I strongly disagree. The discussion around errors like these masks the bigger issues in the noise. If there are bigger issues, let's find those.
-----Original Message----- From: dev-security-policy [mailto:email@example.com .org] On Behalf Of David E. Ross via dev-security-policy Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:35 PM To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org Subject: Re: Certificates with metadata-only subject fields On 8/9/2017 2:54 PM, Jonathan Rudenberg wrote: > >> On Aug 9, 2017, at 17:50, Peter Bowen <pzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The point of certlint was to help identify issues. While I >> appreciate it getting broad usage, I don't think pushing for >> revocation of every certificate that trips any of the Error level checks is productive. > > I agree, and I don't really have a position on the revocation of certificates with errors that do not appear to have any security impact like these. > > Jonathan > > I strongly disagree. Errors like this make me question whether the certification authority is sufficiently competent to be trusted. Small errors can indicate an increased likelihood of serious errors. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> President Trump demands loyalty to himself from Republican members of Congress. I always thought that members of Congress -- House and Senate -- were required to be loyal to the people of the United States. In any case, they all swore an oath of office to be loyal to the Constitution. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list email@example.com https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy