|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: PEM(?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > The thing is that folks ARE using it. Just, not in public. Well, that's understandable. If I were an S/MIME user, I wouldn't want the public to know! ;) "Hi, my name's Len, and I'm an S/MIME abuser." "Hi, Len!" > That may or may not be true. Letting things sink to common terms, > we have been discussing S/MIME vs PGP, via PKI debate. What sort > of PKI would be most useful for NANOG participants? My contention > is for OpenSSL style CA that issues certs usable for both S/MIME > and SSL. In addition, I have a project that would let SSH use > *.pem files from OpenSSL, issued by OpenCA. What we would have > then is a single Key/Cert that would work with SSH, S/MIME, and > SSL. I can't see a way to get PGP to cover the same ground. PGP works with newer versions of SSH. I see no need for S/MIME to exist. And I don't see SSL incompatability as a barier to using PGP with email. (For the record, there is an Internet draft on using PGP with TLS, and Apache can easily be modified to use PGP keys... the problem is browser support, and not a limitation in PGP.) __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | Technology Consultant | "Common sense is wrong." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Practical C Programming -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5XnCDPYrxsgmsCmoRAgXoAJ4jx7zWlER8B65g/RSqj5gYU1c7QQCg4B/x Fr6uYHFWYRMqpOhRsh42PkQ= =uhCk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|