In light of the ongoing HiCA discussion, we feel compelled to provide additional clarity on the subject. Not only were we unaware of the existence of HiCA until recently, but we were unaware that QuantumCA was distributing acme.sh. QuantumCA's reseller account was never enabled for ACME therefore no certs were issued from any of QuantumCA branded SubCAs via ACME at any time.
However, SSL.com's free community ACME 90-day certs have been available since 2021 and we have no involvement, collaboration, or control over any ACME client scripts or applications including HiCA's acme.sh. Our courtesy ACME service is available in a similar vein as other free publicly trusted ACME TLS certificate providers with no restrictions or consideration on which ACME clients are allowed access to this service. We do not collaborate on any projects with our SSL/TLS SubCA resellers other than to provide them brandable certificates. Many members of the community find brandable SubCAs valuable to help build reputation without having to invest in a fully dedicated CA infrastructure, and most reseller customers handle the privilege of their SubCAs responsibly. Unfortunately, there are cases where abuse, intentional or otherwise, may crop up. At SSL.com, we make every effort to respond swiftly and firmly whenever we are alerted of any issues related to our branded SubCAs. In particular, SSL.com has already planned revocation of the branded SubCAs within the required 7-day time window from the moment we discovered the dissolution of QUANTUM CA LIMITED, in full compliance with our CP/CPS and the CA/B Forum Baseline Requirements. We are also reaching out to individual subscribers affected by this upcoming revocation event to minimize the impact. Still, there are lessons to learn from this event. Although our CP/CPS stipulates customers’/resellers’ obligation to notify SSL.com of any business registration modification (which includes dissolution), we plan to introduce proactive measures, such as applying periodic reverification of all SubCA resellers' business registrations. Finally, we view unwarranted statements, which are probably in violation of the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/>, or individual customer-to-company issues such as “refunds” as off-topic and will directly communicate with the reseller on such matters. We consider dev-security-policy group to be a public Forum to discuss ecosystem-wide security/policy issues and good practices. For example, we could discuss with other CAs to adopt the above-mentioned periodic reverification to further protect the ecosystem. Thank you, Tom SSL.com P.S. I have used my Google email address for the m.d.s.p. since 2017. I continued to use it in this public group, after I took on the role of Compliance Manager at SSL.com, as a means to continue the legacy of the account and maintain records of the previous discussions. Unless otherwise stated, all posts from this address should be considered official replies from SSL.com. On Tuesday, 13 June 2023 at 09:30:18 UTC-5 Levi wrote: > I think the key to this issue is "Is the CA should take actions to protect > their third-party system security under authorized". This problem included > the security of the system, public perception of their morality, and > compliance issues. HiCA has used the RCE leak of ACME to add advertising to > end users (or commercial activities) but as for now, there are not any > security problems that destroy the security of CA reported. A few years > ago, Quantum CA used the security leak of CA to issue the certificate which > expires a period of 5 years, and now, HiCA used the security leak of ACME > to add advertising to end users . > > In conclusion, there are things we know: > 1. There is not any reported security of CA issues (Sectigo, GTS, and > more). > 2. HiCA used the RCE leak of ACME but has not caused any security problems > (as of now). > 3. People think the CA must take action to protect the system security > (not only for CA's system) > 在2023年6月13日星期二 UTC+8 13:00:45<James Kasten> 写道： > >> The final reference should be "3. >> https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-v2.0.0.pdf"; >> instead of the 1.8.7 link provided. (It doesn't change the discussion.) My >> apologies. >> >> James Kasten >> Google Trust Services >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 8:57 PM James Kasten <jdka...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> To be explicit, GTS does not have a business relationship with HiCA. >>> >>> Normally ACME services have protections against these types of MitM-CAs, >>> but the remote RCE allowed HiCA to bypass these controls [1, 2]. >>> >>> For instance, it is possible HiCA replaced the local client's key >>> authorization during challenge validation with a key authorization provided >>> by HiCA, granting authorization of the domain names to HiCA. HiCA could >>> theoretically use these authorizations to continue to issue certificates >>> for the affected domain names, or revoke the certificates that were issued. >>> >>> So clients of HiCA should also consider the lasting effects on the the >>> domains in addition to your normal recovery procedures for an RCE. It may >>> be prudent to reissue and revoke any certificates with your choice of CA >>> directly and to watch