A better approach to security

["LarryD" <larry.haywood AT seventhfire.com>]

Geoffrey;
I did receive a post from one of the other members and they were in
agreement with me.
1 out of 50,000 or so is a start. :)

-----snip


-----Original Message-----
From: cacert-bounces AT lists.cacert.org
[mailto:cacert-bounces AT lists.cacert.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Reilly
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:58 AM
To: A better approach to security
Subject: Re: [CA cert] FW: assurance request


On 22/08/2004, at 12:48 AM, LarryD wrote:
> I may be nitpicking here but seems to me there's a pretty good reason
> for
> having the rules. And I guess I would have hoped any one requesting to
> become an assurer would be required to hit the mark completely.
>

Larry,

I completely agree with you. Once I finish the document I am currently 
working on, I'll be going over the assurance rules/policy and make some 
recommendations. If you have anything you'd like to add/make note of 
for this document, either mail me, or post it to the list. The same 
goes for anyone else wanting to have any input.

Regards,

Nathan
------snip

I would recommend since you are willing to offer your drivers license as
identification, that you send email to support AT cacert.org, and request to
have your national ID changed to your state drivers license. If that is
done there's enough of us around here we can get you the 150 points your
looking for.

Respectively

Larry Haywood


> -----Original Message-----
> From: geoffrey AT ticom.com [mailto:geoffrey AT ticom.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:15 AM
> To: LarryD
> Subject: Re: assurance request
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:08:10AM -0600, thus spake LarryD:
> 
> > > Anyway, what I said there is that the badge in question is a
> > > Government issued ID card. It was issued by the United States 
> > > National Reconnaissance Office. See:
> > According to what I was able to determine, the badge does 
> not indicate 
> > that it was issued by oneone other then ticom.com
> 
> Okay, like all Intel Community badges it's pretty generic on 
> the face (purposefully), but it does have a "If Found Please 
> Return To" address that is a Northern Virginia P.O. Box - not 
> that this will be of any help to you. Perhaps we should just 
> give up on this. I understand your hesitation. I will be in 
> Virginia next week and have plans to meet with several 
> assurers up there - they will most definitely recognize the 
> badge issuer for who they are so perhaps this is the easier 
> route for me to take.
> 
> > > However, I do use my Texas driver's license as a second form
> > > of identification. So, things should work just fine.
> > Yes, I understand, however your driver's license was not 
> the id that 
> > was used to join Cacert with, there in is the problem for me.
> 
> Okay, I thought the idea was to definitively assert my 
> identity, which, I feel the second form of more familiar 
> (State of Texas driver's
> license) government-issued identification does. Since it corroborates 
> the information present on the first government-issued form of 
> identification registered with cacert.org. I can also provide 
> you with 
> my Social Security card, but I prefer to not have that stored in the 
> cacert assurers databases for obvious reasons.
> 
> > I'm not able to go forward with the assurance
> > request until I hear from a board member indicating I'm in 
> error. Sorry
> > I'll investagate this some more.
> 
> As I said, I understand your hesitation. I didn't think about 
> how much 
> of an unknown quantity my Govt. badges are down here as opposed to 
> Northern VA where they are ubiquitous - sort of like Dell badges down 
> here - so everyone recognizes them and can pick out the individual 
> agencies just by noting badge design and coloring. Anyway, thanks for 
> your time.
> 
> geoffrey
> -- 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  
> This space intentionally
> left non-blank
>  
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature