Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-02-02 Thread Bill Squier
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:25 PM, ianG wrote: Hi Bill, Actually, Marsh wrote those words, but my mail client decided I really needed to take credit for them... on the order of 6 or 8 times. -wps ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
Mmm, mail misfire. Apologies. I'd say I'm better than that, but apparently, I'm not. -wps On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Bill Squier wrote: On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: major software product that still calls self-signed certificates snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: major software product that still calls self-signed certificates snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: major software product that still calls self-signed certificates snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver

Re: [cryptography] Well, that's depressing. Now what?

2012-01-31 Thread Bill Squier
On 01/31/2012 05:21 AM, ianG wrote: major software product that still calls self-signed certificates snake-oil certificates. Which is upside down, the use of the term itself can be snake-oil recursively. That would make it 'Ouroboris oil'. Yes, easy. QKD requires hardware. A laser+receiver