3 ms·
66 days later google.com.mg is still owned by not-Google, not revoked, and not on any 'safe browsing' warning lists. So? Why would a website be in safe browsin
by dchest 11y ago
66 days later google.com.mg is still owned by not-Google, not revoked, and not on any 'safe browsing' warning lists.
So? Why would a website be in safe browsing warning lists if it doesn't do anything malicious? Does Google own a trademark in Madagascar? If so, they probably can take down this domain by asking NIC-MG. If not, then, unless this website is used for phishing, I don't see any problems with issuing a certificate.
(It's interesting how companies selling certificates switched to scare tactics after Let's Encrypt made DV certs free.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- nailer 11y ago> Why would a website be in safe browsing warning lists if it doesn't do anything malicious? Some of the previous arguments in favour of DV have said that safe browsing lists will catch misissuance. Whether DV certs are $10 or $0 doesn't make a huge difference: they don't check identity.
- dchest 11y agoSome of the previous arguments in favour of DV have said that safe browsing lists will catch misissuance. Yes, so what is this website doing that warrants this measure? There was no misissuance.