> Maybe because the removal wasn't proposed at that time? Now there is a
> proposal to remove something that has no working (not even standardized)
> successor. Also, people using this stuff are really far away from W3C.
Firefox had a competitive advantage in supporting this.
It would have been w
Am 27.06.2014 18:32, schrieb Brian Smith:
> However, I think that is a good idea anyway, because Firefox (and
> Thunderbird) should be using the native OS for client certificates and
> S/MIME certificates anyway.
Additionally or exclusive?
When I think of using smartcard-based client certificates
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
Hi
> The issue is that the WebCrypto API uses a totally separate keystore from
> the X.509 client certificate keystore (if it doesn't, it should be), and
> the stuff that Red Hat does is about client certificates. AFAICT, WebCrypto
> doesn't
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:19 AM, David Keeler wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 07:37 AM, Nathan Kinder wrote:
> > On 06/27/2014 12:13 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
> >> To be frank, I have only ever seen the non-standard crypto functions
> >> used in attacks, rather than in purposeful use.
> >
> > That doesn't
On 06/27/2014 07:37 AM, Nathan Kinder wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 12:13 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
>> To be frank, I have only ever seen the non-standard crypto functions
>> used in attacks, rather than in purposeful use.
>
> That doesn't mean that aren't being purposefully used. The current
> crypto f
On 06/27/2014 05:11 AM, Jürgen Brauckmann wrote:
> David Keeler schrieb:
>> Meanwhile, we are making progress on implementing the webcrypto
>> specification[3]. When complete, webcrypto should provide compatible
>> functionality for what these functions are currently being used to do.
>> Any functi
On 06/27/2014 12:13 AM, Frederik Braun wrote:
> To be frank, I have only ever seen the non-standard crypto functions
> used in attacks, rather than in purposeful use.
That doesn't mean that aren't being purposefully used. The current
crypto functions are used pretty heavily by Dogtag Certificat
David Keeler schrieb:
> Meanwhile, we are making progress on implementing the webcrypto
> specification[3]. When complete, webcrypto should provide compatible
> functionality for what these functions are currently being used to do.
> Any functionality not implementable using webcrypto is available
To be frank, I have only ever seen the non-standard crypto functions
used in attacks, rather than in purposeful use.
+1 to unimplement.
On 26.06.2014 22:40, David Keeler wrote:
> [dev.platform cc'd for visibility - please follow-up to dev.tech.crypto]
>
> Summary:
> We intend to remove the propr
Yes, please! With WebCrypto being implemented, there is very little
reason for us to keep these functions around. I have heard that there
are some enterprise applications that use these APIs and hopefully they
will have enough time to migrate away from using them by the time that
we ship Fire
10 matches
Mail list logo
