Re: GPG and Signing
"Seth Goodman" <sethg@goodmanassociates.com> writes:
> S/MIME was intended to work with a certification authority (CA) model
> based on a small number of universally trusted root CA's, while PGP
> assumed a distributed web of trust model based on personal
> relationships between individual users. There's no technical reason a
> CA can't sign a PGP key, but this was not the intended mode of use. I
> suggest the problem wasn't MS's inability to implement PGP (it's no
> harder than S/MIME), but more likely they couldn't see a way to make
> money from it. Instead, they built native S/MIME support into their
> MUA's, built a certificate store into their operating system and
> bought VeriSign.
Couple of points. There are lots of stuff MS does that don't make them
money. Also, I don't believe they own VeriSign.
--
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Reply to: