[cryptography] SSL is not "broken by design"

M.R. makrober at gmail.com
Sun Sep 18 06:02:09 EDT 2011


On 18/09/11 08:59, James A. Donald wrote:

> If we acknowledge that SSL is not secure, then need
> something that is secure.

Nothing is either "secure", or "not secure". Any engineering
system is either secure for the purpose it was designed for,
or it is not. SSL is secure, since it is secure for the
purpose it was designed and implemented for.

Mark R.




More information about the cryptography mailing list