4 ms·
I suspect the logic was something along the lines of "Symantec has acted in an untrustworthy manner (enough to get them distrusted by several major browser vend
by Ajedi32 9y ago
I suspect the logic was something along the lines of "Symantec has acted in an untrustworthy manner (enough to get them distrusted by several major browser vendors) therefore we consider all our customer's certificates that were issued by them to be untrustworthy ("compromised") and want them revoked."
Still doesn't explain why they thought that revoking 50k of their customers certificates with less than 24-hours notice would be a good idea though. That really just seems like shooting themselves in the foot.
- rando444 9y agoCan we take a step back even further? I can't figure out the logic that got this started: "These Private Keys are stored in cold storage, for the purpose of revocation." Like what? Why? Since when do you need a private key to revoke a certificate? I feel like I understand certificates really well, but .. am I missing something?
- xorcist 9y agoThose are Trustico's customer's certificates. The only way Symantec could have fraudulently issues those was if Trustico told them to or lied about who their customers were. There's no logic here to understand. I think the previous thread about Trustico had it right: Digicert bought all Symantec's customers but Trustico wants their customers to stay with them instead and wants Digicert to look untrustworthy. If none of this went pubilc and Digicert revoked all their certificates, Trustico could step in to save the day.