1995-10-06 - Re: Certificate proposal

Header Data

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: jsw@netscape.com (Jeff Weinstein)
Message Hash: efc1d19dc6716d4f1dca453fe30b9e09c14a7b431a3ef7c970ae7b9d709e5a64
Message ID: <199510060035.UAA02995@homeport.org>
Reply To: <3074646C.2418@netscape.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-06 00:32:26 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 17:32:26 PDT

Raw message

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 17:32:26 PDT
To: jsw@netscape.com (Jeff Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Certificate proposal
In-Reply-To: <3074646C.2418@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <199510060035.UAA02995@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Jeff Weinstein wrote:

|   I think the old idea of a certificate just binding a name and
| a key is turning out to not be very useful.  That is why Netscape
| Navigator 2.0 will support x509 version 3 certificates.  They allow
| arbitrary attributes to be signed into a certificate.  In this new
| world, you can think of a certificate as a way of binding a key with
| various arbitrary attributes, one of which may be(but is not
| required to be) a name.

	I'm a bit behind on the X.509 discussion, but does version 3
resist the attack Ross Anderson mentions in his 'Robustness Principles'
paper in Crypto '95?

	(The paper can be found in
ftp.cl.cam.ac.uk:/users/rja14/robustness.ps.Z  The wcf.ps.Z is his
'Why Cryptosystems Fail' paper, and both are well worth reading.)


"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."