On 10 July 2012 13:44, Michiel de Jong <[email protected]> wrote: > i appreciate that we as power users can use those things, but our goal > with freedombox is to make something for 'normal' people. If you visit > https://g10code.com/steed.html using for instance Chrome, you get a > big page saying you are under attack and this domain is unsafe. In > Firefox it's grey, but it's still a scary page. Did you see that? >
The above site works fine for me in firefox. Sorry for being a bit slow, I'm trying to understand the pagekite proposal better. Is it based on a user's own certificate, or some other certificate, or a proxy? > > Therefore, even though i'm also very much against the politics of the > CA system we have, I think these alternatives are not an option (yet) > (unfortunately). > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:54:01AM +0200, Anders Jackson wrote: > > > >> And about certificates, there are not only StartSSL > >> (https://stratssk.com), which is good but we also have have CAcert > >> (https://CAcert.org/) which should be a good infrastructure for a > >> project like ours. > > > > Using self-signed certs with a STEED-like trust approach would be > > fine. Supplementing it with a FOAF web of trust even better. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Freedombox-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
