3 ms·
You keep making it out like they suspended individual certs. That would have been bad enough but it isn't what happened. They revoked all certs including those
by jqm 11y ago
You keep making it out like they suspended individual certs. That would have been bad enough but it isn't what happened. They revoked all certs including those they had previously sold (with certain implied expectations) to people (such as myself) who were not engaged in any illicit activity. They didn't even inform me before hand and I only found out when clients were unable to conduct their business through my app. I actually had to track the source of the problem down... because they were too lazy to inform me after being too lazy to only suspend offending certs in the first place and inconsiderate enough of their commitments and my business to honer the certs for the period they had taken money for rather than simply declining to further sell certs for this TLD. It caused me a good deal of hassle. Not enough of a hassle to sue, that isn't an option, but what they did is quite egregious and is, at very minimum laziness and bad business and up a level unethical and borderline scummy. They might, by some twisted definition, have a legal "right" to do this but they are still assholes and people should probably refrain from doing business with them.
- ikeboy 11y agoWhen I say "this", I mean what I asked above: "If a site is blatantly criminal, should a CA revoke its cert?" That is the question I am debating. I agree that what was actually done is wrong. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10183619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10183619, my previous response along these lines.