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: smcmahon at eiv.com (Shawn McMahon)
Subject: PGP vs. certificate from Verisign

On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 02:57:12AM +0200, yossarian said:
> What I wonder - will Verisign have set up CRL servers yet? Remember the IE
> problem when someone got hold of MS certificates? The MS-fix was
> blacklisting them locally, the real problem was that there was no revocation
> servers. Then again, how many concurrent connections would they get if MS
> sent out a critical update?
> 
> So - stick to PGP - forget about PKI.

Pardon me if a clue whizzed by while I was working, but I read this as
"PKI doesn't have any way to guarantee ad-hoc revocation of a
certificate, so stick to PGP, which also doesn't have any way to
guarantee ad-hoc revocation of a certificate".


-- 
Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
UNIX and Linux	  | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030511/0f9c7a2d/attachment.bin