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

Bug#785423: ITP: ca-cacert -- CAcert.org root certificates



On Sat, 16 May 2015 13:50:17 +1000
Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> 
>    Package name: ca-cacert
>         Version: 2011.0523
> Upstream Author: CAcert.org
>         License: https://www.cacert.org/policy/RootDistributionLicense.html
>             URL: https://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=3
>     Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/ca-cacert.git
>     Description: CAcert.org root certificates
>  This package provides CAcert.org (sub-)root certificates in PEM format.
>  Root certificate allows SSL-based applications to check for the
>  authenticity of certificates issued by the CAcert authority.
>  .
>  CAcert.org is a community-driven Certificate Authority that issues
>  certificates to the public for free.
>  .
>  CAcert's goal is to promote awareness and education on computer security
>  through the use of encryption, specifically by providing cryptographic
>  certificates. These certificates can be used to digitally sign and encrypt
>  email, authenticate and authorize users connecting to websites and secure
>  data transmission over the internet. Any application that supports the
>  Secure Socket Layer Protocol (SSL or TLS) can make use of certificates
>  signed by CAcert, as can any application that uses X.509 certificates,
>  e.g. for encryption or code signing and document signatures.
>  .
>  Please note that Debian can neither confirm nor deny whether CAcert
>  have in any way been audited for trustworthiness or RFC 3647 compliance.

I remember that a while ago Debian made the decision to remove the
CAcert certificates from the ca-certificates package
(https://bugs.debian.org/718434)

I was disappointed by this decision, so I'm glad to see now that Debian
is still going to ship them in one form or another.

Attachment: pgpY4E1iqD79R.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: