[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Polit. Kontrolle und Krypto-Probleme

Forward zur Kryptoentwicklung.
pluto@pizzaservice.de kuemmert sich um den https-Kram
auf http://www.ccc.de; der weiss, was er schreibt.

Wer was wichtiges kommentiert, bitte cc an ihn;
ansonsten fasse ich das fuer ihn zusammen.


>Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:03:42 +0200 (CEST)
>From: Pluto <pluto@pizzaservice.de>
>X-Sender: pluto@hellraiser.mindstar.bogus
>To: intern@ccc.de
>cc: Stefan Hinz <stevenh@berlin.snafu.de>
>Subject: Fw: I-Sales Digest #690 - John Audette (fwd)
>X-Blah: What shall we do with the drunken header
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>  Salve allerseits,
>  anhaengend ein Forward von einer eCommerce ML.
>  Was Mike ueber SSL und M$ schreibt kann ich nur bestaetigen. M$ hat im
>letzten Jahr eine menge krypto Programmierer eingestellt und die neue
>Version kann anscheinend kein / kaum SSL. Zumindest nicht mit freier
>Software als Server. Das belegen Mails auf ssl-users, der Heimat von
>SSLeay, auf apache-ssl, der Heimat des Apache SSL patches und die Mails,
>die ich wegen des https redirect bekomme.
>  Wenn es auch nur halb war sein sollte, ist das, was Mike schreibt, nicht
>nur fuer eCommerce beangstigend, sondern fur jeden der hofft das www
>wuerde mit freien Standards und freier Software ueberleben. Denn wer sagen
>wir 90% der Browser stellt, braucht sich um w3 org nicht mehr zu scheren.
>  Zusammen mit der anti Java / JavaScript Kampagne von M$ und dem
>agressiven Krieg gegen Netscape gibt das ein rundes aber deprimierendes
>Bild von dem was sich in 2 Jahren ueber http abspielen wird.
>  Die Hoffnung ist, dass der Netscape 4.5 einiges an Marktmacht behaelt,
>allerdings meldet er seit dieser Version alle Bewegungen des Users an die
>Zentrale, dazu naechste Woche seperate Post.
>  Wenn Gates weiterhin mit solchen Methoden faschistoide
>Allmachtsphantasien auf Kosten unserer Freiheit auslebt, bin ich dafuer
>alle Sites gegen IEs zu sperren. Also umleiten auf eine Seite mit
>Erklaerungen und Vorschlaegen, welche Browser es noch so gibt.
>  Boykottiert M$, denn sonst wird es bald nichtmehr darum gehen, wie man
>zu M$, sondern darum wie man zu seiner Freiheit steht. Sofern man Internet
>benutzen moechte.
>  betroffene Gruesse
>  Pluto  -  SysAdmin of Hades
>  We are NSA, your mail will be scrutinzed, resistance is futile! =:-)
>  Key fingerprint: 1F 3F EA 94 D0 56 A6 86  4D 19 C4 56 6C F9 43 44
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>// -- FEATURED POST -- //
>From: Mike mailto:mike@icorp.net
>Subject: Microsoft's E-commerce Invasion (and the real threat)
>[ Editor's note: This post originally ran in I-Advertising. I thought it
>  raised some interesting points that would be of interest to I-Salers
>  so I asked Mike if we could also post it here.  JA ]
>I'd like to comment on Mary Ihla's letter regarding, "Microsoft
>plans to take over e-commerce":
>I read the Ziff-Davis article. The "4-step" plan outlined is not
>what concerns me - what is being discussed in the article is an
>up-front, legitimate attempt to compete online for consumers by
>Microsoft.  Granted, Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace and
>ability to control large amounts of traffic poses a potential
>problem for other merchants, but the article does not detail the
>REAL SERIOUS threat Microsoft poses in the E-Commerce industry.
>If Microsoft wants to showcase merchandisers and leverage traffic
>to generate E-Commerce, I have no problem with that. What I have a
>problem with is Microsoft's attempt to define HOW merchants online
>can conduct E-Commerce. This is a very real, very serious situation
>that even non-merchants need to be concerned about. The end result
>will be everyone in the industry having to pay Microsoft before
>they can do business online. This is not idle speculation - it's
>obvious this is Microsoft's plan. I'll explain:
>There are two elements to this threat: 1. WebTV and 2. IE being
>bundled with Windows and MS's continued attempt to dominate the
>browser market.
>I suspect that if Microsoft attains the browser market share (and
>has no substantive competition), you'll suddenly see some sweeping
>changes in the Internet user interface. Microsoft's attempt to
>merge the browser with their OS is part of the plan. To see the
>direction in which they intend to go, one has to look no farther
>than another one of Microsoft's ventures: WebTV.
>One of the interesting things about the WebTV browser is that it
>tells Internet sites that it is Microsoft Internet Explorer,
>however, it refuses to connect in SSL mode (at least all the
>versions I've worked with). As a developer of Shopping Cart
>applications, I've had to program around the misleading claims of
>WebTV, but cannot offer consumers the necessary security with this
>MS product even though the technology is available - but
>deliberately crippled.  Effectively, WebTV users cannot engage in
>secured transactions with most sites.
>Instead, Microsoft and Phillips have decided to embed a credit card
>reader into the terminal. So consumers will be able to make secured
>purchases, HOWEVER only with sites that have been authorized by
>Microsoft to exploit the technology they've built into their set
>top boxes. What does this mean? If WebTV becomes the dominant
>network computer, you won't be able to conduct secure transactions
>with any of this market without paying a fee to Microsoft or
>whomever MS decides will rule over ECommerce.
>The same thing goes for regular browsers. I predict, that if MSIE
>5.0 takes market share away from Netscape, you'll see a very
>interesting version of MSIE 6, which suddenly contains all sorts of
>proprietary E-commerce abilities that require authorization from
>Microsoft and itsallies before you can use them. In this manner, it
>doesn't matter whether Microsoft controls traffic. If MS controls
>the E-commerce technology, then they'll get a piece of all commerce
>transacted on the Internet regardless of whether the shop is theirs!
>The hoopla about IE being bundled with Windows 98 may seem like
>"sour grapes" perpetrated by companies such as Oracle, Netscape and
>Sun, but there will be some very real averse affects if Microsoft
>is not kept in check. I don't think anybody would deny that
>Microsoft has no reservations about dominating any market. Nor
>would anyone deny that MS has a tendency of perverting established
>public standards to thwart competition. They WILL try to control
>E-commerce technology, and if this happens, every merchant will be
>forced to do E-commerce the "Microsoft way" or they won't be able
>to conduct business with most of the Internet.
>Microsoft is already pushing proprietary SET technology; they're
>already trying to one-up Java with Active X. What happens when they
>put Netscape out of business? Do you think any further development
>on public standards will continue? Do you think Microsoft will
>chose not to exploit their dominance by exacting a licensing fee
>from anyone using their systems?
>People need to realize that there's more at stake here than the
>stability of Netscape, or competition in the browser market. If any
>one company controls the user interface to the Internet, we will
>end up having to cater to their way of conducting business online,
>and that will put all the small companies out of business.
>Mike Perry
>President & CEO
>InterCommerce Corporation