certificate transparency logs for any future >>> unintended issuance. GTS allows authorization reuse up to 28 days on our >>> ACME endpoint and issues certificates with lifetimes up to 90 days. Other >>> CAs may differ. By the current baseline requirements CAs can issue 398 day >>> certificates and reuse the authorizations for 398 days [3]. >>> >>> >>> James Kasten >>> Google Trust Services >>> >>> >>> 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8555#section-6.4 >>> 2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8555#section-10.2 >>> 3. https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.8.7.pdf >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 6:34:44 AM UTC-7 Xiaohui Lam wrote: >>> >>>> No, actually we implementing GTS, SSL.com and sometimes Let's Encrypt, >>>> Sectigo all the time. and especially SSL.com issued under SSL.com subCA, >>>> not under "Quantum Secure Site DV" acutally. >>>> The CA >>>> >>>> 在2023年6月11日星期日 UTC+8 10:02:14<Amir Omidi (aaomidi)> 写道： >>>> >>>>> Emailing on my personal capacity: >>>>> >>>>> Xiaohui, can you please confirm that ssl.com was the only actual CA >>>>> that was used for issuance through HiCA? >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 2:08:47 PM UTC-4 Kurt Seifried wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Forwarding this to the list, I'm not comfortable with off list >>>>>> discussions in private. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 11:18 AM Xiaohui Lam <inao...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr Seifried, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > Is this really a situation where something extremely suspicious >>>>>>> (remote code execution, CA's with multiple entities, some of which >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> seem to properly exist, etc.) is going to be swept under the rug with a >>>>>>> simple "yeah, we revoked this bad actors certificates, everything is >>>>>>> fine"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are a reseller, not a physical root CA. This is a widely accepted >>>>>>> solution for cross border businesses. We have business accepts online >>>>>>> payment, the China users needs pay via alipay or wechat, to sign up the >>>>>>> merchant we must have a china company, >>>>>>> and foreign needs stripe, merchant must be a non-MainlandChina >>>>>>> company. this is not suspicious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *. I represent the above opinion of my company >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > If HiCA can do this, how do we know there are not more >>>>>>> intermediate/reseller CAs doing this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most CA has no necessary to exploiting this RCE, because they can >>>>>>> natively >>>>>>> compatible with RFC 8555, they can define own CPS and CP, which >>>>>>> contains validation policy, we does because we are not CA and can't to >>>>>>> provider RFC 8555 ACME endpoint like a CA does. so a physical root CA >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> no necessary to provide ACME simulation by RCE. and also there're more >>>>>>> difficulties for a ssl reseller to provide ACME service which real CAs >>>>>>> won't undergo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - CSR stage difference: Most CA's subscriber request process or >>>>>>> reseller API process, requires CSR be submitted in the `new-order` API, >>>>>>> ACME requires CSR be submitted in `finalize` API. I have a topic in >>>>>>> letsencrypt community years ago about this - >>>>>>> https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/why-acme-requires-domain-auth-first-before-csr/98482 >>>>>>> - Challenge difference: Most CA's subscriber request process or >>>>>>> reseller API process's DNS validation requires `_<md5>` / `_dnsauth` >>>>>>> dnshost, and dnstype possibly CNAME or possibly TXT, But ACME's DNS >>>>>>> validation dnshost is constant: `_acme-challenge`, dnstype `TXT`. And >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> more deep talk ACME's dnsvalue needs publickey's thumbprint + server >>>>>>> token >>>>>>> which is totally different than traditional way's dnsvalue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My opinion is community can research how many ACME was publicly >>>>>>> provided, and investigate is the provider a physical CA. if is natively >>>>>>> compatible with RFC 8555, no worry about that one and continue do >>>>>>> investigate >>>>>>> next. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *. I represent the above opinion of my personal. not my company. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincere, >>>>>>> Bruce. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 在2023年6月11日星期日 UTC+8 00:39:16<Kurt Seifried> 写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this really a situation where something extremely suspicious >>>>>>> (remote code execution, CA's with multiple entities, some of which >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> seem to properly exist, etc.) is going to be swept under the rug with a >>>>>>> simple "yeah, we revoked this bad actors certificates, everything is >>>>>>> fine"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If HiCA can do this, how do we know there are not more >>>>>>> intermediate/reseller CAs doing this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36252310. