3 ms·

Making use of tax "loopholes" isn't even in the same universe as selling this kind of BS security snake oil and malware.

dcow 4y ago
Which isn't related in any material legal way to TrustCor CA, as has been explained already.
- zchrykng 4y ago
  The security BS was being sold by a sibling company, heck, the person responding is a high up in both companies. And there is a lot of evidence of them being connected to the malware vendor. If they can't rebut those concerns/connections in a clear and convincing way, they have no business being a CA. If you are satisfied with the answers, more power to you, but I honestly don't know how you could be after reading through those emails.
  - dcow 4y ago
    It's frustrating because you're just repeating the same drivel other people who don't have the situation straight are. Nobody related to TrustCor CA is connected to a malware company. That's factually incorrect. They are connected to an email privacy company which offers E2EE email but which, for product reasons, doesn't enable it as the default when you create a new account. The alleged malware company and the email company were historically related when they were born because they shared an investor. But that is no longer the case.
    - KingOfCoders 4y ago
      TrustCor had the source code of the spyware that no-one else had and used it in it's product.
    - zchrykng 4y ago
      No, the person asserted that they aren't connected, and then offered lots of words about how they aren't connected, without actual good explanations as to why we should believe that assertion. So, what you are saying is that they just happened to have the same investor, the malicious developer that they say worked for them just happened to include malware from that company (Unobfuscated, unlike every other example available), said developer was able to route traffic through the company domains, just happened to have identical corporate officers, and just happened to be related to a company that brags about being able to bypass SSL? Let's just say that there is enough there they better have a very clear explanation about it, and instead they just deflecting deflecting deflecting or refusing to answer. I'm sorry it is bad for their business (assuming they actually are innocent of all this), but that is not an appropriate response for a CA when someone is asking legitimate questions based on legitimate suspicion from what would have to the world's worst series of coincidences.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  Whenever you push that false TrustCor narrative, I will answer with the question that has not been answered: Why did TrustCor have the source code of the spy ware no-one had?

dcow 4y ago

Which isn't related in any material legal way to TrustCor CA, as has been explained already.

zchrykng 4y ago
The security BS was being sold by a sibling company, heck, the person responding is a high up in both companies. And there is a lot of evidence of them being connected to the malware vendor. If they can't rebut those concerns/connections in a clear and convincing way, they have no business being a CA. If you are satisfied with the answers, more power to you, but I honestly don't know how you could be after reading through those emails.
- dcow 4y ago
  It's frustrating because you're just repeating the same drivel other people who don't have the situation straight are. Nobody related to TrustCor CA is connected to a malware company. That's factually incorrect. They are connected to an email privacy company which offers E2EE email but which, for product reasons, doesn't enable it as the default when you create a new account. The alleged malware company and the email company were historically related when they were born because they shared an investor. But that is no longer the case.
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    TrustCor had the source code of the spyware that no-one else had and used it in it's product.
  - zchrykng 4y ago
    No, the person asserted that they aren't connected, and then offered lots of words about how they aren't connected, without actual good explanations as to why we should believe that assertion. So, what you are saying is that they just happened to have the same investor, the malicious developer that they say worked for them just happened to include malware from that company (Unobfuscated, unlike every other example available), said developer was able to route traffic through the company domains, just happened to have identical corporate officers, and just happened to be related to a company that brags about being able to bypass SSL? Let's just say that there is enough there they better have a very clear explanation about it, and instead they just deflecting deflecting deflecting or refusing to answer. I'm sorry it is bad for their business (assuming they actually are innocent of all this), but that is not an appropriate response for a CA when someone is asking legitimate questions based on legitimate suspicion from what would have to the world's worst series of coincidences.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
Whenever you push that false TrustCor narrative, I will answer with the question that has not been answered: Why did TrustCor have the source code of the spy ware no-one had?