how simple is SSL? (Re: Monoculture)

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

At 02:21 PM 10/1/2003 -0700, Adam Back wrote:

>Maybe but X.509 certificates, ASN.1 and X.500 naming, ASN.1 string
>types ambiguities inherited from PKIX specs are hardly what one could
>reasonably calls simple.  There was no reason SSL couldn't have used
>for example SSH key formats or something that is simple.  If one reads
>the SSL rfcs it's relatively clear what the formats are the state
>stuff is a little funky, but ok, and then there's a big call out to a
>for-pay ITU standard which references half a dozen other for-pay ITU
>standards.  Hardly compatible with IETF doctrines on open standards
>you would think (though this is a side-track).

some related recent thread from comp.ssecurity.ssh n.g. (somewhat my 
standard harping about confusing the technology of digital signatures and 
the business issues of PKI and certificates):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#55 public key vs passwd authentication?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#49 public key vs passwd authentication?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#50 public key vs passwd authentication?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#51 public key vs passwd authentication?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#52 public key vs passwd authentication?

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler    http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
  

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