Arrakis wrote:
> I am trying to generate pre-configured credentials for Thunderbird, that
> have been Master Password encoded.
The Master Password doesn't work as you probably think it does.
You may or may not be able to do what you're attempting.
> Firstly, I notice there is no prefs.js configu
Greetings,
I am trying to generate pre-configured credentials for Thunderbird, that
have been Master Password encoded.
Firstly, I notice there is no prefs.js configuration that tells the
program that the Master Password has been set. Should I assume that
Thunderbird/Firefox can figure this out si
Robert Relyea wrote:
> Oh, so the signer info stuff is Java proper, not JSS. What you need is
> either a PrivateKey from JSS that came through it's JCE provider
> interface, or a JSS call that gives our a SingerInfo from JSS itself.
No, I'm using JSS classes for all of the CMC-related work. The
Hi Nelson,
Nelson B wrote:
LOL...you mean todays hosting providers are providing support to 40% of
their clients already? ;-)
No, I mean that today, very few hosting providers provide any SSL server
support at all, or do so only at greatly increased cost related to assigning
a fixed IP ad
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
> Nelson B wrote:
>> Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
>>> ...it will take some time until real hosting providers
>>> can rely on that and deploy without fear...just imagine supporting only
>>> 40% of all clients/browsers ;-)
>>>
>> That's 40% more than they sup
Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there a way of connecting SUN's java pkcs11 driver to FF and
> be able to treat all installed security modules as a single unit?
>
> Pardon if the question is badly phrased, my experience is mainly
> with CryptoAPI which is a bit simpler (primitive maybe).
>
> I
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Dave Townsend wrote:
>> What I want is to be able to be able to establish some trust that the
>> update file retrieved is correct, and has not been tampered with,
>> intercepted and is as it was originally written by the add-on author.
>
> Link Fingerprints was designed
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Dave Townsend wrote:
>> Out of interests besides Mozilla do other browsers support this, IE?
>> Safari? Opera?
>
> Why does that matter? It's Firefox that's going to be downloading the
> updates, isn't it?
Sorry it doesn't matter for the scope of this thread, I was more
Gervase Markham schrieb:
> Dave Townsend wrote:
>> What I want is to be able to be able to establish some trust that the
>> update file retrieved is correct, and has not been tampered with,
>> intercepted and is as it was originally written by the add-on author.
>
> Link Fingerprints was designed
Nelson B wrote:
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
...it will take some time until real hosting providers
can rely on that and deploy without fear...just imagine supporting only
40% of all clients/browsers ;-)
That's 40% more than they support today, evidently.
LOL...you mean todays hosting
Dave Townsend wrote:
> Out of interests besides Mozilla
> do other browsers support this, IE? Safari? Opera?
Why does that matter? It's Firefox that's going to be downloading the
updates, isn't it?
Gerv
___
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto
Dave Townsend wrote:
> What I want is to be able to be able to establish some trust that the
> update file retrieved is correct, and has not been tampered with,
> intercepted and is as it was originally written by the add-on author.
Link Fingerprints was designed for precisely this purpose, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If I got that part right, then when I loaded the x509.cacert into my
> XUL application and tried to use signtool to sign an archieve, it was
> failing because I was trying to sign with a public key.
Ok, so it seems that you created a self-signed object signing cert (wit
13 matches
Mail list logo
