Richard Larkin <> Thu, 31 August 1995 08:56 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06581; 31 Aug 95 4:56 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06576; 31 Aug 95 4:56 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05398; 31 Aug 95 4:56 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 09:20:21 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 09:20:03 +0100
Received: by (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA15990; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 16:19:09 +0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Richard Larkin <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Security
To: osi-ds <>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 16:19:08 +0800
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1151

Anyone out there know of any 1993 implementations of X.500 which implement
strong authentication ?

Also, any info on Certificate Authorities would be muchly appreciated - research
papers would be greatly received.

Lastly, for all those pilots out there (and graduates of pilots), what type
of authentication are your products you are using offering? I have found
many products to be pathetic. Consider X.400, security is still optional in
the 1992 recommendations - Is this the 90's or 70's? Now I'm no expert, but
I am rather frustrated at reading the standards, then trying to put them
into practice for what their worth, and only to find out that the security
"is not implemented in this version".

Sorry for venting my anger with you, but I'm sure most of you feel the same

All intelligent comments received gratefully.

Rich Larkin      	|
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-|  "WANTED: One good signature." 
OSI Systems Centre	|  
Technology Park         |
1 Brodie Hall Drive	|  "Found : One signature, slightly used but
Bentley  WA  6102	|           in good condition."
Perth, Australia	|