[730] in bugtraq
Re[2]: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nayfield, Rod)
Tue Jan 24 14:28:47 1995
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 95 10:23:50 EST
From: "Nayfield, Rod" <rnayfield@mail.iconnet.com>
Cc: perry@imsi.com, bugtraq@fc.net
The reason I think the SSL isn't that bad of an idea is that it is
available _now_. You aren't going to have to wait for people to
implement the IPSec proposals once they are finalized. I don't think
that SSL is proposed as a long-term solution; but an interim one.
Someday we will have fully cryptographic IP packets and sniffing will
be dead as a dog. This can't happen tomorrow; so let's at least keep,
say, my AMEX # safe.
Rod
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)
Author: perry@imsi.com at Internet
Date: 1/24/95 4:00 AM
Richard Huddleston says:
> There's a protocol being touted by Netcape Communications Corportation
> (formerly Mosaic Communications Corportation) which is supposedly strong
> enough to conduct commerce over.
I don't want to debate SSL here, but as I see it, its a bad idea. This
really belongs at the network layer, where the proposals that the IP
Security working group all have been made. (Netscape kind of ignored
everyone at IPSec, along with the rest of the IETF, and the rest of
the world.)
> I'm not a member of the Brainiac Protocol Busters Club, but the protocol
> looks pretty good to me.
Not to me; I doubt we needed another one of these...
But as I said, this really isn't the place to carry out this debate.
Perry
