On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:43 PM Doug Beattie
wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
>
> I agree that Vulnerability is different from key compromise and the
> actions we take should reflect that and I think we should try to keep 12
> and 13 type events in the 5-day list.
>
>
>
> Is our strategy to have
Mozilla votes Yes on ballot FORUM-1.
- Wayne
> *From: *Public on behalf of CA/B Forum
> Public List
> *Reply-To: *"Jos Purvis (jopurvis)" , CA/B Forum
> Public List
> *Date: *Sunday, 12 August, 2018 at 22:47
> *To: *CA/B Forum Public List
> *Subject: *[cabfpub] (Final? Update) Ballot
GoDaddy votes YES to FORUM-1
From: Public On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek via Public
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 7:31 AM
To: Bruce Morton ; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] VOTING BEGINS: Ballot FORUM-1: Establish Forum
Infrastructure Working Group
DigiCert votes
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Doug Beattie via Servercert-wg <
servercert...@cabforum.org> wrote:
> We’re having a hard time determining the differences between the following:
>
>
>
> The CA SHALL revoke a Certificate within 24 hours if:
>
> 3. The CA obtains evidence that the Subscriber's
This is where the reporting bit came in. Responses inline.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:19 PM Jeremy Rowley
wrote:
> I’m surprised no one has given any examples yet. There are a lot of them
> if you go through the revocation requests:
>
>1. Certs reported on a long weekend where we can’t reach
I think Tim is proposing the CA should check their own database of keys revoked
for compromise to make sure they don’t issue a cert with the same key. For
example, we re-issued the Blizzard cert that was revoked when the key was
posted online. We’ve found that regardless of the reason for
Opera votes YES.
Best regards,
Tomasz
On Monday, August 20, 2018, Jos Purvis (jopurvis) via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> I didn’t receive any further updates to this ballot by the end of the
> discussion period, so the voting period for this ballot is formally opened.
> It concludes
I don't think the concern should be misinterpreted as pessimism, but I do
think that if attempting to prevent this imposes unnecessary additional
cost with no concrete value, then there's a real problem supporting it, and
more harm will be done to the ecosystem than good. I'm sure you can
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:15 PM Bruce Morton via Public
wrote:
> BR 6.1.1.3 states “The CA SHALL reject a certificate request if the
> requested Public Key does not meet the requirements set forth in Sections
> 6.1.5 and 6.1.6 or if it has a known weak Private Key (such as a Debian
> weak key,
GlobalSign votes yes on FORUM-1
Doug
From: Public On Behalf Of Jos Purvis (jopurvis)
via Public
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 10:11 AM
To: CA/B Forum Public List
Subject: [cabfpub] VOTING BEGINS: Ballot FORUM-1: Establish Forum
Infrastructure Working Group
I didn’t receive any
Github is an excellent place to collaborate on things like this. I’ll put it
up Monday if you don’t beat me to it.
-Tim
From: Wayne Thayer
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 1:16 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek ; CA/B Forum Server Certificate
WG Public Discussion List
Cc: Doug Beattie ; CA/Browser
11 matches
Mail list logo
