Hi Hanno,
Hanno Böck, on 04 October 2016 13:34, said..
> There seem to be more certificates of that kind that weren't mentioned
> in the incident report. Here's a .re / www.re certificate (expired
> 2015):
> https://crt.sh/?id=4467456
>
> Has comodo checked its systems for other certificates of
Gervase Markham, on 04 October 2016 07:10, said..
> Thank you for this report.
>
> On 27/09/16 02:07, Robin Alden wrote:
> > When we use an 'agreed-upon change to website' method to prove
> domain
> > control, we consider proof of control of 'www.' as also
> > proving control of '' (except where
On 18/10/16 19:15, Rob Stradling wrote:
> Hi Hanno. The questions that you and others have posted are entirely
> reasonable. Sorry for the delay. Robin intends to post a reply this week.
It seems like this reply has not yet appeared?
I would like to make sure my initial question about "Where
Hi Hanno. The questions that you and others have posted are entirely
reasonable. Sorry for the delay. Robin intends to post a reply this week.
On 15/10/16 16:56, Hanno Böck wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I have asked two reasonable questions here.
> Can we get an answer?
>
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016
Hello,
I think I have asked two reasonable questions here.
Can we get an answer?
On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:33:38 +0200
Hanno Böck wrote:
> There seem to be more certificates of that kind that weren't mentioned
> in the incident report. Here's a .re / www.re certificate (expired
>
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Peter Bowen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Rob Stradling
> wrote:
>> On 04/10/16 19:39, Peter Bowen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Rob Stradling
>>> wrote:
On
On 04/10/16 19:39, Peter Bowen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Rob Stradling
> wrote:
>> On 04/10/16 13:18, Nick Lamb wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 11:14:01 UTC+1, Rob Stradling wrote:
Neither. I'd like to run cablint over all certs pre-issuance,
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> On 04/10/16 13:18, Nick Lamb wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 11:14:01 UTC+1, Rob Stradling wrote:
>>> Neither. I'd like to run cablint over all certs pre-issuance, but
>>> unfortunately it's not practical to
On 04/10/16 13:18, Nick Lamb wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 11:14:01 UTC+1, Rob Stradling wrote:
>> Neither. I'd like to run cablint over all certs pre-issuance, but
>> unfortunately it's not practical to do this yet because 1) cablint is
>> too slow and 2) there are some differences of
Hi,
There seem to be more certificates of that kind that weren't mentioned
in the incident report. Here's a .re / www.re certificate (expired
2015):
https://crt.sh/?id=4467456
Has comodo checked its systems for other certificates of that kind? Can
you provide a full list of all such
On Tuesday, 4 October 2016 11:14:01 UTC+1, Rob Stradling wrote:
> Neither. I'd like to run cablint over all certs pre-issuance, but
> unfortunately it's not practical to do this yet because 1) cablint is
> too slow and 2) there are some differences of opinion that have been
> discussed at
On 04/10/16 11:51, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Rob Stradling wrote:
>> On 04/10/16 07:10, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>> Does Comodo run cablint over all certificates post-issuance (or
>>> pre-issuance)?
>>
>> Neither. I'd like to run cablint over all certs
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Rob Stradling wrote:
> On 04/10/16 07:10, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> >> [4] https://crt.sh/?cablint=1+week
> >
> > This URL is a 404.
>
> Sorry, crt.sh is a bit under the weather right now. Someone submitted a
> batch of several million certs to the
On 04/10/16 07:10, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> [4] https://crt.sh/?cablint=1+week
>
> This URL is a 404.
Sorry, crt.sh is a bit under the weather right now. Someone submitted a
batch of several million certs to the Google CT logs, and this has
rather overwhelmed the replication between crt.sh's
Hi Robin,
Thank you for this report.
On 27/09/16 02:07, Robin Alden wrote:
> When we use an 'agreed-upon change to website' method to prove domain
> control, we consider proof of control of 'www.' as also
> proving control of '' (except where '' is a
> public suffix).
> We don't give any other
15 matches
Mail list logo