On Sunday, June 23, 2024 at 3:39:35 PM UTC-4 Zacharias Björngren wrote:

Missing the point
> As a global CA we must walk a tightrope in balancing the requirements of 
the root programs and subscriber needs, especially for critical 
infrastructure.

This is a very worrying sentence. It seems that both Entrust and many of 
their subscribers (even more worryingly subscribers responsible for 
critical infrastructure) completely misunderstand what the purpose of the 
requirements of the root programs are. These rules, requirements, 
guidelines, policies, &c are here to keep us safe. And I don't mean us as 
in relying parties, I mean us as in everyone. That there is a need to 
balance these requirements against the needs of Entrust subscribers makes 
me worry about what those subscribers are doing. Why are so many 
organizations running critical infrastructure not prioritizing following 
safety regulation?


We serve many of the world’s largest banks, governments, and enterprises 
and are confident that they do prioritize safety and compliance 
requirements from a wide variety of regulatory bodies. We are working with 
them to ensure they are clear on WebPKI compliance requirements moving 
forward.  If there are use cases in which a privately-rooted environment 
would be more suitable, we will have those discussions. 

Refusal to learn, bug 1890898

It's important to seize the opportunity to learn from your incidents. Why 
is Entrust so stubbornly clinging to their analysis in #1890898 that the 
certificates weren't miss-issued? 


 That is not the case. Please see 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1890898#c61 where this has 
been addressed. 

I don't understand this explanation, are senior leadership the ones making 
the decision to delay revocation or not revoke? 


 With the process changes described in our updated response, these 
decisions are now made through a cross-functional compliance review process 
with senior leadership. This will provide more proactive oversight.   

But those decisions are communicated to the community via Bugzilla, and is 
that not done through the business unit employees that have knowledge of 
the 2020 commitments? It's the same person posting: "We will not the make 
the decision not to revoke." in 1651481, that this year posted: "we decided 
to not revoke due to exceptional conditions listed in this report." in 
1890898. 


 Yes, the business unit employees who made the posts knew of our 2020 
commitments. They have been moved into our corporate compliance 
organization for increased communication and governance. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/af8ebd8d-a379-4244-bb64-fc3d3696e0e6n%40mozilla.org.

Reply via email to