I was doing some of this, about 20 years ago. We did have a major problem with the Federal Government, in that they, in a nutshell, required us to use encryption that they could break within a 10 day period (short time). Are we under any legal obligation that this may still apply? It was a VERY LARGE banking/credit firm, but the selection was relatively small and limited in number of bits to ensure they could break it if need be.
Jack On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Philip Hands <[email protected]> wrote: > Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:43:28AM +0100, Keith wrote: > >> Anyone for setting up a Freedombox CA? > >> This could be added to the freedombox as a trusted CA and usable for > >> freedombox to freedombox TLS only. > > > > A CA appears counterproductive. End users should use > > self-signed certs, or each Freedombox issue contain > > their own CA. > > It seems that the problem you're discussing is the one that that > monkeyshere has already addressed quite nicely: > > http://web.monkeysphere.info/ > > Cheers, Phil. > -- > |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ > |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ > |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
