Re: A bit better operational practice?
Kohei Kasamatsu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smime |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Anders. Thank you for your comments. > Personally I consider S/MIME a useless standard, there's to my knowledge no > plans making it better either. S/MIME is already used by Some banks and corporations and is actually useful for guaranteeing integlity of their messages. I would like to contribute to parties who are using or providing S/MIME. > The parameters you mention has no meaning except to crypto-nerds. Thank you for the precious opinion. I also think that too detailed information on parameters of cryptgraphic primitives does not have no meaning. However, signature generated by compromised key cannot guarantee integrity of message. I think that it is valuable to gather and organize minimum required information about it. What do you think about it? > Here is something I'm working with to make the web an alternative to S/MIME: > http://webpki.org/papers/PKI/pki-webcrypto.pdf Thank you for interesting information. Best regards, Kohei (2013/07/30 15:27), Anders Rundgren wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ smime mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime