Re: A bit better operational practice?

On 2013-07-30 08:10, Kohei Kasamatsu wrote:
> Hi, SMIME list
> 
> 
> There are many of MUA implementations for S/MIME and some banks or
> corporations are using digital signature for their messages.
> But in such cases, there are several points would hopefully be care in
> technical aspects of S/MIME.
> 
> Displaying assurance of organization of signer, keys and certificates
> management criteria in MUA and CRL delivery into MUA are crucial
> issues to enhace usage or deployment of acutual use of S/MIME.
> 
> I would think about drafting a document as follows:
> -----
>  MUA and for qualified signatures:
>   - certificate selection in MUA
>   - for unified display (like green bar in browser) of showing
>     messages in MUA with valid/non-valid signatures
>   - operational pracice for digital signatures
>     (e.g. key length, validity, key store)
> 
>  Certificates for S/MIME:
>   - operational pracice for digital signatures
>     (e.g. key length, validity, key store, revocation control)
>   - certificate policy or singing policy for signer(S/MIME)
>    e.g.) Bank, corporation, goverment and/or for qualified signature
> 
>  etc.(other items in my mind)
> -----
> 
> Are they impossible to be toss as a draft?
> 
> If you have had considered such point of operational issues,
> I would hope to share and get your reply.
> (or talk to me either, in Berlin)

Personally I consider S/MIME a useless standard, there's to my knowledge no
plans making it better either.

The parameters you mention has no meaning except to crypto-nerds.

I would recommend banks and governments turn to web-based solutions
because they provide an interactive component which among many
things can pre-select the proper certificate.

Here is something I'm working with to make the web an alternative to S/MIME:
http://webpki.org/papers/PKI/pki-webcrypto.pdf

Anders



> 

_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime