't going to use a personal device for work and if they aren't going to provide a device to use for backwards compatibility testing, it isn't going to happen.
If your employer is actually demanding that you validate backwards compatibility using a personal device, the first thing you should do is tell them no, you aren't going to use a personal device for work and if they aren't going to provide a device to use for backwards compatibility testing, it isn't going to happen.
An employer shouldn't demand the use of a personal device period. Personal is personal, not for work, up-to-date or not.
My boss agrees, his boss agrees, his boss is less technologically literate than my grandmother, and doesn't give a shit on top of that.
Admittedly I've been rather content to remain on my current OS, but that's another matter entirely. Even if I wanted to update, I can't afford not to have a device running this version of the operating system, so it isn't really an option.
An employer shouldn't demand the use of a personal device period. Personal is personal, not for work, up-to-date or not.
That was my point in saying he should refuse.
You can install multiple browsers on pretty much any device. Does Firefox work on that machine?
or using a proxy
Theoretically, a proxy should work. As long as the proxy can connect to the site using TLSv1.2 and up and allow you to connect to the proxy using TLSv1.1 or even SSLvx.
Why not install an up-to-date MacOS on an external SSD? Better, Carbon Copy Clone the vintage system onto an SSD for work purposes, and then give your private computer an OS upgrade. For work, boot from the SSD, for private stuff, live in the here and now. Oh, and charge your employer for the SSD.
BTW, booted my 2004 G4 Powerbook (MacOS 10.4.11) and got the same message as you trying to access SOL. Then I booted the 1998 G3 Wallstreet; guess what, Netscape Communicator 4.5 also failed. Planned obsolescence !! LOL!
My son uses an old MacBook with MacOS 10.13.6 with Safari 13.0.3 and can get SoL no worries. He used Safari at my request, and he also hit SoL with Fire Fox 70.0.1 because he normally uses Chrome 80.0.3987.149 which also hits SoL.
I strongly suspect the issue with hitting SoL may relate to the stored cookies or cache on your system. Clear all cookies and cache and try again.
It's all about whether the browser supports TLS 1.2 or not. TLS 1.0 and 1.1 are being deprecated. Similar things happened when SSL 2.0/3.0 were deprecated.