On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 5:54 PM Matthew Hardeman via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 2:17 PM bxward85--- via dev-security-policy <
> dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Insane that this is even being debated. If the
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 2:17 PM bxward85--- via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> Insane that this is even being debated. If the floodgates are opened here
> you will NOT be able to get things back under control.
>
While I can appreciate the passion of
On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 2:21:24 PM UTC-7, Wayne Thayer wrote:
> The recent Reuters report on DarkMatter [1] has prompted numerous questions
> about their root inclusion request [2]. The questions that are being raised
> are equally applicable to their current status as a subordinate CA
Thanks Ryan!
Honestly I would prefer things to be clean, but obviously new Root ceremonies
also come at a significant cost...
I am happy to be guided by Kathleen and Co on this to ensure the community
standards are maintained without playing favorites.
But if it becomes necessary for the
This is a question for Kathleen, as Module Owner.
In the past, CAs which have had BR violations in their root certificates -
such as negative serial numbers, improper DER encodings, or RFC5280
violations (such as keyUsages) - have been required to create new roots
before inclusion progresses.
G’day Folks,
we have updated https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1531800 with the
latest actions taken by DarkMatter
A question I am posing to this list relates to the trust anchors produced with
64-bit serial numbers...
A Root certificate is included by explicit trust, and
6 matches
Mail list logo
