[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cypherpunk Certification Authority
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Cypherpunk Certification Authority
- From: [email protected]
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 01:42:27 -0800
- Comments: This message is NOT from the person listed in the Fromline. It is from an automated software remailing service operating atthat address.THE PORTAL SYSTEM DOES NOT CONDONE OR APPROVE OF THE CONTENTS OF THISPOSTING. Please report problem mail to <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Aleph One wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > Hmmm. If someone is willing to find out what is needed to become a
> > C.A. and to run one, and it turns out not to be particularly onerous,
> > I or one of my corporate alter egos might be willing. I must say,
> > though, that being an anti-fan of X.509 the situation would be ironic...
> > Perry
> Well from Netscape perspetive as far as I know you need nothing. Basicly
> when the browser finds a new CA that it does know about it promts
> the user and through a series of dialog boxes the user chooses to trust
> it or not.
Gee, wasn't that clever of Netscape??
Lilies that fester smell worse than weeds ... people should remember that.
(I think Shakespeare first wrote that in one of his sonnets ...)
> (Well that is theory, and what netscape release notes say, since
> I dont have access to an SSL server right now, and would need to figure
> out how to make my own certificate, I havent tried it).
Bingo. *theory* ... right ... I mean what would be the point??
Installing Netscape degrades your inherent system security. No ifs,
ands, or buts.
Netscape Navigator basically destroys whatever sense of privacy or
security, any person ever had the illusion of having. And that pretty
well rules out CA.
Alice de 'nonymous ...
...just another one of those...
P.S. This post is in the public domain.
C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.