Hello all,
As part of the work we are doing at the threat modelling committee, we
have prepared a small questionaire that will help us with our work. It
is a google form with 11 questions, and it would be helpful if everybody
provided us with their feedback. The questions are targetted towards
SSL.com is declaring its intent to participate in the Code Signing
Working Group. The initial participants will be:
- Fotis Loukos
- Nick Naziridis
- Chris Kemmerer
- Tom Zermeno
Regards,
Fotis
On 03/12/2019 09:46 AM, Dean Coclin via Public wrote:
> In accordance with the CA/B Forum Bylaws and
SSL.com votes Yes on ballot Forum-2.
Regards,
Fotis
On 06/09/2018 07:35 πμ, Ben Wilson via Public wrote:
> *Ballot Forum-2 - Chair and Vice-Chair Term Extensions*
>
>
>
> Ben Wilson of DigiCert calls the following proposed ballot to be
> published for discussion and comment by the CABF
SSL.com votes YES on Ballot SC6 v3.
Regards,
Fotis
On 10/09/2018 09:54 μμ, Wayne Thayer via Servercert-wg wrote:
> This ballot entered the voting period late on Friday. Voting ends this
> Friday 2018-09-14 at 20:00 UTC.
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:51 PM Wayne Thayer
SSL.com votes YES on ballot SC8.
Regards,
Fotis Loukos
On 30/08/2018 06:01 μμ, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> *Ballot SC8: Election of Server Certificate Working Group Chair – Term
> Nov. 1, 2018 – Oct. 31, 2020*
>
>
>
> * *
>
> *-Motion begins-*
>
>
>
> In accordance with Bylaw 4.1(c),
SSL.com votes Yes on ballot 206.
Kind regards,
Fotis Loukos
On 28/03/2018 06:20 πμ, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
>
> Ballot 206: Amendment to IPR Policy & Bylaws re Working Group Formation
>
> Purpose of Ballot: This ballot is the result of the work done by the
> CA/Browser Forum (the
Hello,
per RFC1700:
WELL KNOWN PORT NUMBERS
The Well Known Ports are controlled and assigned by the IANA and on
most systems can only be used by system (or root) processes or by
programs executed by privileged users.
The assigned ports use a small portion of the possible port numbers.
For
SSL.com votes Yes on Ballot 218 version 2.
Regards,
Fotis
On 29/01/2018 11:51 μμ, Tim Hollebeek via Public wrote:
>
>
> I’m highly skeptical that discussing this for another month will change
> anybody’s minds. It has already been discussed for over a month,
> including at three validation
Hello Kirk,
one private mail from me too, since at the NetSec WG we had many
confusions with the time changes :)
On 09/11/2017 12:39 πμ, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> ***Reminder to members in the US and Canada – the Forum teleconference
> is now _one hour earlier_ than before because of the
On 06/11/2017 03:23 μμ, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Fotis Loukos via Public
> <public@cabforum.org <mailto:public@cabforum.org>> wrote:
>
> On 03/11/2017 07:08 μμ, Seth David Schoen via Public wrote:
> > Peter Bowen w
On 03/11/2017 07:08 μμ, Seth David Schoen via Public wrote:
> Peter Bowen writes:
>
>> I’m honestly not a big fan of being limited to these three methods — they
>> all are methods which have be completed by someone with access to the
>> “backend” server but not necessarily the onion proxy.
11 matches
Mail list logo
