Where and how much and will open sourcerers be given a discount? At 02:51 PM 12/14/01, you wrote: >I've just received the news from the JavaOne conference committee that David >Forslund and I will be giving separate presentations at the JavaOne >conference in March, 2002. While neither David nor myself have finalized >details about the presentations, they will both be centered around open >source code. I have yet to release my code. David will be talking about >OpenEMed, and I will be showing how to use Java to integrate a large number >of disparate systems. > >I'm really excited about this, because it will help bring wider awareness to >the Java developer community and executives about open source in healthcare, >and Java's role. Last year about 20,000 people attended the conference. I >gave a birds of a feather presentation about using Java in healthcare, and >it was well received. > >While I'm there, if any of you would like to meet, I'd be happy to oblige. > > >Richard Schilling >Webmaster / Web Integration Programmer >Affiliated Health Services >Mount Vernon, WA USA >http://www.affiliatedhealth.org >phone: 360.856.7129 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karsten Hilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:38 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: GNotary > > > > > > > The certificates are useless when the original documents can be > > > destroyed at the user site (=Destruction attack at user site). > > IMHO this is not an attack against the service a digital > > notary can reasonably expected to provide. I don't see why it > > should be the notary's job to keep accessible backups for me. > > According to my understanding it isn't even necessary for the > > notary to keep any backup of certificates (although it adds > > value to the service). > > > > >> 2.) The notary keeps track of when a certificate was issued > > > Still useless. The fundamental point here is that Gnotary > > and Surety > > > notary cannot prevent destruction attack. The only way to mitigate > > > destruction attack is to store and manage the documents > > themselves (not > > > just a hash or certificate) with sufficient security and > > confidentiality. > > You are arguing against your own argument if I read you > > correctly. Protection against destruction attacks is not what > > a digital notary provides. It is not a remote backup site. > > > > Regards, > > Karsten Hilbert > > -- > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > >
