CFP: PKI research workshop

[pasward at big.uwaterloo.ca]

Eric Rescorla writes:
 > <pasward at big.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
 > 
 > > Eric Rescorla writes:
 > >  > Ben Laurie <ben at algroup.co.uk> writes:
 > >  > > And most (all?) commercial CAs then disclaim any responsibility for
 > >  > > having actually checked that right correctly...
 > >  > While this is true, I'd point out that all the security software
 > >  > you're using disclaims any responsibility for not having gaping
 > >  > security holes.
 > > 
 > > If an automaker disclaimed liability for a vehicle, and a negligent
 > > design or manufacture resulted in injury or loss, it is my
 > > understanding that the liability disclaimer notwithstanding, the
 > > automaker would be held responsible.  Why do we believe that the same
 > > would not be the case for software?
 > In that case, why should the liability also apply to CAs, despite their
 > disclaimers?

Do you mean "why should," or "why shouldn't?"  If the latter, then,
sure, I believe it should.  People running around in business selling
products and services and then disclaiming any liability with regard
to their performance _for_their_intended_task_ is, IMHO, wrong.

Paul



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com