Hi,
On 26 March 2014 01:56, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:23:02PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Anyway... the topic of that bug was rather the CAcert certificate...
Exactly. Please stay on topic.
Whatever else you (and this goes to everyone who has posted or wants
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:23:02PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 18:58 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > No, the point is that an attacker is detectable.
> Why should he be?
Because I can store the certificate, go somewhere else, and check if my
stored version is identi
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 18:58 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> No, the point is that an attacker is detectable.
Why should he be?
And even if he was... if I already sent my valuable data, then it's too
late.
> Do you think the NSA
> does MITM attacks on all connections? I seriously thought that they
> m
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 03:16:51PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I just agreed to Ivan's opinion... right now many people say "it's
> better to do crypto, even if it's anonymous and you have no idea who
> you're talking to"... their reason is usually on of
> - the attacker may miss the p
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 04:27 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 02:50:04AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 13:42 +, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > > First of all, accepting some
> > > “random” certificates may give the users some false sense of
> > > sec
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 09:54:47AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, March 17, 2014 03:06, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > The other option is to get a
> > certificate, which costs money. Except with CAcert.
>
> This is not true. There are several CA services recognised by the major
> browsers and thu
On Sat, 2014-03-22 at 13:42 +, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> First of all, accepting some
> “random” certificates may give the users some false sense of
> security.
This is true, and also a reason why I'm really convinced of the argument
encrypt/sign,... even if it's not trusted...
Especially the arg
> Bas Wijnen writes:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:03:23PM +, Michael Shuler wrote:
>> * No longer ship cacert.org certificates. Closes: #718434, LP:
>> #1258286
[…]
> Yes, I understand that CAcert's code and procedures are less secure
> than they should be. I don't care. Firs
On 03/17/2014 12:54 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> There are several CA services recognised by the major browsers and
> thus the ca-certifcates package which offer free as in money SSL
> certificates; and there are several more that offer them at very low
> prices.
Examples, please. Except Startcom
On Mon, March 17, 2014 03:06, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> The other option is to get a
> certificate, which costs money. Except with CAcert.
This is not true. There are several CA services recognised by the major
browsers and thus the ca-certifcates package which offer free as in money
SSL certificates; a
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:03:23PM +, Michael Shuler wrote:
>* No longer ship cacert.org certificates. Closes: #718434, LP: #1258286
I was not aware of this bug until my browser started refusing my cacert
certificate at the latest upgrade. I see there has been a long
discussion about thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
