Re: EV/OV/DV (was: PositiveSSL is not valid for browsers)

2009-01-01 Thread Kyle Hamilton
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote: > > FWIW: > > On 31.12.2008 15:47, Eddy Nigg wrote: >> >> EV is clearly maximum > > No. EV is what I always expected all certs to be. It's really the minimum. > The whole security hangs of a phone call. It has lots of loopholes. The EV guidelines

Re: EV/OV/DV

2009-01-01 Thread Eddy Nigg
On 01/01/2009 05:57 PM, Ben Bucksch: FWIW: On 31.12.2008 15:47, Eddy Nigg wrote: EV is clearly maximum No. EV is what I always expected all certs to be. It's really the minimum. Ohooommm, whatever the minimum validation requirements for EV are, is now the industry's maximum requirements.

EV/OV/DV (was: PositiveSSL is not valid for browsers)

2009-01-01 Thread Ben Bucksch
FWIW: On 31.12.2008 15:47, Eddy Nigg wrote: EV is clearly maximum No. EV is what I always expected all certs to be. It's really the minimum. The whole security hangs of a phone call. It has lots of loopholes. For me, anything less is rather pointless. DV: verify via http or plaintext mail -