Re: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Darren Reed: "A quick patch to help against TCP ISN guessing."
• Previous message: Richard Huddleston: ""Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"
• In reply to: Richard Huddleston: ""Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"
• Next in thread: Rens Troost: "Re: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"

Richard Huddleston says:
> There's a protocol being touted by Netcape Communications Corportation
> (formerly Mosaic Communications Corportation) which is supposedly strong
> enough to conduct commerce over.

I don't want to debate SSL here, but as I see it, its a bad idea. This
really belongs at the network layer, where the proposals that the IP
Security working group all have been made. (Netscape kind of ignored
everyone at IPSec, along with the rest of the IETF, and the rest of
the world.)

> I'm not a member of the Brainiac Protocol Busters Club, but the protocol
> looks pretty good to me.

Not to me; I doubt we needed another one of these...

But as I said, this really isn't the place to carry out this debate.

Perry

• Next message: Darren Reed: "A quick patch to help against TCP ISN guessing."
• Previous message: Richard Huddleston: ""Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"
• In reply to: Richard Huddleston: ""Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"
• Next in thread: Rens Troost: "Re: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"