On Sat, July 25, 2009 17:47, mouss wrote:
> cacert is free too, but since it is not trusted by clients, it is
> unclear whether it is worth the pain.
cacert is trusted in gentoo / ubuntu currently, might something happend lately ?
again my firefox does work with my own cert that is signed with c
LuKreme a écrit :
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 16:51, "Benny Pedersen" wrote:
>> yes this is clear to me its is so, but i dont know why self signed ssl
>> is being used so much when there is plenty of good trusted
>> signers :/
>
> Because a selfsigned cert is good enough and FREE.
>
you can also run
On Jul 22, 2009, at 16:51, "Benny Pedersen" wrote:
yes this is clear to me its is so, but i dont know why self signed
ssl is being used so much when there is plenty of good trusted
signers :/
Because a selfsigned cert is good enough and FREE.
Benny Pedersen" wrote:
yes this is clear to me its is so, but i dont know why self signed
ssl is being used so much when there is plenty of good trusted
signers :/
There's little advantage to using CAcert or other free signing
authorities compared to self-signed, since not even Firefox has
On Wed, July 22, 2009 23:45, Noel Jones wrote:
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
>> what does others do if remote have a self signed ssl key, accept it ?
> Yes, accept it. Opportunistic TLS does not imply more trust
> than a non encrypted connection; you're willing to make a
> non-encrypted connection to
Benny Pedersen wrote:
what does others do if remote have a self signed ssl key, accept it ?
Yes, accept it. Opportunistic TLS does not imply more trust
than a non encrypted connection; you're willing to make a
non-encrypted connection to that client. TLS in this case
indicates encryption,
what does others do if remote have a self signed ssl key, accept it ?
--
xpoint
