Phillip Hallam-Baker a écrit :
also likely to brick a large
number of cell phones as far as online commerce goes.
Which smart phone OS would you expect not to support sha-256 ?
It's likely that any that doesn't 3 years from now will have enough
security holes that it'd not be very reasonnable
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Jan Schejbal wrote:
> Am 2013-11-13 13:47, schrieb Gervase Markham:
> > We could update our program requirements to be identical to theirs, but
> > the effect on actual CA operations would be fairly small, I fancy -
> > because they are all doing it anyway. Is that
Am 2013-11-13 13:47, schrieb Gervase Markham:
> We could update our program requirements to be identical to theirs, but
> the effect on actual CA operations would be fairly small, I fancy -
> because they are all doing it anyway. Is that what you are suggesting,
> or something else?
Wouldn't it ma
On 12/11/13 23:20, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> This is a bandwagon we ought to hop on. See
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2880823
Microsoft were kind enough to make us aware of this move in advance. We
are certainly supportive.
Here's one bit of hopping:
http://blog.gerv.net/2
This is a bandwagon we ought to hop on. See
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2880823
> Executive Summary
>
> Microsoft is announcing a policy change to the Microsoft Root
> Certificate Program. The new policy will no longer allow root
> certificate authorities to issue X.509
5 matches
Mail list logo
