full-disclosure - PGP vs. certificate from Verisign

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: poirotsj at gci.net (Steve Poirot)
Subject: PGP vs. certificate from Verisign

I'm 98% sure that the key pair is generated on the client machine and 
that just the public key is transmitted to the CA.  The reason I say 98% 
instead of 100% is that it's possible that a CA just makes it look like 
that's what's happening.  This could be verified by sniffing the session.  

Steve Poirot

Georgi Guninski wrote:

> I am not an expert, but AFAIK at some time the key issuer have your 
> *private* key because they issue the key. I am not comfortable someone 
> else having my private key no matter if they claim they don't keep it.
>
> Georgi
>
> Kamal Habayeb wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I'm trying to get some expert opinions on which is better.  Using 
>> Outlook
>> 2002, would it be better to use PGP to encrypt messages or use the 
>> built-in
>> option with a digital certificate from Verisign (or some other CA)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kamal
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>