Jesse Schultz on Mon, 8 Jul 2002 14:31:13 -0400 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: | Is there something wrong with Kerberos5 for this? (Actually, there | are a variety of things wrong with it, both in protocol and | implementation, but it sounds like it's what you want.) You should | be able to find a POP3 server with a K5 authentication option | (though I don't know one off the top of my head), and OpenSSH has | been able to do this for ages. Have not worked with Kerberos. Sounds like something to look at. | But why do you want digital certificates? That requires a CA, which | is immediately where Mallory'd attack if he wanted to co-opt your | entire network. If I act as my own CA with exactly 3 certificates to people I know well? Personally I don't trust the verification methods for either verisign 14.95 specials or the Thawte web of trust. But how does mallory get into a small tightly controlled CA. I have worked with Internal CA systems for a large multinational and can see how this would be just as vulnerable as thawte. Not that this is the best solution of course. I am way open on this. | (Fwiw, we're moving up on Radius for a single sign-on to Windows, | Solaris, Linux, and maybe still a little Novell. I don't know | whether Radius can hit a cert server, but I'd be moderately | surprised if it couldn't.)
iD8DBQE9KdRzK3KGHMBjApYRAvZRAJ9h3OLRooTGrJRIySvPlzSgFocRmACgm6CC KQ0abejEjM4zRk0aX1MnFKY= =Sj1J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|