On Saturday 21 May 2005 19:39, Ram A Moskovitz wrote: > On 5/21/05, Ian G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 21 May 2005 17:33, Ram A Moskovitz wrote: > > > The fallacy in your argument (there is no contradiction between > > statements) > > > is that it requires there to be no value to VeriSign's reputation today > > > which is a false statement. > > > First, it is not a statement that there is no value > > in VeriSign's brand. > > > The certificates is > > only a small part of Verisign's operations, one > > part of one division. > > I think this is false. Citation?
www.verisign.com lists 4 divisions. Certificate issuance is presumably in Security. In that division, only one is about SSL certificates issuance. Arguably the Code Signing part could be considered to be also pure certs issuance, the others are services or other sales. Secondly, what are the annual revenues? I saw something to do with 3 billion but I don't know for sure. Anyway, we can work it out. If we take upside numbers, Verisign claim to issue 400k certs as you've pointed out. If we take that as $1000 per cert then it is $400 million tops. If we take a more robust amount of say $300 per cert and securityspace's numbers of 100k, then it is $30 million. What then are the certs revenues for Verisign? Thirdly, that's what I was told by the European director of Security for Verisign (well, the precise title eludes me ... but it was impressive). OK, so what's your evidence that it is false? And presumably you agree with the rest of the post? iang -- Advances in Financial Cryptography: https://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000458.html _______________________________________________ mozilla-crypto mailing list [email protected] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
