3 ms·
> but it's hard to see any way that could be productively addressed given the back and forth in the thread Another commenter mentioned in a sibling thread the
by joshuaissac 2y ago
> but it's hard to see any way that could be productively addressed given the back and forth in the thread
Another commenter mentioned in a sibling thread the possibility of using future-dated revocations. The CA could be mandated to publish such a revocation immediately, such that it takes effect by the 24-hour deadline. Once published, the revocations themselves should be irrevocable. This would also need to be accounted for in the CA's customer contracts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43169867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43169867
- akerl_ 2y agoAs the comment you linked to notes, that doesn't really fix the problem so much as it ensures that the CA's legal team gets to work nights and weekends for the next year. The legal system is almost certainly going to view future-dating and immediately publishing revocations poorly in any civil action where a customer claims harm.
- account42 2y agoIt fixes the problem of a customer getting an injunction despite what the contract says. If DigiCert doesn't want to be liable for harm they should improve their performance, no try to weasel their way out of the agreements that let their business exist in the first place.