OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
Bugtraq archives for 1st quarter (Jan-Mar) 1995: Re[2]: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)

Re[2]: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article)

Nayfield, Rod (rnayfieldmail.iconnet.com)
Tue, 24 Jan 95 10:23:50 EST 

     The reason I think the SSL isn't that bad of an idea is that it is 
     available _now_.  You aren't going to have to wait for people to 
     implement the IPSec proposals once they are finalized.  I don't think 
     that SSL is proposed as a long-term solution; but an interim one.
     
     Someday we will have fully cryptographic IP packets and sniffing will 
     be dead as a dog.  This can't happen tomorrow; so let's at least keep, 
     say, my AMEX # safe.
     
     Rod
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: "Secure Socket Layer" protocol (NYT Article) 
Author:  perryimsi.com at Internet
Date:    1/24/95 4:00 AM

     
Richard Huddleston says:
> There's a protocol being touted by Netcape Communications Corportation
> (formerly Mosaic Communications Corportation) which is supposedly strong 
> enough to conduct commerce over.
     
I don't want to debate SSL here, but as I see it, its a bad idea. This 
really belongs at the network layer, where the proposals that the IP 
Security working group all have been made. (Netscape kind of ignored 
everyone at IPSec, along with the rest of the IETF, and the rest of 
the world.)
     
> I'm not a member of the Brainiac Protocol Busters Club, but the protocol 
> looks pretty good to me.
     
Not to me; I doubt we needed another one of these...
     
But as I said, this really isn't the place to carry out this debate.
     
Perry