IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: operational protocols

Stef Hoeben <Stefan.Hoeben@esat.kuleuven.ac.be> Tue, 08 April 1997 10:03 UTC

Received: by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.970212) for ietf-pkix-relay id DAA17816; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 03:03:48 -0700
Received: from barbar.esat.kuleuven.ac.be by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.970212) for <ietf-pkix@tandem.com> id DAA17800; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 03:03:28 -0700
Received: from dante (dante.esat.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.66.131]) by barbar (version 8.8.5) for <ietf-pkix@tandem.com> with SMTP id MAA16907; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:03:09 +0200 (METDST)
Organization: ESAT, K.U.Leuven, Belgium
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 12:03:09 +0200
From: Stef Hoeben <Stefan.Hoeben@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
X-Sender: hoeben@dante
To: ietf-pkix@tandem.com
Subject: Re: operational protocols
In-Reply-To: <s348b091.068@zionsbank.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.95.970408115054.783C-100000@dante>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

Since you're all shooting at me, I better withdraw
and shut up (though in some cases a CIL could be
usefull, IMHO:)

The main reason for me was to ask the two questions 
in my first mail ... (which still no-one bothered to
answer)

By the way, even if you also trust your Directory
(though it would off course be nicer to only trust
the CA), there is still the risk of spoofing (someone
who intercepts the reponse the Directory sends to
you). So (only) authentication (by the CA) of _all_ 
answers the Directory gives are a solution to this
spoofing, IMHO again.

			Cheers, Stef

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email