Hi
I am developing a Firefox extension that calls PKCS 11 functions like
C_Encrypt, C_Sign, C_Decrypt and others..
I am not sure how to call these functions from the javascript file. I
have an idea that i must wrap these C functions in XPCOM-IDL. But not
sure of how to do it..and what XP
Eddy Nigg wrote:
On 11/11/2008 03:54 PM, Ian G:
And, in particular, the PKI industry's obsession with some concept that
you refer to as "legal identity" is ruining its own market.
I personally don't perceive it as such nor do I think that there is such
an obsession. I *do* believe that more
Two years ago this week, John Smith wrote to us:
> When I sign using keytool.exe version 3.10 it signs OK,
> When I sign using keytool.exe version 3.11 it throws this error:
>
> using certificate directory: C:\Documents and
> Settings\myusername\Application
> Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vsw8
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Eddy Nigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/11/2008 03:54 PM, Ian G:
>>
>> And, in particular, the PKI industry's obsession with some concept that
>> you refer to as "legal identity" is ruining its own market.
>>
>
> I personally don't perceive it as such nor do I
On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Eddy Nigg wrote:
On 10/29/2008 11:13 PM, Eddy Nigg:
Frank, what happened to the schedule and inclusions of CAs? Is
there any
problem preventing us from continuing to process the CAs which are
ready
for the comments period?
BTW, I'd like to propose to cut the
On 09.11.2008, at 16:25, Ian G wrote:
Eddy Nigg wrote:
Now I'm interested in getting rid of self-signed certificates if
possible. They undermine "legitimate" certificates and put the
majority of users under an unneeded risk. That's one of my goals
today!
It seems that Eddy and Nelson ar
On 11/11/2008 03:54 PM, Ian G:
And, in particular, the PKI industry's obsession with some concept that
you refer to as "legal identity" is ruining its own market.
I personally don't perceive it as such nor do I think that there is such
an obsession. I *do* believe that more verified identiti
> No. There is no consensus. There are opposing camps. One camp
> believes that the solution is to drop all self-signed certs. Another
> camp believes that Key Continuity Management is the answer. Yet a third
> camp believes that user training has to be done, and the UI needs a
> little tweaki
Sorry, rushed reply!
Eddy Nigg wrote:
On 11/11/2008 04:58 AM, Ian G:
Yes, you are confirming and reinforcing his point: the dominant paridigm
-- to push a concept of a binding of legal name to key -- is making it
difficult for advocates of crypto to gain traction.
It serves a purpose, it's n
On 11/11/2008 04:58 AM, Ian G:
Yes, you are confirming and reinforcing his point: the dominant paridigm
-- to push a concept of a binding of legal name to key -- is making it
difficult for advocates of crypto to gain traction.
It serves a purpose, it's not the only form in current applied PKI
10 matches
Mail list logo