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a note, apparently, websites have been shut down and stuff >>>>>>> deleted with respect to HiCA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Posting some of the threads here in case they get removed or >>>>>>> whatever: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ================== >>>>>>> egecks 1 day ago | prev | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the title buries the most horrifying part of this. The HiCA >>>>>>> certificate authority is relying on an RCE to do an end-run around the >>>>>>> semantics of the ACME HTTP-01 validation method. >>>>>>> Fucked up and they should be booted from every root program for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ================= >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0x0 1 day ago | prev | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like they are issuing under a sub-CA of "ssl.com" according >>>>>>> to https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/issues/4659#issue... >>>>>>> Interestingly, the mozilla dev-security-policy group seems to >>>>>>> contain a recent discussion about including "ssl.com" in the root >>>>>>> store here >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-polic... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Curious to know if this could, maybe it should, have ripple effects >>>>>>> to the various SSL Root CA programs. Having someone run a subCA that >>>>>>> actually exploits an RCE against ACME clients doesn't seem very >>>>>>> trustworthy, and any CA enabling this behaviour should probably be >>>>>>> kicked >>>>>>> out of the trust stores? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> agwa 1 day ago | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The sub CA is operated by ssl.com, not HiCA (which is not a trusted >>>>>>> certificate authority). HiCA is relaying the certificate requests to >>>>>>> ssl.com, which is properly validating the requests in accordance >>>>>>> with all the requirements. ssl.com isn't doing anything wrong. >>>>>>> That's why HiCA needs to exploit an RCE in acme.sh - ACME doesn't >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> relaying certificate requests to other CAs like this. >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0x0 23 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Someone posted a comment on github claiming they are the founder of >>>>>>> Quantum (the sub CA of ssl.com - see https://crt.sh/?caid=200960 ) >>>>>>> and that they are the provider of the HiCA service. So it does sound >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> there is a closer link here than your comment would indicate: >>>>>>> https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/issues/4659#issue... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> agwa 23 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quantum is not a trusted CA. ssl.com has a white-labeled >>>>>>> intermediate CA with the name "Quantum" in it, but this intermediate CA >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> operated by ssl.com under all the same controls as ssl.com's other >>>>>>> intermediate CAs. Quantum has no ability to issue trusted certificates >>>>>>> themselves. >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0x0 23 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the person claiming to be the founder of "QuantumCA" does not >>>>>>> possess the private key corresponding to https://crt.sh/?caid=200960 >>>>>>> - can we be sure the private key is only accessible by ssl.com's CA >>>>>>> system? So the certificates listed here aren't issued by this person, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> by the ssl.com's system? >>>>>>> https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25&iCAID=200960&exclude=expired&de... >>>>>>> Also, why would ssl.com even create a subCA named "QuantumCA"? Are >>>>>>> they in business with this person claiming to be the founder of >>>>>>> "QuantumCA" >>>>>>> who appears to be responsible for exploiting this acme.sh 0day? What >>>>>>> does >>>>>>> this say about ssl.com's trustworthiness? Or is the person in the >>>>>>> github comments lying? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> agwa 23 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > So the person claiming to be the founder of "QuantumCA" does not >>>>>>> possess the private key corresponding to https://crt.sh/?caid=200960 >>>>>>> - can we be sure the private key is only accessible by ssl.com's CA >>>>>>> system? So the certificates listed here aren't issued by this person, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> by the ssl.com's system? >>>>>>> https://crt.sh/?Identity=%25&iCAID=200960&exclude=expired&de... >>>>>>> Correct. You can see the Quantum intermediates listed in ssl.com's >>>>>>> most recent audit statement, meaning an auditor has verified that >>>>>>> ssl.com has controls to protect the private key: >>>>>>> https://www.cpacanada.ca/generichandlers/CPACHandler.ashx?at... