nanog mailing list archives
Re: Gmail and SSL
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:30:03 -0700
Your assertion that using "bought" certificates provides any security benefit whatsoever assumes facts not in evidence. Given recent failures in this space I would posit that the requirement to use certificates purchased from entities "under the thumb" of government control, clearly motivated only by profit, and with highly questionable moral and ethical standards represents a huge increase in risk of passive attack and confidentiality failure where such rosk did not previously exist. Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com> Date: To: Randy <nanog () afxr net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Gmail and SSL
Current thread:
- Re: Gmail and SSL, (continued)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Eugen Leitl (Dec 14)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Christopher Morrow (Dec 14)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Peter Kristolaitis (Dec 14)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Maxim Khitrov (Dec 14)
- RE: Gmail and SSL Matthew Black (Dec 14)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Peter Kristolaitis (Dec 14)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Christopher Morrow (Dec 14)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Jasper Wallace (Dec 20)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Peter Kristolaitis (Dec 29)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Christopher Morrow (Dec 30)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Jimmy Hess (Dec 30)
- Re: Gmail and SSL John Levine (Dec 30)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Jimmy Hess (Dec 30)
- Re: Gmail and SSL Rich Kulawiec (Dec 31)
- Re: Gmail and SSL John R. Levine (Dec 31)
