--
James A. Donald:
SSH server public/private keys are widely deployed.
PKI public keys are not. Reason is that each SSH
server just whips up its own keys without asking
anyone's permission, or getting any certificates.
Eric Murray:
..which means that it [ssh-- ericm]
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:48:55PM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 at 7:56, Eric Murray wrote:
..which means that it [ssh-- ericm] still requires an OOB authentication.
(or blinding typing 'yes' and ignoring the consequences). But
that's another subject.
Not true. Think
--
3 Sep 2003 at 20:16, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks wrote:
Here is an interesting post regarding the CA issue:
http://lists.spack.org/pipermail/wordup/2003/000684.html
You may want to look at http://www.cacert.org. It may do what
you want.
Their free client certificates are no
--
James A. Donald:
Outlook and outlook express support digital signing and
encryption -- but one must first get a certificate.
Now what I want is a certificate that merely asserts that
the holder of the certificate can receive email at such and
such an address, and that only one
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:27:18AM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
--
SSH server public/private keys are widely deployed. PKI public
keys are not. Reason is that each SSH server just whips up its
own keys without asking anyone's permission, or getting any
certificates.
.which means
Outlook and outlook express support digital signing and
encryption -- but one must first get a certificate.
Now what I want is a certificate that merely asserts that the
holder of the certificate can receive email at such and such an
address, and that only one such certificate has been
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
--
SSH server public/private keys are widely deployed. PKI public
keys are not. Reason is that each SSH server just whips up its
own keys without asking anyone's permission, or getting any
certificates.
Outlook and outlook express support
