4 ms·
To me it was really bold of them to take the tone and stance that they did with regard to these large organizations. They're making the case as to why Google n
by mdip 10y ago
To me it was really bold of them to take the tone and stance that they did with regard to these large organizations. They're making the case as to why Google needed to do what it did ... all of these large organizations that will be severely impacted by having to replace all of these certificates are relying on a CA that has shown itself to not be worthy of the trust that CAs are relied upon to provide.
I'm at a loss for a good analogy so I'll pick a lousy one: it'd be like if Samsung's response to the exploding Note 7 recall mandate were "Don't do this -- you're going to keep some of the biggest customers -- users of our phones -- from being able to make emergency calls/check their e-mail/respond to texts" ...yeah, but I'm still not OK with the small possibility that carrying my phone in my front pocket might result in third-degree genital burns.
- skuhn 10y agoAs it happens, your hypothetical situation was exactly what did transpire: Samsung wanted to remotely deactivate the phones, but Verizon refused on those grounds. http://bgr.com/2016/12/09/galaxy-note-7-recall-verizon-samsung/ http://bgr.com/2016/12/09/galaxy-note-7-recall-verizon-samsu...
- mdip 10y ago... and here I thought comparing security to burning genitals might have been too much of a farce, but that takes the cake, there. :o)