[cryptography] not trusted
iang at iang.org
Mon Nov 22 19:27:22 EST 2010
On 21/11/10 11:19 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Ian G<iang at iang.org> writes:
>> It sucks so badly, I decided in future that the only moral and ethical way
>> one could use the words encryption or security or the like in any
>> conversation was if the following were the case:
>> there is only one mode, and it is secure.
> Something similar was done by the CORBA folks, they banned the use of the word
> "trusted" unless it was accompanied by an explanation in the form of "by whom"
> and "for what".
Ha, yes we do that at CAcert - the word "trust" is not used, and not to
We do assurance and reliance and verification and things like that, but
that word is more or less banned.
There are a couple of terms that still include it (TTP and WoT). I've
mused on whether we can change those, but I can't see an easy way.
> Having their magic pixie dust taken away like this reportedly caused severe
> problems for some of the people involved...
It causes occasional rumptions when people come in looking for the
product they wanted to buy. "You're a CA, sell me some trust!" But
after it is explained to them that this is impossible, and we do
something different but similar, they are generally happy. Not all
people, but most people.
More information about the cryptography