For those not subscribed to RFC-Distribution or the IETF list, two new
RFC's (Proposed Standards) on 'Cryptographic Message Syntax'. Both of the
announcements are pasted in this message.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:51:07 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
news item from eweek.com:
August 26, 2002
---
Bush to Call for Fed NOC
By Caron Carlson and Dennis Fisher
The Bush administration has plans to create a centralized facility for
collecting and examining security-related e-mail and data traffic and will
push private network operators
as noticed on RFC distribution list:
RFC 3278 on Use of ECC Algorithms in CMS
RFC 3279 on Algorithms and Identifiers
RFC 3280 on Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
RFC 3281 on An Internet Attribute Certificate
replace N's below with RFC number to fetch:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:46 PM 1/26/02 -0500, P.J. Ponder wrote:
. . . .
Without think about it some more, I don't know whether to place the entire
notion of security controls based on biometric telemetry in with _pure_
bullshit like copy protection, watermarking
On 26 Jan 2002, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
. . . .
C'mon, depending on is-ness is exactly the same cat-and-mouse game
as authentication technologies that depend on have-ness and
know-ness attributes.
I have no idea what the heck you're talking
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, John Gilmore wrote:
. . . .
PS: Cypherpunks, where *are* you putting your secret messages? Give
us a hint! Surely *somebody* in this crew must be leaving some
bread-crumbs around for Niels and NSA to find... :-)
I always assumed newsgroups, like
The latest issue (Number 10) of the Electronic Payment Systems Observatory
- Newsletter (ePSO-N) deals with authentication.
The enclosed table of contents was mailed to the 'smartcards' mailing
list.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:01:27 +0100
From: Knud Bohle
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote:
If Microsoft's system is too brittle, then they'll pay for it through fraud
expenses. If people find it unreliable or untrustworthy, they'll use other
mechanisms for buying things. While I would feel compassion for consumers
who are
The original proposal for dot-net was to *centralize* all of the personal
information on at one location. This part may be changing with recent
capitulations regarding, of all things, interoperability. This idea of
centralizing everyone's personal information is the scary part of all this
to
for those not on RFC-Dist or IETF mailing lists:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:44:24 -0700
From: RFC Editor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFC 3163 on ISO/IEC 9798-3 Authentication SASL Mechanism
A new Request for
The laws I have seen are not specific enough to deal with what gets
included in a digitally signed message. These laws define 'digital
signature' and in some cases invoke so-called trusted third parties to
issues certs, etc., but I haven't seen a law yet with the level of
detail that would
11 matches
Mail list logo
