Re: https

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'm increasingly coming to think that *everything* should be done with
TLS unless you can prove it's harmful.  Call me paranoid, but given
the general state of the world, secure-by-default seems like the way
to go.  -Tim

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:39 AM, t.petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SM" <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "t.petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: https
>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>> At 00:18 26-08-2011, t.petch wrote:
>> >Besides all the usual hassle of TLS, today the certificate is
>> >reported by IE as
>> >expired, which sort of sums it up.
>>
>> Already reported to ietf-action@.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -sm
>>
>> P.S. My experience of ietf-action@ is that they are responsive and do
>> fix problems that are reported.
>
> Yup, but why are we using https at all?  Who decided, and please would they
> undecide?  Unexpired certificates can be circumvented, but all too often, the
> https parts of the web site just do not work and, more importantly, I think it
> wrong to use industrial grade security where none is called for.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]