<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Security &#038; Digital Certificates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/security-digital-certificates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/security-digital-certificates/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 09:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ajay42usa</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/security-digital-certificates/#comment-40934</link>
		<dc:creator>ajay42usa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-40934</guid>
		<description>It is always advisable to have any critical server as a standalone server from the security standpoint. This server is going to have the certificate details and information related with keys and you surely don't want to share this system with some other function. By having it as a standalone system, you could restrict access for only those administrators who support with your PKI infrastructure while locking everyone out.

-Ajay</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is always advisable to have any critical server as a standalone server from the security standpoint. This server is going to have the certificate details and information related with keys and you surely don&#8217;t want to share this system with some other function. By having it as a standalone system, you could restrict access for only those administrators who support with your PKI infrastructure while locking everyone out.</p>
<p>-Ajay</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- dynamic -->
