John Saylor wrote:
> as i understand it, the problem here was that credentials were issued by
> an untrustworthy agent. you can have this scenario both online and off.
> how does being online solve the problem of a compromised issuing
> authority?
the justification for having offline credentials
hi
> Peter Gutmann wrote:
> > http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0305/210558.html
> > http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/200474.html
( 05.08.11 12:55 -0600 ) Anne & Lynn Wheeler:
> one might claim that part of this is the lingering affinity to offline
> credentials ... when most really secur
>From: Peter Gutmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Aug 11, 2005 7:42 AM
>To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
>Subject: How much for a DoD X.509 certificate?
>$25 and a bit of marijuana, apparently. See:
> http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0305/210558.html
> http://www.wjla.c
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> $25 and a bit of marijuana, apparently. See:
>
> http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0305/210558.html
> http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/200474.html
>
> Although the story doesn't mention this, the "ID" in question was the DoD
> Common Access Card, a smart card conta
$25 and a bit of marijuana, apparently. See:
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0305/210558.html
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/200474.html
Although the story doesn't mention this, the "ID" in question was the DoD
Common Access Card, a smart card containing a DoD-issued certificate. To
