So, if the masses finally decide that we "need" SSL, who's paying for the security certificate? Or would we have to plan to run without a properly signed cert?
Of course, the certifiacte would have to be "owned" by someone. Who's name is going to be on the certificate? Bomis'? That wouldn't make sense, since we'd have to get a new one when the non-profit is set up.
Whether SSL is a good idea in this situation isn't the issue. Setting it up properly involves getting some other things done first. IMHO, Moving forward on SSL at this point would be slightly premature.
Jason
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 01:38:19PM -0600, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
(Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com):
If we really want to be serious about security we'll have to use ssl for login, but I don't know how to do that.
That's entirely too paranoid. Frankly, I don't see much need for high security of Wikipedia logins. It's not like we're storing medical records. (Oh my God! My neighbor might find out that I like the "Nostalgia" skin!) The only real risk is that someone might log in as me and make edits in my name, but then I'd just disavow them and change my password.
We should make it an option to login via SSL at least for sysops. It's pretty dangerous to send sysop passwords unencrypted. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l