Re: Re[2]: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jonathan M. Bresler: "Re: Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory )"
• Previous message: anonymous@some.lame.netcom.not.site: "Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory )"
• In reply to: Nayfield, Rod: "Re[2]: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"

>>>>> "Nayfield," == Nayfield, Rod <rnayfield@mail.iconnet.com> writes:
  Nayfield,>      The reason I think the SSL isn't that bad of an idea
  Nayfield,> is that it is available _now_.  You aren't going to have
  Nayfield,> to wait for people to implement the IPSec proposals once
  Nayfield,> they are finalized.  I don't think that SSL is proposed
  Nayfield,> as a long-term solution; but an interim one.
     
  Nayfield,>      Someday we will have fully cryptographic IP packets
  Nayfield,> and sniffing will be dead as a dog.  This can't happen
  Nayfield,> tomorrow; so let's at least keep, say, my AMEX # safe.
     
The 'competitor' to SSL is not network-level encryption, but S-HTTP,
another secure hypertext spec. It's kind of in flux right now.

These issues get discussed on the www security list. signu up at

	www-security-request@ns1.rutgers.edu

You can buy an S-HTTP developers kit from terisa (an RSA affiliate) in
the US. otherwise, hallam@dxal18.cern.ch is putting it into the CERN
library.

-Rens

• Next message: Jonathan M. Bresler: "Re: Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory )"
• Previous message: anonymous@some.lame.netcom.not.site: "Re: Router filtering not enough! (Was: Re: CERT advisory )"
• In reply to: Nayfield, Rod: "Re[2]: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)"