On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 07:56, David Forslund wrote: > At 07:42 AM 9/22/2003 +1000, Tim Churches wrote: > >On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 07:25, David W. Forslund wrote: > > > Well we do some conversion of the data in the process to the COAS > > model, but OpenEMed handles secure > > > communication on arbitrary HL7 data. The security has nothing to do > > > with HL7 but handles the movement of that an othere data in a fully > > > secure manner. > > > >Using CORBA? The problem is that only a very small number of facilities > >have CORBA-compliant systems. > > If you do your own security you will find no compliant systems. If you > want to know > who you is sending and receiving the data, you need to have your own > security using > standards X509 certificates and SSL.
Sure. > CORBA supports this transparently > independent > of the data being sent and requested, plus enables you to make sure that > whoever > is asking can see the particular kind of data. The software to do this > free. Can you point us at some details? > If you Jabber protocol and GnuPG encryption, you will find no compliant > systems. > > This functionality is fully available with a lot more capability already in > free software > and cross language and platform. Keen to explore examples of this. > Why do we keep having to invent this > stuff? It > is a waste of software engineering effort. The problem is that there are too many ways of implementing secure message transport. I am looking for examples of communities of healthcare providers (up tot he national level) which have settled on a particular set of methods for secure delivery, whether it be CORBA, Jabber, HTTPS and X509 certificates, or carrier pigeons. -- Tim C PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
