tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8453126.post5701478638791476635..comments2008-12-19T11:29:36.231-08:00Sean Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05628006595925427776noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8453126.post-52022032239632593332008-12-19T11:29:00.000-08:002008-12-19T11:29:00.000-08:00This section explained the concept of certificates very clearly... and ofcourse about the SBS 2008 part... Thank you :)<BR/><BR/>DollySaanjhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01029759713911197424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8453126.post-84755445638180469002008-07-16T10:21:00.000-07:002008-07-16T10:21:00.000-07:00Pretty close Chris, Self-Signed is a weird name, because all certificates are signed by yourself. Like a bank check, it's self-signed, if it's not signed by yourself, it's not valid. So you're really issuing a self-signed check, so the check is self-issued, same as the certificateSean Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05628006595925427776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8453126.post-1892969570509446962008-07-13T05:10:00.000-07:002008-07-13T05:10:00.000-07:00OK, I'll bite.<BR/><BR/>A root certificate (such as the SBS 2003 one) is unable to be signed by another certificate higher in the certificate chain as it is at the root of the chain. This certificate is said to be self-signed (its legitimacy has been "signed off" by the creator).<BR/><BR/>The leaf certificate created by the SBS 2008 wizard has been created by using the root certificate as a Certificate Authority to sign the leaf certificate. That is, the root certificate was used to sign the leaf certificate. This means that the leaf certificate has been self-issued, but not self signed (as it isn't a root certificate).<BR/><BR/>I've explained this clumsily though :-(Chris Knighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11725668205462749500noreply@blogger.com