4 ms·
You could say that about any large browser vendor, and I seem to remember there having been a 'free' CA (OpenCA? FreeCA?) in the late 2000s, early 2010s which l
by DocTomoe 1y ago
You could say that about any large browser vendor, and I seem to remember there having been a 'free' CA (OpenCA? FreeCA?) in the late 2000s, early 2010s which lost Firefox support over something small as well.
The truth is - the whole infrastructure depends on trust. And of one vendor of a major browser decides to no longer trust a CA, for whatever reason, the CA becomes essentially worthless overnight.
Yes, people theoretically can install their own Root certificates. No, 99,99% of internet users won't.
- WorldPeas 1y agoThe problem here is conflict of interest, Google is very interested in maintaining the GMail monopoly, that is likely the #1 reason people have google accounts. Correct me if I'm wrong but no other vendors save for edge(MS) and safari(Apple) own a mail service, a browser should be an impartial connection to an open ecosystem, and especially in Apple or MSIE's case we can see how this can be severely abused.
- DocTomoe 1y agoNo, I'm with you. this clearly is just another sneaky move by one of the big guys. Browsers should be impartial. And, - personally - I think CA management should be OS-level, not browser-level, though that only moves the problem to another potential abuser. In the end, the whole trust-based encryption of http concept is inheriently faulty and abusable. Doesn't mean there is not the problem of 'trust' not being enforceable.