in for all your great work.
--
Frédéric
On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:36:38 PM UTC+1, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Frederic Martin <fredletaman...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanx for the answer.
> >
> > Quoting
On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:54:36 PM UTC+1, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Frederic Martin wrote:
> >
> > 1) From a security architect perspective. This is an official
> > recommendation that makes sens to prevent MITM attacks. FIDO U2F was
&g
s not yet published, but is already implemented
> > in
> > > recent versions of Chromium [2].
> > > * For the time being, U2F support will be gated behind preferences and
> > > disabled by default.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > https://blog.moz
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:23:28 AM UTC+1, Richard Barnes wrote:
> The FIDO Alliance has been developing standards for hardware-based
> authentication of users by websites [1]. Their work is getting significant
> traction, so the Mozilla Foundation has decided to join the FIDO Alliance.
Le lundi 9 novembre 2015 18:29:20 UTC+1, Michael Schwartz (m...@gluu.org) a
écrit :
> Hi guys... if you need a FIDO U2F server to test against, the Gluu Server has
> endpoints built in. Its really easy to deploy on Ubuntu / Centos:
> http://www.gluu.org/docs/admin-guide/deployment/
>
> Also, I
>As I said in the other email,
>I don't understand how this could be implemented when the spec has left the
>>key piece undefined, as far as I see.
You are completely right ! For now, FIDO 2 is currently being written (far far
far from finished) and can't be implemented, so let's focus on
Le jeudi 3 décembre 2015 01:28:51 UTC+1, Justin Dolske a écrit :
> On 12/2/15 6:48 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> > My initial intent was to propose implementing [1], then implementing [2]
> > when it's ready. After all, there's a lot in common, and as you say, >the
> > W3C version will be much
Le mercredi 2 décembre 2015 23:43:00 UTC+1, Ryan Sleevi a écrit :
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, smaug wrote:
> > I don't understand how 1) could be implemented when the spec has left the
> > key piece undefined, as far as I see.
> > As the spec puts it "This specification
> That said, I think we're in violent agreement that the specs are far, far,
> far from finished - and I'm unclear whether we're in agreement that one is
> under active development, while the other is a technological dead end which,
> through a series of unfortunate events, happened to have
9 matches
Mail list logo
