Re: S2ML, Thin PKI and SPKI

[Olaf Kirch <okir@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 03:42:05PM +0200, Camillo Särs wrote:
> I wasn't really focusing on that, but rather on the risk model.  Any model
> that allows almost arbitrary "contracts" to be signed without discretion
> are just too risky for real-life implementation.

I've started becoming interested in X.509 stuff only quite recently, but
all standards/drafts/etc I've read so far failed to mention the risk of
client platform compromise. This had me baffled quite a bit. The threat
is nothing new (see Kerberos' TGTs), so does this mean that e.g. PKIX
certificates are never supposed to be used on ordinary PCs?

Olaf
-- 
Olaf Kirch         |  --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
okir@monad.swb.de  |    / | \   sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
okir@caldera.de    +-------------------- Why Not?! -----------------------
         UNIX, n.: Spanish manufacturer of fire extinguishers.