On 5/22/14, 3:53 PM, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
On 5/22/14, 1:18 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:57:26PM -0500, Steve Roylance wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
The policy group responsible for control of our certificates and keys
have a
question for you concerning the disclosure requirement
I added item #4 to
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:CertificatePolicyV2.1#Frequently_Asked_Questions
--
4. If an included trust anchor does not have the websites (SSL/TLS)
trust bit enabled, can it be exempt from items #9 and #10 of Mozilla's
CA Certificate Inclusion Policy?
- A subordinate CA c
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Ryan Sleevi <
ryan-mozdevsecpol...@sleevi.com> wrote:
> Whether it's version 1 or 3 has no effect on path building. If the policy
> does require this, it's largely for cosmetic reasons than any strong
> technical reasons.
>
> That said, cutting a new v3 root may in
On Wed, May 28, 2014 3:19 pm, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
> On 5/25/14, 9:53 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:23:54AM -0700, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
> >> Maybe we should re-visit the idea of a "wall of shame", and publicly
> >> list
> >> the CAs who are still issuing certificates wi
In an attempt to address the cross-cutting https://bugzil.la/874346 on
adding certificate exceptions initiated by the Firefox OS Gaia email app
I've started a thread on dev.platform entitled "B2G, email, and SSL/TLS
certificate exceptions for invalid certificates". If you're interested,
please
On 5/25/14, 9:53 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:23:54AM -0700, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
Maybe we should re-visit the idea of a "wall of shame", and publicly list
the CAs who are still issuing certificates with the following problems.
[...]
* Certificate not version 3
I've on
6 matches
Mail list logo
