Timeline for Security of asymmetrical decrypting proxy
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://security.stackexchange.com/ with https://security.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 6, 2012 at 17:56 | comment | added | D.W. | @deadbeef, if I understand your proxy proposal, I think your proxy proposal is pretty close to what I was proposing. Either would work; they seem pretty similar in security properties to me, though maybe you can see some implications that I've missed. I think you'd be fine to go with whichever one appeals to you more. | |
| Jun 6, 2012 at 17:24 | comment | added | deadbeef | Agree with the Karate Kid's master, unfortunately that's not an option. As to the second part - isn't my solution better since the secure part (proxy) is much simpler that the service you are proposing? The simpler it is, the easier it will be to secure it and there won't be need to update it as frequently as the security API you're proposing (since it's more complicated and depends on a communications scheme with 3rd party). | |
| Jun 6, 2012 at 4:30 | history | edited | D.W. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| Jun 6, 2012 at 4:20 | history | answered | D.W. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |