encryption certificates - was Re: 3rd day on the list...

> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:41:24 -0800
> From: mak <[email protected]>
>
> I am getting ready to ask some dreaded questions about generating a self
> signed certificate that does not set off every alarm bell and whistle
> possible upon entry by my friends and partners...
>
> I don't want or care whether they "trust me" per se because of a
> "trusted" certificate.
> All WE care about is being able to let them upload ENCRYPTED files to a
> server that stores them in "encrypted" and secured data files...
>
> It's not like we want to process "imf transactions"...
> And I am loathe to pay "thawte" money to hold a public key, for me, on a
> system I don't  TRUST... just for the privilege of letting a fellow
> editor, send me an investigative report and keeping it on an encrypted
> file system on a password only system....
>
> As it is, every time one of my partners goes there to down load a file
> we have been working on, they get "this is not a trusted site" and think
> that their files are being stolen... the crazy thing is, I can send them
> to the NON SSL server, and they don't get any messages for anything we
> pass back and forth... but on this system we are wide open...
>
> FWIW... it is a source of irritation for me to have to explain, we don't
> let others have copies of our "public keys" to the server... and if you
> want to send me an encrypted file, you will have to make do... with a
> self signed certificate... and the " we don't trust this" messages from
> the browser...
>
> </endrant>
>

mak,

I _completely_ agree with you. I ran into the same thing... It should be
clear that this is first a browser issue. I am unaware how, or even if it
is possible to get added to the set of "trusted" sites _without_ paying
Thawte, or whomever else, though, like you, I sure would like to know. In
the mean time, my solution thus far has been to ask people to accept the
certificate "until it expires" as then they only ever have to have that
dialogue once. So far, nobody has complained.

Richard

-- 
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
[email protected], 510-567-9957, http://ScienceTools.com/

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, mak wrote:

> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:41:24 -0800
> From: mak <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: 3rd day on the list,
>      no messages... just wondering if it is a dead or just very quiet list.
>
> Sandip Wadje wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >           seems that very few people are using this list.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sandip Wadje
> > ===========================================
> > Assistant Director (Technical) & Officer-In-Charge
> > Software Technology Parks of India,Aurangabad.
> > Mobile: 9822028312
> > Alternate E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > ===========================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > <http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9>  /IncrediMail/
> > - *Email has finally evolved* - *_Click Here_*
> > <http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9>
>
> I am getting ready to ask some dreaded questions about generating a self
> signed certificate that does not set off every alarm bell and whistle
> possible upon entry by my friends and partners...
>
> I don't want or care whether they "trust me" per se because of a
> "trusted" certificate.
> All WE care about is being able to let them upload ENCRYPTED files to a
> server that stores them in "encrypted" and secured data files...
>
> It's not like we want to process "imf transactions"...
> And I am loathe to pay "thawte" money to hold a public key, for me, on a
> system I don't  TRUST... just for the privilege of letting a fellow
> editor, send me an investigative report and keeping it on an encrypted
> file system on a password only system....
>
> As it is, every time one of my partners goes there to down load a file
> we have been working on, they get "this is not a trusted site" and think
> that their files are being stolen... the crazy thing is, I can send them
> to the NON SSL server, and they don't get any messages for anything we
> pass back and forth... but on this system we are wide open...
>
> FWIW... it is a source of irritation for me to have to explain, we don't
> let others have copies of our "public keys" to the server... and if you
> want to send me an encrypted file, you will have to make do... with a
> self signed certificate... and the " we don't trust this" messages from
> the browser...
>
> </endrant>
>
>
>
>