On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 10:06:56AM -0700, Dan Reese wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:58:36 -0600, "Andrew Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Certificates are just files. There aren't any license restrictions on them. So long as the name is the same it will work. IP address isn't tied to them. You need 1 cert for each vhost, you can put the cert on as many machines as you want.
Actually, when you buy an SSL certificate there *are* licensing restrictions often imposed by the CA. It costs them nothing for us to put a cert on multiple machines, but they charge extra for it. :-)
Huh? A certificate, by definition, is something that is supposed to be copied, cached, passed around, etc. All it does is bind an identity to a key (well, at least that's the way that certificates are actually being used today). Just because the certificate finds itself on more than one machine within one domain does not change its functionality in any way. If CA's are claiming that they can legally restrict how you use your certificates, then I would say that they are out of line. They have no right to dictate that.
Actually, you're right. Absolutely right. The cert itself, which is what you pay for (you usually generate the key yourself) will be sitting on millions of computers everywhere. To say that you can't serve it from more than one point without paying extra is totally absurd! If someone has a link to the technobabble that says this I think I won't beleive it until I see it myself.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
