Eric:
On 2004, Jul 15, , at 17:55, Eric Rescorla wrote:
There are advantages to message-oriented
security (cf. S-HTTP) but this doesn't seem like a very convincing
one.
Could you please elaborate on this, or refer me to a document which
expresses your views? I just read [1] in search of s
John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "J Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>This barely deserves mention, but is worth it for the humor:
>>>"Information Security Expert says SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is Nothing More
>>>Than a Condom that Just Protects the Pipe"
>>>http://www.prweb.com/re
"J Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This barely deserves mention, but is worth it for the humor:
"Information Security Expert says SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is Nothing More
Than a Condom that Just Protects the Pipe"
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb141248.htm
To which Eric Rescorla repl
>This barely deserves mention, but is worth it for the humor:
>"Information Security Expert says SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is Nothing More
>Than a Condom that Just Protects the Pipe"
>http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb141248.htm
The article says
"The weaknesses of SSL implementations have
J Harper wrote:
This barely deserves mention, but is worth it for the humor:
"Information Security Expert says SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is Nothing More
Than a Condom that Just Protects the Pipe"
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb141248.htm
I guess the intention was to provide more end-to-e
"J Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This barely deserves mention, but is worth it for the humor:
> "Information Security Expert says SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is Nothing More
> Than a Condom that Just Protects the Pipe"
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb141248.htm
What's wrong with
This barely deserves mention, but is worth it for the humor:
"Information Security Expert says SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is Nothing More
Than a Condom that Just Protects the Pipe"
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb141248.htm
-