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (The audit could be flawed, but it's the same amount of assurance we >>>>>>> have for any intermediate CA's private key - the fact that "QuantumCA" >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> in the name does not change the risk calculus) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Also, why would ssl.com even create a subCA named "QuantumCA"? >>>>>>> Are they in business with this person claiming to be the founder of >>>>>>> "QuantumCA" who appears to be responsible for exploiting this acme.sh >>>>>>> 0day? >>>>>>> What does this say about ssl.com's trustworthiness? Or is the >>>>>>> person in the github comments lying? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a business relationship between QuantumCA and ssl.com. >>>>>>> QuantumCA is a reseller of ssl.com, and they've paid extra to >>>>>>> ssl.com so that the certificates they purchase get issued from an >>>>>>> intermediate CA named "QuantumCA" rather than one of ssl.com's >>>>>>> usual intermediate CAs which have "ssl.com" in the name. This lets >>>>>>> QuantumCA pretend to be a real CA. This is a common practice in the >>>>>>> industry, and I don't think it says anything about the trustworthiness >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> ssl.com, because the business relationship with QuantumCA doesn't >>>>>>> in any way subvert the integrity of the WebPKI since ssl.com >>>>>>> retains control of the issuance. Still, I wish intermediate CA >>>>>>> white-labeling were banned because it causes terrible confusion about >>>>>>> who >>>>>>> is and isn't a CA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0x0 23 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I find it troubling that a root CA (ssl.com) is apparently OK with >>>>>>> lending their name in a business relationship with an actor that is >>>>>>> actively exploiting an acme.sh 0day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tptacek 20 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This feels a little bit like doubling down to find ways to implicate >>>>>>> the actual CA instead of the reseller. It's clear how mismanagement by >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> real CA would make a more interesting story than by this random >>>>>>> no-longer-existing pseudo-reseller, but I don't think there's evidence >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> support that story yet. >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0x0 20 hours ago | root | parent | next [–] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it's not a random pseudo-reseller? The one github comment from >>>>>>> "the founder of Quantum CA" seems to say they are also the creator of >>>>>>> HiCA, >>>>>>> which is the entity that was exploiting the 0day in acme.sh. And the >>>>>>> crt.sh >>>>>>> link shows an intermediate CA cert named "QuantumCA", signed by >>>>>>> ssl.com. >>>>>>> So QuantumCA == HiCA == exploiters of the acme.sh 0day, it's all the >>>>>>> same entity? The intermediate CA could just as well be named >>>>>>> "0dayexploitersCA"? Why is it not a huge concern that ssl.com is >>>>>>> fine with operating such a "0dayexploitersCA" intermediate? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am I missing something here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>> ================= >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:32 PM Xiaohui Lam <inao...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr mochaaP, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We're running businesses under multi entities, one is UK company, >>>>>>> and one is CN company, the UK company is registered and running by a >>>>>>> former >>>>>>> workmate which leaved our team, and CN company is registered and >>>>>>> running by >>>>>>> me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We do stopped from selling SSL.com certificate due to business >>>>>>> concern and the cross-sign root expiration concern, That meantime we do >>>>>>> have some cooperates with other CAs without whitelabel/intermediateCA, >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> CAs are directly implemented and some are tier-2 implements(under other >>>>>>> resellers). So, our website is kept running, including HiCA keeps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But we will stop all misleading business to stop provide our Quantum >>>>>>> brand products, only contain our China company's materials. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My KEY OPINION: our China entity has been kept in existence so we >>>>>>> kept the reselling business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincere. >>>>>>> Bruce Lam >>>>>>> 在2023年6月10日星期六 UTC+8 03:13:11<mochaaP> 写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Xiaohui, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you may have misunderstood my message. What I meant to >>>>>>> convey was that I am skeptical of your intention to resell your own CA >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> a dissolved Ltd. that was not subject to having its certificate >>>>>>> revoked. We >>>>>>> believe that this practice is uncommon for a reseller in such a case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please understand that my message was not intended to be hateful >>>>>>> towards you or your team. If you believe that this was an honest >>>>>>> mistake, >>>>>>> please reply to this thread