TLS is the protocol behind most secure connections on the Internet and most TLS is TLS 1.0, despite that fact that the RFC for 1.0 was published in January 1999, over 13 years ago.
Since then there have a two newer versions of TLS: 1.1 (2006) and 1.2 (2008). TLS 1.1 added an explicit IV for CBC mode ciphers as a response to CBC weaknesses that eventually turned into the BEAST attack. TLS 1.2 changes the previous MD5/SHA1 combination hash to use SHA256 and introduces AEAD ciphers like AES-GCM.
However, neither of these versions saw any significant adoption for a long time because TLS's extension mechanism allowed 1.0 to adapt to new needs.
But things are starting to change:
- Google servers now support up to TLS 1.2.
- iOS 5 clients support up to TLS 1.2.
- Chrome dev channel supports up to TLS 1.1.
- Twitter, Facebook and Cloudflare appear to be deploying TLS 1.2 support, although the nature of large deployments means that this may vary during a gradual deployment.
- Opera supports up to TLS 1.2, although I believe that 1.1 and 1.2 are disabled by default.
In the long run, getting to 1.2 is worthwhile. The MD5/SHA1 hash combination used previous versions was hoped to be more secure than either hash function alone, but  suggests that it's probably only as secure as SHA1. Also, the GCM cipher modes allow AES to be used without the problems (and space overhead) of CBC mode. GCM is hardware accelerated in recent Intel and AMD chips along with AES itself.
But there are always realities to contend with I'm afraid:
Firstly, there's the usual problem of buggy servers. TLS has a version negotiation mechanism, but some servers will fail if a client indicates that it supports the newer TLS versions. (Last year, Yngve Pettersen suggested that 2% of HTTPS servers failed if the client indicated TLS 1.1 and 3% for TLS 1.2.)
Because of this Chrome implements a fallback from TLS 1.1 to TLS 1.0 if the server sends a TLS error. (And we have a fallback from TLS 1.0 to SSL 3.0 if we get another TLS error on the second try.) This, sadly, means that supporting TLS 1.1 cannot bring any security benefits because an attacker can cause us to fallback. Thankfully, the major security benefit of TLS 1.1, the explicit CBC IVs, was retrofitted to previous versions in the form of 1/n-1 record splitting after the BEAST demonstration.
Since these fallbacks can be a security concern (especially the fallback to SSLv3, which eliminates ECDHE forward secrecy) I fear that it's necessary to add a second, redundant version negotiation mechanism to the protocol. It's an idea which has been floated before and I raised it again recently.
But buggy servers are something that we've known about for many years. Deploying new TLS versions has introduced a new problem: buggy networks.
Appallingly it appears that there are several types of network device that manage to break when confronted with new TLS versions. There are some that break any attempt to offer TLS 1.1 or 1.2, and some that break any connections that negotiate these versions. These failures, so far, manifest in the form of TCP resets, which isn't currently a trigger for Chrome to fallback. Although we may be forced to add it.
Chrome dev or iOS users suffering from the first type of device see all of their HTTPS connections fail. Users suffering the second type only see failures when connecting to sites that support TLS 1.1 or 1.2. (Which includes Google.). iOS leaves it up to the application to implement fallback if they wish and adding TLS 1.2 support to Google's servers has caused some problems because of these bad networks.
We're working to track down the vendors with issues at the moment and to make sure that updates are available, and that they inform their customers of this. I'm very interested in any cases where Chrome 21 suddenly caused all or some HTTPS connections to fail with ERR_CONNECTION_RESET. If you hit this, please let me know (agl at chromium dot org).
( Antoine Joux, Multicollisions in Iterated Hash Functions: Application to Cascaded Constructions, CRYPTO (Matthew K. Franklin, ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3152, Springer, 2004, pp. 306–316.)