3 ms·
But isn't this exactly a high cost situation? Send a loud and clear message that CAs are entrusted with an enormous level of trust, and they damn well better ma
by mseebach 14y ago
But isn't this exactly a high cost situation? Send a loud and clear message that CAs are entrusted with an enormous level of trust, and they damn well better make sure that their procedures are water tight, at the risk of losing their business overnight.
- MichaelGG 14y agoPunishing CAs is a laudable goal, but just immediately revoking a CA will result in worse security. If TURKTRUST is immediately revoked, then all existing sites using it are toast, despite them not being compromised. That just tells users that SSL errors are not to be trusted, that you should just click through. Hopefully, they remove TURKTRUST from signing future certificates. That way existing customers continue to work, but they can't do more damage, and the lesson is taught. Although, I don't think that's built-in to the cert system, it'd be a decent addition.
- mseebach 14y agoThey could give them one month or even three months so their client have time to get their certs replaced, that's not terribly important. But in a broader sense, yes, they were compromised - they had an entity vouch for them that apparently vouched with a blank cheque.
- krickle 14y agoIf the CA issues certs like that they actually are compromised.
- ajross 14y agoMaybe "cost" is the wrong metric to argue about. My point was that we have a situation where a bad cert was issued, and the correct treatment for it, barring special circumstance, is to use the process designed to revoke bad certs.