Michael Ströder wrote, On 2008-03-05 15:23:
Michael Ströder wrote:
If I configure the KDC in /etc/krb5.conf in section [realms] everything
works fine. But I'd like to let the clients lookup the KDC in DNS SRV
records. This works fine for the MIT utils like kinit etc. but not for
Firefox
Jay Schiavo replies at the bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407168#c24 with the following:
We did consolidate all our CPSs into one document. However, The EV sections
included in the CPS were copied over from the True business ID with EV CPS.
There were no changes to
Hi All!!!
I wrote a single process SSL client-server based upon the selfserv-
tstclnt pair(but minus the threading..)
Initially the entire thing was in C and worked properly; then I
decided to make a C++ wrapper out of it to establish SSL
connections...
I used the same initialization
Frank Hecker wrote:
Here's my interpretation of what happened: KPMG audited against the True
businessID CPS of July 27, 2007
s/July 27, 2007/July 1, 2007/g
The version number of the document is 2.7, which is probably why I made
this particular error.
Frank
--
Frank Hecker
[EMAIL
Subrata Mazumdar wrote:
Hi Robert,
thanks a lot for your response. I will definitely use it and see if I
can uncover/fix the memory leak.
That would be great!
BTW, what is name of the DLL for CAPI PKCS#11 module that I should use
to configure the device manager?
Is it nsscapi.dll?
yes, I
Frank Hecker wrote:
The new CPS didn't exist at the time of the audit, but it did exist at
the time of the audit report.
Actually, the new CPS was in fact written and approved during the audit
period; see
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407168#c26
The bottom line: I think the
Frank Hecker:
I don't think it's an issue with the EV criteria. The final EV
guidelines were issued in June 2007, in plenty of time for them to be
reflected in the July 27, 2007 CPS. So as far as I can tell the KPMG audit of
GeoTrust was an audit against the final WebTrust EV criteria using
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
I've also read already your reply at the bug and to this list, so I'm
not going to argue about your examination and decision. My job is/was to
make you aware of eventual irregularities.
And I appreciate your doing so. As it turned out this was a non-trivial
8 matches
Mail list logo
