| 1 |
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:15:17 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > This seems like a very obvious and easy utility to provide, I'm just |
| 7 |
> > surprised I don't know of any such service. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As was pointed out, some CAs might offer these kinds of services, but |
| 11 |
> I don't think any of the standard classes really apply to rigorous |
| 12 |
> identify verification of individuals (just organizations). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> A notary public is probably the more traditional route. I believe you |
| 15 |
> can give somebody a template document that basically includes a |
| 16 |
> statement by a notary that somebody has appeared in person showing |
| 17 |
> proof of identity for the information contained in the statement. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Of course, that then leaves you with having to verify the authenticity |
| 20 |
> of the notary seal/etc, and it will tend to involve sending around |
| 21 |
> physical documents unless you just want a scan (which isn't ideal from |
| 22 |
> an authentication standpoint). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Wasn't it the notary route that caused CAcert never to be widely |
| 25 |
accepted as a CA? I think they removed that when they started |
| 26 |
the auditing process. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Michał Górny |
| 31 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives