From kde-core-devel  Wed Feb 03 11:41:03 2010
From: Alex Merry <kde () randomguy3 ! me ! uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:41:03 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Using system SSL certificates...
Message-Id: <201002031141.16124.kde () randomguy3 ! me ! uk>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=126519722214577
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart84355445.F2xa0Zn0Vq"

--nextPart84355445.F2xa0Zn0Vq
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday 03 February 2010 05:52:26 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The question is: why? Why doesn't Firefox carry VeriSign and Thawte
> certificates?

Well, the file you linked to on the mozilla servers lists three Thawte=20
certificates and three VeriSign certificates.  But if I look at the=20
Authorities section of Firefox's Certificate Manager there are a bunch more=
=20
from each authority listed as "Builtin Object Token" (which I assume means=
=20
that they were compiled in).

This is on Arch Linux.  The only modifications I can see to certificates vi=
a=20
patches is the addition of cacerts.org certificates to the nss libraries.

So are Qt's extra certificates ones that (for some reason) aren't pulled ou=
t=20
of the Mozilla XML file properly, ones that aren't in the XML file but are =
in=20
=46irefox (in which case, where do they come from?) or ones that aren't in=
=20
=46irefox at all?

Alex



=2D-=20
Why have I got six monitors?  Because I haven't got room for eight.
  -- Terry Pratchett

--nextPart84355445.F2xa0Zn0Vq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAktpYM8ACgkQBRauKLutZ9Bv6QCgw+FAD/jBaPHs8k7IkskUSMwT
BEUAniBLC4XEa6HRezixPk7Co1DMUMuu
=lk4L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart84355445.F2xa0Zn0Vq--