3 ms·

after their heartbleed extortions they really deserve nothing less (and yes, I was a paying customer)

• dspillett 10y ago
  While their current/recent behaviours that are being discussed are deplorable, I don't think the heartbleed thing is as morally corrupt as many people affected make out. Their rules always clearly stated the cost of replacement certificates and that this would only be waived if the replacement was needed due to their fault. As heartbleed was not a problem they caused they were well within their agreements with the customers to charge for revoking and resigning certificates. They missed a chance at earning "good faith points" but they presumably didn't value that over the income from resigned certificates. They are a commercial body afterall. Lets not dilute the discussion of cases where they appear to have been deliberately fraudulent by mixing in a past occurrence of them simply being uncaring.
  • joepie91_ 10y ago
    Oh come on, I get really tired of this "well, that's what the agreement said". Revocation is a critical part of a well-functioning CA system, and charging for revocations of free certificates actively puts that at risk, because it disincentivizes people from revoking potentially-compromised certificates - that is why it's morally corrupt. > They are a commercial body afterall. That's their problem, and putting the CA system at risk because "well, we have to make money somehow" is not even remotely acceptable.