Eric Murray wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:09:06AM -0400, Ian Grigg wrote:
A lot of the tools and blocks are too hard to
understand. Inaccessible might be the proper
term. This might apply to, for example, SSL,
and more so to IPSec. These have a lower survival
rate, simply
Tim Dierks wrote:
At 09:11 AM 6/3/2003, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that SSL use is orders of magnitude higher than that of SSH, with no
change in sight, primarily due to SSL's ease-of-use, I am a bit puzzled by
your assertion that ssh, not SSL, is
A lot of the tools and blocks are too hard to
understand. Inaccessible might be the proper
term. This might apply to, for example, SSL,
and more so to IPSec. These have a lower survival
rate, simply because as developers look at them,
their eyes glaze over and they move on. I heard
one guy say
John Kelsey wrote:
So, what can I do about it, as an individual? Make the cellphone companies
build good crypto into their systems? Any ideas how to do that?
Nope. Cellphone companies are big slow moving
targets. They get their franchise from the
government. If the NSA wants weak crypto,
