[144422] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why are we still using the CA model? (Re: Microsoft deems all
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sun Sep 11 18:54:21 2011
To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron@heyaaron.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:20:51 PDT."
<CAEE+rGraOyVUKYDL16aGeLT7WrTy4V1gEcRM9QriiUBoRSED6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:52:41 -0400
Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1315781561_28234P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:20:51 PDT, "Aaron C. de Bruyn" said:
> I'm pretty fond of the idea proposed by gpgAuth.One key to rule them
> all (and one password) combined with the client verifying the
> server.It's still in its infancy, but it works.
Yes, but it needs to be something that either (a) Joe Sixpack never
sees, or (b) Joe Sixpack actually understands. Are either of those
true?
--==_Exmh_1315781561_28234P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFObTu5cC3lWbTT17ARAkrhAKDBWNbikwIr+vAgYH60+o84OSUXNACcDtRU
KWpwDsj079KOmQuX5ixVE1U=
=VA6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1315781561_28234P--
