> 16 dec 2013 kl. 03:21 skrev Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com>: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Tao Effect <cont...@taoeffect.com> wrote: >>> And for someone who is accusing others of being 'fraudulent', not a good >>> move to start off repeating figures already exposed as bogus like the oft >>> repeated but still untrue claim of 600 CAs. >> >> >> I thought the EFF was a reputable source. >> >> There has been no update or correction to their post: >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/how-secure-https-today > > Which kind of calls their credibility into question. HALF the 'CAs' in their > graph are from the DFN root. You can check that out for yourself, it is a > German CA that issues certs to higher education institutions. As has been > demonstrated (and agreed by the EFF people), DFN do not sign certs for key > signing keys they do not hold. >
yep, DFN is a 'private' sub-CA under tight control but it could still be attacked the way diginotar was and though I believe their secuity is a lot better than their less fortunate Dutch cousins, a successful attack would be just as bad. > You can't calculate the number of CAs the way the EFF tried to. An > intermediate certificate does not equate to a CA. Pretending it does to > peddle an alternative PKI scheme calls into question their veracity. > > I have tried to get members of the EFF board to look into this but they never > get back. Too much trouble to get it right. > > >>> Tying the notary log to namecoin seems to be completely pointless to me, >>> unless the real objective is to promote namecoin. Why hook into namecoin >>> rather than the market leader? >> >> >> What market leader? > > I was under the impression that Bitcoin was the preferred currency of > libertopia. It is the only one that gets mention in the mainstream press. It > is not clear to me how namecoin can be part of BitCoin and another currency. > > >>> Given the success of the US government in shutting down eGold type schemes >>> I am very skeptical about the stability of 'namecoin'. If we accept the >>> purported scenarios that motivate the scheme then namecoin won't last very >>> long. >> >> What eGold scheme are you comparing Namecoin to? > > Gold Age, eGold, Liberty Reserve. All the ones that were taken apart by the > Feds. > > >> Are you sure you know what you're talking about here...? ;-) > > I must admit that I find the scheme completely confused and assumes that I > know a lot that I do not. > > I might be a little more inclined to make an effort if you hadn't attacked me > as being 'fraudulent' in your opening. > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing list > therightkey@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
_______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list therightkey@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