with more details. The community values >>>>>>> transparency and trust, and we would be happy to hear your perspective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Zephyr Lykos >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 1:08:08 AM UTC+8 Xiaohui Lam wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks John to share this topic to the dev-security forum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is HiCA founder, let me to explain your concern, Mr John , >>>>>>> the RCE is fully used to finish the challenge which validated by >>>>>>> CAs, in another word, the ACME.sh-enrolled certificates which passing >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> RCE, it does compliant with each CA's BR validation requirements. CA >>>>>>> did >>>>>>> nothing wrong. And also by this trick can enroll any CA's certificate >>>>>>> before acme.sh fix patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and to Mr @mochaaP, you said to punish our team, we're NOT a public >>>>>>> CA or private CA(in my understanding, a CA must manage a or more PKI >>>>>>> infrastructure physically), [3]so the clarify relationship to HiCA w/ >>>>>>> QuantumCA is no necessary, but we still told we runs HiCA inside >>>>>>> QuantumCA >>>>>>> project's source code, it's a sub-application inside it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree @Andrew's opinion, CAs shouldn't take any responsibilities >>>>>>> to the RCE incidents. or there are hundreds acme-tools for CAs need to >>>>>>> concern. >>>>>>> 在2023年6月10日星期六 UTC+8 00:43:47<mochaaP> 写道： >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although HiCA is not a CA itself, the person own HiCA seems also >>>>>>> owns (or at least works for) Quantum CA[1][2]. they also confirmed that >>>>>>> Quantum CA is operated by both their team and SSL.com team[3]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this probably is not as simple as a white-label intermediate >>>>>>> CA being abused, rather a CA that resells their own product to >>>>>>> themselves >>>>>>> to prevent being punished for bad behaviors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/xiaohuilam (see "Pinned" section) >>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/quantumca (see "People" section) >>>>>>> [3]: >>>>>>> https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/issues/4659#issuecomment-1584546150 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (note that this person never clearified their relationship with Quantum >>>>>>> CA >>>>>>> and only replied with "So this isn't the evidence to proof HiCA is a CA >>>>>>> which managed PKI.") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Zephyr Lykos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:04:34 PM UTC+8 Andrew Ayer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 05:42:22 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>>> "John Han (hanyuwei70)" <hanyu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Here is the story. >>>>>>> > https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/issues/4659 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Seems like they exploited acme.sh and let user to evade >>>>>>> certificate >>>>>>> > issuing procedure. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Do we need to discuss this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The party in question (HiCA/QuantumCA) is not a certificate >>>>>>> authority, >>>>>>> and I don't see any evidence that the actual CAs in question evaded >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> validation requirements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HiCA/QuantumCA is just acting as an intermediary between subscribers >>>>>>> and the issuance APIs operated by actual CAs[1]. Literally anyone >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> do this and do monumentally stupid/insecure things; it's not >>>>>>> productive >>>>>>> to have a discussion every time this happens. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] It's true they have a reseller relationship with ssl.com, who >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> operating a white-label intermediate CA with "QuantumCA" in the >>>>>>> subject, but HiCA/QuantnumCA are also fronting other CAs, including >>>>>>> GTS, which doesn't require a reseller agreement to access their free >>>>>>> ACME API, so I don't see that aspect as being productive to discuss >>>>>>> either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "dev-secur...@mozilla.org" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to dev-security-po...@mozilla.org. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/0f9174b3-02d6-4ff6-a7fa-3b931375076dn%40mozilla.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/0f9174b3-02d6-4ff6-a7fa-3b931375076dn%40mozilla.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Kurt Seifried (He/Him) >>>>>>> ku...@seifried.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Kurt Seifried (He/Him) >>>>>> ku...@seifried.org >>>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dev-security-policy@mozilla.org" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dev-security-policy+unsubscr...@mozilla.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/e982aaf6-4313-4cd5-8914-e8905abe1d17n%40mozilla.org.
