(In reply to comment #84) > Hey Doktor - the operation was successful - the patient died? This is > actually > not what we want. Don't kill the patient, root out the source of the problem. > Or yank the root.
Understandable, given that issuing certs is one of your company's businesses. :-) However, I have to go with The H Security: <snip> The incident is further proof that the entire concept of SSL and of users' trust in the Certificate Authorities are standing on feet of clay. After all, a certificate is also considered trustworthy even if it is issued by a CA reseller based in a country to which users probably wouldn't even go on holiday for security reasons. And the promised technologies don't even work when a compromised certificate is made public. It is time to come up with a new concept – and "EV-SSL" certificates, at least, should not be a part of it . </snip> http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/SSL-meltdown-forces-browser- developers-to-update-1213358.html > As such why is bug 642395 restricted? Security by obscurity? :P Someone should unlock it promptly, gets ridiculous. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/310999 Title: comodo seen issuing certificates unwisely -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
