narrowly-defined
> Holy Writ worldview. I've been trying to get this through your
> collective heads for a while now. This is a situation that does not,
> and the fact that you're trying to reinforce the dominant paradigm
> without realizing that the standards allow for a LOT mo
by a trusted individual within the Kwik-e-Mart
organisation, rather than John Doe (who might get criminal notions and
put through transactions using his X509 certificate under his own name
from his ADSL connection at home).
Regards
Denis
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Ian G wrote:
>
Hi Michael,
While I agree that it would make sense for us to not be swimming
upstream regarding our usage of X.509 certs, alas we are not in a
position to change the fundamental model, as this is the way our
customer does its business.
Denis
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Michael Ströder wrote
or us.
Denis
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Eddy Nigg wrote:
> On 01/30/2009 02:31 PM, Denis McCarthy:
>>
>> Actually, one other thing. While I agree with you on the thin clients
>> issue, many of our applications use their own PC's to run our
>> application
Actually, one other thing. While I agree with you on the thin clients
issue, many of our applications use their own PC's to run our
application (they have other applications they use on their PC besides
ours)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Denis McCarthy
wrote:
> Hi Anders,
> Go
Hi Anders,
Good question.
> If the computers OTOH are just ordinary but shared office computers,
> critical data should be server-based and protected by user access control.
> Thin clients is the most common solution to this fairly standard
> problem. Then it would be X.509 per user rather.
>
I t
gt; designed to deter counterfeiters from cloning the consumable part
> of their product. The device is currently awaiting FDA approval
> before coming to market.
>
> Feel free to get in touch with us, if we can be of any help to you.
>
> Arshad Noor
> StrongAuth, Inc.
>
David Stutzman
wrote:
> Denis McCarthy wrote:
>>
>> customers use. On this application, it is important to identify the
>> physical machine on which a transaction takes place. In most of our
>
>> b) The application is currently multi platform, but all our users use
&
:10 AM, Ian G wrote:
> On 29/1/09 10:42, Denis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> a) Is there some way to set up a PC so that X509 certificate is per
>> machine as opposed to per-user (I don't think you can as X509 is very
>> much user based)
>
>
> At some base level, X.509
Hi,
We have a financial services based web application that some of our
customers use. On this application, it is important to identify the
physical machine on which a transaction takes place. In most of our
customers' offices, X509 certificates work fine for this, as the
customer has a standalone
10 matches
Mail list logo
