On 18/09/11 09:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
If you can secure the system from the government...
I can't possibly be the only one here that takes the
following to be axiomatic:
+++
A communication security system, which depends on a corporate
entity playing a role of a ~trusted-third-party~, can
On 18/09/11 7:55 PM, M.R. wrote:
On 18/09/11 09:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
If you can secure the system from the government...
I can't possibly be the only one here that takes the
following to be axiomatic:
+++
A communication security system, which depends on a corporate
entity playing a
On 09/18/2011 05:32 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The one thing I cannot palette: [many] folks in Iran had a
preexisting relationship with Google. For an Iranian to read his/her
email via Gmail only required two parties - the person who wants to
do the reading and the Gmail service. Why was a third
On 2011-09-18 7:55 PM, M.R. wrote:
It follows then that we are not looking at replacing the SSL
system with something better, but at keeping the current
SSL - perhaps with some incremental improvements - for the
retail transactions,
These days, most retail transactions have a sign in.
Sign
On 19/09/11 6:53 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2011-09-18 7:55 PM, M.R. wrote:
It follows then that we are not looking at replacing the SSL
system with something better, but at keeping the current
SSL - perhaps with some incremental improvements - for the
retail transactions,
These days, most
Hi James,
On 19/09/11 1:39 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 19/09/11 6:53 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
These days, most retail transactions have a sign in.
Sign ins are phisher food.
SSL fails to protect sign ins.
On 2011-09-19 1:12 PM, Ian G wrote:
Hence, frequent suggestions to uptick the
