Hello coco,
coco coco wrote:
User's keys are escrowed in a central database, completely separated
from the application system (physically and logically, on a remote site).
The escrow database is encrypted with two keys (double encryption,
one on top of another). The two keys are kept in USB
.
Brant Thomsen
Sr. Software Engineer
Wavelink Corporation
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of coco coco
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:20 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: RE: Need objective arguments against double certificate
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:21:41AM -0600, Brant Thomsen wrote:
The exchange below actually reflects what I think is the strongest argument
against the proposed design change. Successful businesses always prefer
what works to something new or innovative. With security, that tendency
should
Thanks all for replying. More heated debates I guess.
How can there be a heated debated when there is not yet one argument
advanced in favor of the double certificate scheme?
DS
__
OpenSSL Project
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:14:54 -1000, coco coco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
coconut_to_go We called it bullshit, and were having a hot debate,
coconut_to_go most people (the technical people) are opposed to that,
coconut_to_go saying that there is nothing secure about this
Thanks all for replying. More heated debates I guess.
How can there be a heated debated when there is not yet one argument
advanced in favor of the double certificate scheme?
I got what you meant, sorry for not being clear. I meant there will be more
heated debate between us (the
Like everyone else, I say this consultant doesn't know what he's
talking about (I'm tempted to ask you to tell me who it is, so I can
avoid him/her). Can I suggest a different line of attack, though?
It's obvious that confronting the consultant by calling bull doesn't
win you any points, so how
Like the commentator, I'm also a little guy. In my case, I'm a retired guy
who got his intro to this stuff from Entrust. I got convinced that their
two (or more) -certificate solution was right, based upon the following:
If you are an employee in an organization, it is valid for the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:33:53PM -0700, david wrote:
Like the commentator, I'm also a little guy. In my case, I'm a retired guy
who got his intro to this stuff from Entrust. I got convinced that their
two (or more) -certificate solution was right, based upon the following:
You say
Pease help to fill in items that I might have missed :)
The security risk that this non-standard scheme might introduce an
unforseen vulnerability. This is, IMO, as likely as that it will protect
against some unforseen vulnerability -- the alleged reason for the scheme.
DS
Yes, Viktor... you are right. Two certificates with the same keys is ...
as you say
One of these days, I'll figure out how to write what I really mean, instead
of assuming that all readers have the same context as I do.
And that retirement was (how shall I put it) ... non-voluntary.
Pease help to fill in items that I might have missed :)
The security risk that this non-standard scheme might introduce an
unforseen vulnerability. This is, IMO, as likely as that it will protect
against some unforseen vulnerability -- the alleged reason for the scheme.
Hehe, I was
Like the commentator, I'm also a little guy. In my case, I'm a retired guy
who got his intro to this stuff from Entrust. I got convinced that their
two (or more) -certificate solution was right, based upon the following:
If you are an employee in an organization, it is valid for the
I thought the problem was that you were using the same keypair
for encryption and signing. So that there really is only one key.
I know, the key escrow was designed when the requirements were
only for encryption only. Digital signature requirement was added when
the consultant got on board.
On Jun 16, 2005, at 11:47 PM, coco coco wrote:
For a shameless plug, this scheme is designed by myself. I'm giving
a brief description here, so you guys can help to see if that makes
sense.
[snip]
Yeah, I know, you have not seen the implementation, so not fair
to say if that's ok or not.
Then perhaps your company should hire a security expert to design the
security. Defects in portability or performance are low-risk and easily
detected, and the cost scales with the time until a patch is deployed.
Security vulnerabilities are much more tricky and expensive to detect and
the
coco coco wrote:
My apologies if this is not really an openssl question. Just want to
get some ideas from the gurus here.
There is this company (a so-called partner) which has hired an
external security consultant to oversee the security of a project
which makes use of crypto quite heavily.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:14:54AM -1000, coco coco wrote:
My apologies if this is not really an openssl question. Just want to get
some ideas from the gurus here.
There is this company (a so-called partner) which has hired an external
security consultant to oversee the security of a
Thanks all for replying. More heated debates I guess.
_
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
19 matches
Mail list logo
