On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 23:29 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:56:24PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > The more I look at this 'signed timestamp' scheme, the more pointless > > it seems in this situation. We basically don't *care* about the wall > > -clock time, *and* we don't really know it. If we're going to trust > > anyone to say " was the time at which the signature was > > generated", then we might as well forget the whole nonsense about an > > expiry time and just trust that same third party to provide a > > signature... or not. > > The whole point of this signed timestamp is that the signature > doesn't expire and that you don't have to care about the wall > clock.
... which is much more simply achieved by just not caring about the validity times of the certificate in the first place. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
