[Freedombox-discuss] CAs and cipher suites for cautious servers like FreedomBox

[Jack Wilborn]

I was doing some of this, about 20 years ago.  We did have a major problem
with the Federal Government, in that they, in a nutshell, required us to
use encryption that they could break within a 10 day period (short time).
Are we under any legal obligation that this may still apply?  It was a VERY
LARGE banking/credit firm, but the selection was relatively small and
limited in number of bits to ensure they could break it if need be.

Jack


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Philip Hands <phil at hands.com> wrote:

> Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:43:28AM +0100, Keith wrote:
> >> Anyone for setting up a Freedombox CA?
> >> This could be added to the freedombox as a trusted CA and usable for
> >> freedombox to freedombox TLS only.
> >
> > A CA appears counterproductive. End users should use
> > self-signed certs, or each Freedombox issue contain
> > their own CA.
>
> It seems that the problem you're discussing is the one that that
> monkeyshere has already addressed quite nicely:
>
>   http://web.monkeysphere.info/
>
> Cheers, Phil.
> --
> |)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
> |-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
> |(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20130912/5ed83371/attachment.html>