Hi Jakob,
Your below description raises two questions of general interest (though not of
interest to the Mozilla root program):
1. Will DigiCert establish cross-signatures from the old/historic
Symantec roots to continuing DigiCert roots and subCAs?
[JR] We won’t be cross-signing from Digi
O'Brien via dev-security-policy
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:24 PM
To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
Hello m.d.s.p.,
I'd just like to give the community a heads up that Chrome’s plan
remains to put up a blo
, 2017 9:12 PM
To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
Steve,
Thank you for responding relatively promptly (at least as compared to previous
Symantec responses) to Devon's questions.
However, these responses seem to imply that a side effe
One good thing we should be able to hope for from a change in ownership even if
the personnel and equipment are the same or a great deal in common: improved
management oversight. In my view the most worrying underlying problem at
Symantec was the inadequate oversight. Senior management at the co
f
> > Devon O'Brien via dev-security-policy
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:24 PM
> > To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
> >
> > Hello m.d.s.p.,
> >
> > I'd just
s.mozilla.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
>
> Hello m.d.s.p.,
>
> I'd just like to give the community a heads up that Chrome’s plan remains to
> put up a blog post echoing our recent announcement on blink-dev [1], but
> in the meantime, we are
Hello m.d.s.p.,
I'd just like to give the community a heads up that Chrome’s plan remains to
put up a blog post echoing our recent announcement on blink-dev [1], but in the
meantime, we are reviewing the facts related to Symantec’s sale of their PKI
business to DigiCert [2].
Recently, it has c
Just to be explicit: your count includes certificates which, with high
probability have already been replaced, because it does not subtract names
for which new certificates have been issued?
I realize it may seem like I'm putting a lot of emphasis on this one
number, but given that it's the basis
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-7, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Rick Andrews via dev-security-policy
> wrote:
>
> > Symantec has proposed timing changes that are consistent with the scope of
> > distrust of the original SubCA proposal as proposed by Google a
On 25/07/2017 22:28, Rick Andrews wrote:
...
You are correct in that most customers are indeed not prepared to
deal with potential crises in the SSL system. We have all witnessed
this first hand with Heartbleed, the replacement of SHA1
certificates, etc. A four month replacement window for a
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Rick Andrews via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> Symantec has proposed timing changes that are consistent with the scope of
> distrust of the original SubCA proposal as proposed by Google and endorsed
> by Mozilla, which requir
On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 21:29:06 UTC+1, Rick Andrews wrote:
> The details of this process would probably be best served in a separate
> thread. Essentially, such a process would involve a quick assessment by the
> community on the context and merits of the request by the customer
You want us t
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 2:50:22 AM UTC-7, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> Some more thoughts on your post. I continue to invite community
> commentary on the issues we are discussing.
>
> On 21/07/17 07:00, Rick Andrews wrote:
> > In our June 1 post, we stated that we would update the c
Hi Rick,
Some more thoughts on your post. I continue to invite community
commentary on the issues we are discussing.
On 21/07/17 07:00, Rick Andrews wrote:
> In our June 1 post, we stated that we would update the community after the
> end of the month.
Indeed. I was more referring to the sugge
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 12:39:54 PM UTC-7, Peter Bowen wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I think this level of public detail is very helpful when it comes to
> understanding the proposal.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Steve Medin via dev-security-policy
> wrote:
> > 1) December 1, 2017 is the e
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 12:07:02 PM UTC-7, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Steve Medin wrote:
>
> > 1) *December 1, 2017 is the earliest credible date that any RFP
> > respondent can provide the Managed CA solution proposed by Google, assuming
> > a start date of Au
Steve,
I think this level of public detail is very helpful when it comes to
understanding the proposal.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Steve Medin via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> 1) December 1, 2017 is the earliest credible date that any RFP
> respondent can provide the Managed CA solut
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Steve Medin
wrote:
> 1) *December 1, 2017 is the earliest credible date that any RFP
> respondent can provide the Managed CA solution proposed by Google, assuming
> a start date of August 1, 2017. Only one RFP respondent initially proposed
> a schedule targe
On 21/07/17 07:00, Rick Andrews wrote:
> In light of all of these implications, we respectfully request that Mozilla,
> Google and the community consider the dates Symantec has proposed, which are
> the results of our earnest and extensive efforts to implement the spirit of
> the SubCA proposal.
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:31:56 PM UTC-7, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for posting this. I appreciate the level of detail provided,
> which is useful in giving us a basis for discussion. It's a little
> regrettable, though, that it was published a couple of weeks after we
>
Hi Steve,
Thanks for posting this. I appreciate the level of detail provided,
which is useful in giving us a basis for discussion. It's a little
regrettable, though, that it was published a couple of weeks after we
were led to expect it...
One note before we start: Symantec's business dealings re
our longstanding policy not to comment on rumors or market
speculation.
From: Alex Gaynor [mailto:agay...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:25 AM
To: Steve Medin
Cc: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
Hi Steve
...@konklone.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:43 PM
To: Steve Medin
Cc: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Steve Medin via dev-security-policy
mailto:dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org>>
illa.org
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
>
> On 7/19/2017 8:31 AM, Steve Medin wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-
> >> bounces+steve_medin=symantec@lists.mozilla.org] On Behal
.org
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
>
> On 19/07/2017 17:31, Steve Medin wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-
> >> bounces+steve_medin=symantec@lists.mozilla.org] On Behal
lf Of
> > Jakob Bohm via dev-security-policy
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:39 PM
> > To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
> >
> >
> > Just for clarity:
> >
> > (Note:
017 4:39 PM
>> To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
>> Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
>>
>>
>> Just for clarity:
>>
>> (Note: Using ISO date format instead of ambiguous local date format)
>>
>> How many Symantec
...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
Just for clarity:
(Note: Using ISO date format instead of ambiguous local date format)
How many Symantec certs issued prior to 2015-06-01 expire after 2018-
06-01, and how does that mesh with the alternative date proposed
below
.org
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
>
>
> Just for clarity:
>
> (Note: Using ISO date format instead of ambiguous local date format)
>
> How many Symantec certs issued prior to 2015-06-01 expire after 2018-
> 06-01, and how does that mesh with the al
).
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-
> > bounces+steve_medin=symantec@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of
> > Steve Medin via dev-security-policy
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:23 PM
> > To: mozilla-de
-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-
bounces+steve_medin=symantec@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of
Steve Medin via dev-security-policy
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:23 PM
To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: [EXT] Symantec Update on SubCA Proposal
*Progress Update on SubCA RFP
age-
> From: dev-security-policy [mailto:dev-security-policy-
> bounces+steve_medin=symantec@lists.mozilla.org] On Behalf Of
> Steve Medin via dev-security-policy
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:23 PM
> To: mozilla-dev-security-pol...@lists.mozilla.org
> Subject: [EXT] Sym
*Progress Update on SubCA RFP, Partner Selection, and Execution*
Since June 1, Symantec has worked in earnest to operationalize the SubCA
proposal outlined by Google and Mozilla and discussed in community forums. The
core of this proposal is to transfer the authentication and issuance of
cer
33 matches
Mail list logo
