ianG i...@iang.org writes:
C.f., revocation is broken. The disablement of OCSP checking has been ...
e widely suggested.
Which leads to a curious puzzler; if it doesn't work for users, who does it
work for? Ah, the cynicism :P
There are a number of revocation vendors who have (or had, a
On 22/09/11 09:37 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2011-09-22 8:20 AM, Joe St Sauver wrote:
Understood that would be the zipless ideal, but how would the binding
of the private/public keypair to the email address occur then, eh?
Well, it wouldn't, in those terms, you need to unwrap the judo flip
Hi Arshad,
It occurs to me that we're almost there.
On 22/09/11 02:30 AM, Arshad Noor wrote:
Thirdly, lets assume that the compromised CA has *explicitly* entered
into a cross-certification agreement with one or more other TTP CAs.
Right, they got themselves listed by the browsers, who hid
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:37:42AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Email client generates private/public keypair. Sends public key to CA
server. CA server certifies that the owner of the private key
corresponding to this public key is capable of receiving email at the
address, emails
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Chris Palmer snackypa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:11 PM, M.R. wrote:
Please look into how code signing on Android works and what it means.
A quick summary would be appreciated, especially on the meaning part.
Google: [ android code signing ]
Let's be honest, without any methamatical/design/architectural
assumptions, about the current PKI practical context. One of the
weakest links of PKI is trust delegation to some sort of governement
based legislated system. As said, somewhere on this maling list, CA's
are companies in those same
Ben Laurie b...@links.org writes:
Well, don't tease. How?
The link I've posted before (but didn't want to keep spamming to the list):
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/pki_risk.pdf
Peter.
___
cryptography mailing list
Hi,
study this more carefully and sooner as possible. SSL Observatory from
EFF is a step forward but we need more.
Their distributed observatory is probably going to help much here, but I
can offer the data sets from our paper. I'll put the paper online
tomorrow and paste the link here.
1 -
The way you position yourself in the network infra-structure is of
very importance when doing data collection.
Users of a given ISP may have rogue certificates while others at the
same country but another ISP may not. We as researchers need to
position ourselves at different network scopes in
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, M.R. makro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/09/11 10:31, Ian G wrote:
On the other hand, a perfectly adequate low-level retail
transaction security system can best be achieved by using a
trusted-third-party, SSL-like system.
That's a marketing claim. Best ignored
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:37:42AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Email client generates private/public keypair. Sends public key to CA
server. CA server certifies that the owner of the private key
corresponding to this public key is capable of receiving email at the
address, emails certificate
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:37:42AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Email client generates private/public keypair. Sends public key to CA
server. CA server certifies that the owner of the private key
corresponding to this public key is capable of receiving email at the
address, emails
12 matches
Mail list logo
