[17071] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: $90 for high assurance _versus_ $349 for low assurance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Gutmann)
Tue Mar 15 10:46:08 2005
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann)
To: iang@systemics.com, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, gnu@toad.com,
mozilla-security@mozilla.org
In-Reply-To: <4236D4DC.9050007@systemics.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:23:49 +1300
Ian G <iang@systemics.com> writes:
>Or is this merely a distinction in adspace only? Just a way to separate more
>dollars from Alice?
It's a distinction in adspace only, in the same way that you're expected to
think that a $200 DVD play from Sony Corp is better than a $40 player from Foo
Yuk Corp (obviously enough people think that way that the $200 ones still
sell, even if a feature-by-feature comparison shows the $40 one is better).
In other words the charge-more-for-the-name model seems to work as well here
as it does elsewhere.
(Note that Verisign do perform more extensive checking for the more expensive
grades of cert, but whether that's worth several hundred dollars is an open
question. Certainly with UIXC it's not worth anything).
Peter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
