On 04/04/2018 04:16, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:16:53AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
On 03/04/2018 02:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
seems
to be mostly justified as a poor
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:16:53AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> On 03/04/2018 02:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via
> > dev-security-policy wrote:
> > > seems
> > > to be mostly justified as a poor workaround for the browsers
On 03/04/2018 02:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
seems
to be mostly justified as a poor workaround for the browsers and
certificate libraries not properly implementing reliable revocation
checks.
The problem is not in
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:11:07AM +0200, Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> seems
> to be mostly justified as a poor workaround for the browsers and
> certificate libraries not properly implementing reliable revocation
> checks.
The problem is not in the libraries, or even the
: Alex Gaynor; Tim Hollebeek; MozPol
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
In past discussions, the proposal was 1 year to 2 years, and 1 year to 1 year
after that. We're now at the midway point, so it seems appropriate to discuss
how to get shorter.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3
orlife]
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:r...@sleevi.com]
Sent: Montag, 2. April 2018 21:16
To: Buschart, Rufus (GS IT HR 7 4)
Cc: Alex Gaynor; Tim Hollebeek; MozPol
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
In past discussions, the proposal was 1 year to 2 years, and 1 year to 1 year
after that.
alf Of Alex
> Gaynor via dev-security-policy
> Sent: Montag, 2. April 2018 20:51
> To: Tim Hollebeek
> Cc: MozPol
> Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I'd have suggested an even shorter period, say 13 months, except I
> anticipated
b...@digicert.com>
> *Cc:* Alex Gaynor <agay...@mozilla.com>; MozPol <
> mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
> *Subject:* Re: 825 days success and future progress!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tim Hollebeek via dev-security-polic
Of
> > bounces+Alex
> > Gaynor via dev-security-policy
> > Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 1:07 PM
> > To: MozPol <mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
> > Subject: 825 days success and future progress!
> >
> > Afternoon all!
> >
> >
gt;
Cc: Alex Gaynor <agay...@mozilla.com>; MozPol
<mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tim Hollebeek via dev-security-policy
<dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org
<ma
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tim Hollebeek via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> 18 months is not significantly different from 825 days. So there's really
> no benefit.
>
So it sounds like you're supportive of 13 months, then, so that we arrive
at an
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com>
Cc: MozPol <mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: 825 days success and future progress!
Hi Tim,
I'd have suggested an even shorter period, say 13 months, except I anticipated
CAs would object that it was too great
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 1:07 PM
> > To: MozPol <mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
> > Subject: 825 days success and future progress!
> >
> > Afternoon all!
> >
> > A month ago a new BR rule went into effect, putting a maximum validity
> period
illa-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org>
> Subject: 825 days success and future progress!
>
> Afternoon all!
>
> A month ago a new BR rule went into effect, putting a maximum validity
period
> of 825 days on newly issued certificates.
>
> Truthfully, I was expecting tons of CA
Afternoon all!
A month ago a new BR rule went into effect, putting a maximum validity
period of 825 days on newly issued certificates.
Truthfully, I was expecting tons of CAs to screw up, forget to implement
it, or have no technical controls, and there to be tons of miss-issuance.
To me delight,
15 matches
Mail list logo
