On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Kathleen Wilson
wrote:
> On 3/30/16 1:53 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
>
>> I think a required move away from SHA1 client certs requires a bit more
>> planning.
>>
>> 1) There hasn't been a formal deprecation of all SHA-1 certificates in
>> any
On 3/30/16 1:53 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
I think a required move away from SHA1 client certs requires a bit more
planning.
1) There hasn't been a formal deprecation of all SHA-1 certificates in any root
store policy. There has been a formal deprecation by the CAB Forum of SHA1
server
On 30/03/2016 22:53, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
I think a required move away from SHA1 client certs requires a bit more
planning.
1) There hasn't been a formal deprecation of all SHA-1 certificates in any root
store policy. There has been a formal deprecation by the CAB Forum of SHA1
server
I think a required move away from SHA1 client certs requires a bit more
planning.
1) There hasn't been a formal deprecation of all SHA-1 certificates in any root
store policy. There has been a formal deprecation by the CAB Forum of SHA1
server certificates. Considering many of the client cert
On 30/03/2016 18:49, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
All,
In response to the 'March 2016 CA Communication' I received the
following question from a CA. I think we should discuss it here, because
I suspect there will be other CAs in this same situation.
> We have a problem since we still issue SHA-1
I am, indeed, receiving this question from multiple CAs.
As for responding to the survey, note that Action #1a and Action #1b ask for
dates regarding SHA-1 SSL certs (unless their included root certs do not have
the Websites trust bit set).
"ACTION #1a: ... Please enter the last date that a
All,
In response to the 'March 2016 CA Communication' I received the
following question from a CA. I think we should discuss it here, because
I suspect there will be other CAs in this same situation.
> We have a problem since we still issue SHA-1 S/MIME
> certificates. Do we really have to
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 4:36:44 AM UTC+3, Andrew Whalley wrote:
> Hello Jesus,
>
> Great points!
>
> > Reviewing the BR audit report of Comsign Ltd I have a few doubts regarding
> > the audits accepted by Mozilla and may someone can help me.
> >
> > The BR audit was conducted according
Hello,
Given the numerous problems discovered so far, including several that contract
the explicit declaration made to Mozilla [1], I would not feel comfortable
supporting the application at this juncture.
My next step would be to go though the CP/CPS with a fine-tooth comb, but alas
my
9 matches
Mail list logo