"Konstantin Andreev" wrote in message
news:qvgdnspmvaho3hvrnz2dnuvz_jsdn...@mozilla.org...
On 08/28/10 02:36, Michael Smith wrote:
Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the
user, and just added to the certificate store, we want to have a
certificate that nominally
On Sep 7, 6:55 am, Konstantin Andreev wrote:
> On 08/28/10 02:36, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the user,
> > and just added to the certificate store, we want to have a certificate that
> > nominally belongs to the application, and is
On Sep 3, 11:53 am, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> On 2010-08-30 11:04 PDT, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 10:08 am, Nelson Bolyard
> > wrote:
> >> What is the real underlying objective of this?
> >> Is it to authenticate the individual user of the product to the servers?
> >> Is it to ensure t
On 08/28/10 02:36, Michael Smith wrote:
Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the user, and
just added to the certificate store, we want to have a certificate that
nominally belongs to the application, and is secret from the user (strange, but
that's what I'm stuck w
On 2010-08-30 11:04 PDT, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Aug 28, 10:08 am, Nelson Bolyard
> wrote:
>> What is the real underlying objective of this?
>> Is it to authenticate the individual user of the product to the servers?
>> Is it to ensure that the client applications of the network service are
>>
On Aug 28, 10:08 am, Nelson Bolyard
wrote:
> On 2010-08-27 16:48 PDT, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > We're not really looking for a "couldn't be compromised" solutions -
> > this is a requirement from a company we're partnering with, not our
> > idea, and they basically just want it to not be "simple"
On 2010-08-27 16:48 PDT, Michael Smith wrote:
> We're not really looking for a "couldn't be compromised" solutions -
> this is a requirement from a company we're partnering with, not our
> idea, and they basically just want it to not be "simple" (for some
> value of that) to compromise. So: serial
On Aug 27, 4:30 pm, John Dennis wrote:
> On 08/27/2010 06:36 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > In our (mozilla/xulrunner-based) application, we're trying to set up a
> > secure connection to a server that requires a client certificate.
>
> > Rather than the normal case of a client c
On 08/27/2010 06:36 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
Hi all,
In our (mozilla/xulrunner-based) application, we're trying to set up a
secure connection to a server that requires a client certificate.
Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the
user, and just added to the certific
Hi all,
In our (mozilla/xulrunner-based) application, we're trying to set up a
secure connection to a server that requires a client certificate.
Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the
user, and just added to the certificate store, we want to have a
certificate that n
10 matches
Mail list logo
