On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:35:15 +0100 (BST), Nicholas Cole said:
> gpg-1.9, and the thinking behind adding support for
> s/mime. What is the "roadmap" (from the point of view
> of users) for gpg?
* The most important task is to integrate gpg 1.4 code base into gpg
1.9. I did this a long time ago
--- Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may not be widely adopted but nevertheless it is
> the standard to
> make sure that confidential information can be send
> over the Internet.
> It is used all over the Net and major industry
> players are using it
> and even requring that suppkier
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:08:37 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
>>> But it does not say that GPLed software cannot use PKCS#11 interface
>>> in order to access none GPLed tokens!
>> Read the GPL again and you will see that this is not possible.
> I have... and did not find the place.
> Can you please refe
Thank you Olaf,
I see your point regarding PKI, I am familiar with it.
I want to focus the discussion for the smartcard support, this
was my original issue and we then moved to a different
discussion... I have a lot to say in that matter... but first
I will study you documents to understand yo
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> I won't argue with that...
> But the trend is not in favor of PGP.
And I won't argue about that...
>> OpenPGP offers a completely different trust
>> model which suits the needs of some users
>> very well (you can establish a web of trust
>> with anyone without overhead) whi
Hello,
But it does not say that GPLed software cannot use PKCS#11 interface
in order to access none GPLed tokens!
Read the GPL again and you will see that this is not possible.
I have... and did not find the place.
Can you please refer me to the exact item where you find the
restriction?
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:21:06 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
> Yes... But why? What was the reason to work so hard in adding S/MIME?
> The answer for my opinion is that IT IS A STANDARD!!!
I am sorry to correct you. No mental sane hacker would voluntary
implement X.509 stupidity. The reason why we wr
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:30:29 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
>> Most pkcs#11 stuff is not GPL compatible.
>>
> But it does not say that GPLed software cannot use PKCS#11 interface
> in order to access none GPLed tokens!
Read the GPL again and you will see that this is not possible.
> I am sorry to re
Hello,
You are wrong in this regard: PGP is widely
adpopted (and what is your definition of
"the world"?). And it makes perfectly sense
to have both worlds.
I won't argue with that...
But the trend is not in favor of PGP.
OpenPGP offers a completely different trust
model which suits the need
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> When PGP was invented there WAS NO standard to send and receive signed
> and encrypted messages, so PGP have implemented a proprietary method.
> Then, PGP tried to propose it as a standard... OpenPGP... But they have
> failed... It was not widely adopted...
> S/MIME was the s
Hello,
I think this is a misunderstanding. gpg 1.9 is not about _migration_ to
S/MIME, it's about _adding_ S/MIME to gpg. There is no reason why gpg
2.0 would not support OpenPGP. What is true, though, is that so far, gpg
1.9 was only about adding S/MIME to gpg. But AFAIK it is the goal to
merge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Werner Koch wrote:
[...]
>>> you have a problem only with PKCS#11...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Because it is such an ugly "standard" [the quotes are on purpose].
>>
>>
> I am sorry to read that... I think it is a good standard... Just li
Werner Koch wrote:
I still don't understand where is the licensing problem of using PKCS#11 in
a GPLed application.
Most pkcs#11 stuff is not GPL compatible.
But it does not say that GPLed software cannot use PKCS#11 interface in
order to access none GPLed tokens!
This makes gpg
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:46:08 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev said:
> I still don't understand where is the licensing problem of using PKCS#11 in
> a GPLed application.
Most pkcs#11 stuff is not GPL compatible.
> This makes gpg UNUSABLE with smartcards, and I regret this fact.
Despite the fact that it is
Hi!
I still don't get it...
> Its is not about the protocol but about the licenses incompatibility
between Mozilla and GPL applications.
> AFAIK, not everything in Mozilla has the option to be used under the GPL.
> Because pkcs#11 is a standard to let two proprietary applications work
together
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:01:04 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
> The disclaimer at http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2133 states
Its is not about the protocol but about the licenses incompatibility
between Mozilla and GPL applications. AFAIK, not everything in
Mozilla has the option to be u
Hello,
Thank you for your reply!
> PKCS#11 is a standard specifying how to access cryptographic token.
> Must smartcard vendors provide PKCS#11 library that allow simple
> smartcard integration with applications.
For legal reasons you are anyway not allowed to use almost all of them
with GP
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:02:38 +0200, Alon Bar-Lev said:
> PKCS#11 is a standard specifying how to access cryptographic token.
> Must smartcard vendors provide PKCS#11 library that allow simple
> smartcard integration with applications.
For legal reasons you are anyway not allowed to use almost al
18 matches
Mail list logo
