[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Certificate proposal
Jeff Weinstein wrote:
| I think the old idea of a certificate just binding a name and
| a key is turning out to not be very useful. That is why Netscape
| Navigator 2.0 will support x509 version 3 certificates. They allow
| arbitrary attributes to be signed into a certificate. In this new
| world, you can think of a certificate as a way of binding a key with
| various arbitrary attributes, one of which may be(but is not
| required to be) a name.
I'm a bit behind on the X.509 discussion, but does version 3
resist the attack Ross Anderson mentions in his 'Robustness Principles'
paper in Crypto '95?
(The paper can be found in
ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk:/users/rja14/robustness.ps.Z The wcf.ps.Z is his
'Why Cryptosystems Fail' paper, and both are well worth reading.)
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."