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

Re: X.509 and CA certificates for other purposes (i.e. the IGTF)



On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 12:32 +0200, Dennis van Dok wrote:
> The point I'd like to raise is that the current model of CA
> certificates seems to take an all-or-nothing approach: either a CA is
> trusted (for whatever purpose) or not. For the IGTF CAs, this may not
> be the right approach.
I don't think that's a good idea for ca-certificates either,... but I
don't think you can really do anything against it... either the cert is
installed in /etc/ssl or not... the problem here lies actually with the
clients, when they don't allow you to specify another store location to
have more fine grained possibilities...

Sure there is what Kurt mentions... but I mean that doesn't make things
really better IMHO, as it only allows to set a few "roles",... not
something like ejabberd should accept this, but apache should not, or
does it?

but I think it's very problematic that ca-certificates includes
extremely untrustworthy CAs like CNNIC...


Anyway... good to see you again into bringing the IGTF bundle to
Debian :)


Cheers,
Chris.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Reply to: