Talk:Secure Electronic Transaction

Comments

A perfect example is driving schools - What's this supposed to mean? 71.56.90.213 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, no idea. — Matt Crypto 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy of external link

This Wikipedia article appears to be mostly an (unauthorized?) copy of one of the external links it gives, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/papers/Auth/SET-overview-2002.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbondi (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

This article should be renamed. The official name of the protocol is "SET Secure Electronic Transaction". SET was developed by Visa and MasterCard in cooperation with several technology companies. The resulting protocol was assigned to SET Secure Electronic Transaction LLC (more commonly known as SETCo -- note that the appropriate capitalization includes a capital 'C'). I have not reviewed the majority of the content of this article for accuracy. An archive of information about SET is available at http://www.exelana.com/set/home.html and a number of people who were active in the development of SET are members of the SET Developers group on Linked In http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=42527 Tony Lewis (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

This article violates several copyrights! Large portions of this page are directly quoted from textbooks like William Stallings Network Security Essentials 3rd Edition! ([anon]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.136.148 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

over explained

The merchant sends the customer his public key and a copy of his certificate - public key is a part of X.509 certificate, so this looks like an overkill. -- vf 93.72.24.225 (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

History section feels a bit emotionally charged

It reads like a lament by a mournful salesmen, pitching a long dead product. Its bitter and full of disappointment.

Like in

" If SET were used, the merchant itself would never have had to know the credit-card numbers being sent from the buyer, which would have provided verified good payment but protected customers and credit companies from fraud." (btw, someone had a stroke middle sentence while writing this )

You can just mention this feature without having to conjure this image of an alternative reality where SET was adopted and it was super awesome , this is the history section, the last place anyone wants to hear speculative tech-corporation fiction, specially when its clear the author is just indulging in their own weird fantasy, as evident by the lack of citations.

"Unfortunately, the implementation by each of the primary stakeholders was either expensive or cumbersome. "

Unfortunately? For who? Not for the people that profited of this venture failing , or for the vast majority of people that simply dont care about this, and wouldnt have benefited of it in any way. Making a truly neutral description about something is impossible, strong feelings get diluted but are still there in articles about tragedies for instance, no matter how subtle... But you should never explicitly state your emotional state, i dont want to have the image of the writter being sad hovering in my mind while i read an wikipedia article . Nilanz (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)