1997-07-18 - Re: Verisign gets export approval

Header Data

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
To: tomw@netscape.com (Tom Weinstein)
Message Hash: 59f931b7cae49591df9ec26d57e4cff3fe50ce35db808bfd6a0a811c4669611e
Message ID: <199707180321.XAA23958@homeport.org>
Reply To: <33CEDD64.292388D@netscape.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-18 03:36:29 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:36:29 +0800

Raw message

From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:36:29 +0800
To: tomw@netscape.com (Tom Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Verisign gets export approval
In-Reply-To: <33CEDD64.292388D@netscape.com>
Message-ID: <199707180321.XAA23958@homeport.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tom Weinstein wrote:

| > Unless VeriSign includes in the price of the Global ID cert a bond
| > that will compensate the buyer of a Global ID based commerce system
| > for any and all future losses caused by VeriSign either revoking or
| > refusing to renew a cert (fat chance), anyone basing their strategy on
| > having such a cert is at risk of losing their business.
| I fail to see the problem.  Right now, if you want to communicate
| securely with exportable web browsers, this is the only way to do it. 
| Either you do it, or you don't.  If VeriSign doesn't renew your cert,
| then you're right back where you were the previous year.

	Nope, you've now got thousands of upset customers who were
using secure communications, and are now using cheesy exportable
ciphers.  (Hopefully, you wrote CGI so you can quickly switch to using
Stronghold. :)


He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of
officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.