Matthias Leisi wrote:
> The subject says it all: do you know which providers support TLS (the
> technology formerly known as SSL) for SMTP, POP and/or IMAP for their
> residential or small-office dialup/broadband customers?
We do offer smtp/tls, imap/tls and imaps, pop3/tls and pop3s.
Hi
> SMTP/TLS does not encrypt individual messages - as it's name implies, it
> works on the *transport* layer. And there, the public key exchange is
> used to agree on a symmetric session key.
PGP works the same way. The data is encrypted using a random symmetric
key, then this symmetric key is
On the Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:33:22AM +0200, Michael Naef blubbered:
> Hi Daniel
>
> On 9/17/06, Daniel Lorch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [..]
> >Are you sure? Isn't that exactly the point of asymmetric cryptography?
> >The way I see it, TLS and SSL work like this (analogous to PGP):
>
> [1.2.3
Hi Daniel
On 9/17/06, Daniel Lorch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
Are you sure? Isn't that exactly the point of asymmetric cryptography?
The way I see it, TLS and SSL work like this (analogous to PGP):
[1.2.3.]
Almost. The asymetric encryption is only used to negotiate a symetric
session key
Daniel Lorch wrote:
> > Are you sure? Isn't that exactly the point of asymmetric cryptography?
> > The way I see it, TLS and SSL work like this (analogous to PGP):
You're almost right.
> > 1. The client connects to the server and obtains the server's public
> >key. The public key is a mathe
Hi
> From a cryptographical point of view, this would be a dangerous setup.
> You're transmitting the same message encrypted (local MX <-> Client) as
> well as unencrypted (sending MX <-> local MX). This leaves you open to
> a known plaintext attack against your server's private key, because it
>
Kirill Ponazdyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-09-16:
> > The subject says it all: do you know which providers support TLS
> > (the technology formerly known as SSL) for SMTP, POP and/or IMAP for
> > their residential or small-office dialup/broadband customers?
>
> TLS for SMTP makes no sence since this
Hi Tonnerre,
> From a cryptographical point of view, this would be a dangerous setup.
> You're transmitting the same message encrypted (local MX <-> Client)
> as well as unencrypted (sending MX <-> local MX). This leaves you
> open to a known plaintext attack against your server's private key,
>
Salut,
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 03:43:09PM +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
> If you are a provider yourself and you do not offer it: Are there
> particular reasons? Is it a conscious decision not to offer it or is it
> that just nobody asked yet?
From a cryptographical point of view, this would be a
> Hi all,
>
> The subject says it all: do you know which providers support TLS (the
> technology formerly known as SSL) for SMTP, POP and/or IMAP for their
> residential or small-office dialup/broadband customers?
TLS for SMTP makes no sence since this will only protect your message
enroute from y
Hi all,
The subject says it all: do you know which providers support TLS (the
technology formerly known as SSL) for SMTP, POP and/or IMAP for their
residential or small-office dialup/broadband customers?
If you are a provider yourself and you do not offer it: Are there
particular reasons? Is it a
11 matches
Mail list logo
