[148190] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] Moving forward on improving HTTP's security
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Farrell)
Sat Nov 16 15:51:58 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 23:52:26 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: jamesd@echeque.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <5285B904.3030308@echeque.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On 11/15/2013 06:02 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
>
> This being so, why should we care about CA signatures?
Maybe in the medium/long term, perhaps. As of now, there is
I think exactly one CT log operational. Putting all eggs in
Google's basket doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Having said that, I like CT, and I know the Google people
would like more logs to exist, and maybe there're some being
stood up already for all I know, but CT is not yet ready
for that level of prime-time. I'd say it is by far the most
credible big-DB-of-public-keys candidate at present though
so it might get there sometime.
S.
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
