On 04/25/2014 08:50 PM, Jan Lühr wrote:
What's your argument here? Is "crying foul" "Unjustified", because
nobody "cried foul" the moment you published your policies?
It's unjustified if as a subscriber you are not willing to accept the
terms and conditions of that service, e.g. you want to accept the
convenient part of it but not commit to your obligations.
Please consider: Heartbleed-scale problems have hardly happened before.
True - the closest would be probably the Debian weak keys.
I'ven't considered any mass-key-compromise scenarios before
I did - I learned from the Debian weak keys a lot.
Personally, I am "crying foul" because I'm re-thinking your policies
having heartbleed in mind.
You can't really rethink our policies, this is something we might have
to do at some point. You can either agree or disagree with them though.
Personally, I vote no. StartSSL is not revoking certificates assumed to
be compromised, if a subscriber doesn't pay.
You are expecting to receive all benefits without taking responsibility
for your part? Or lets put it like this:
As you stated before, how likely is it that such an event like this one
occurs? It might have never happened and in fact some 83% are not
affected (world-wide), which means that they will happily keep obtaining
certificates without ever paying a dime. Would you have used a different
software, you could be easily one of those 83% too.
Now, exactly because of this and other scenarios, where revocation of a
certificate is necessary or is requested for any other reason by the
subscriber and it's not due to a failure of the CA we decided to charge
a fee in order to protect us from losses. Otherwise the current business
model would probably not work...and I'm not even talking about easy
abuse that's possible with the current model without raising a fee.
-> You say it is small / low by describing the circumstances under which
it happens and causes an impact.
Currently the facts show that StartCom's revocation numbers are not
lower, in fact a bit above average. And here some more interesting
facts:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/04/25/heartbleed-why-arent-certificates-being-revoked.html
--
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO
StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
XMPP: [email protected] <xmpp:[email protected]>
Blog: Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Twitter: Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg>
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
