On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 5:53:45 PM UTC-7, Corey Bonnell wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-4, Nick Lamb wrote:
> > (Resending after I typo'd the ML address)
> >
> > At the risk of further embarrassing myself in the same week, while
> > working further on mimicking
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 7:25:08 PM UTC-8, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On 09/02/2019 01:36, Santhan Raj wrote:
> > On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 4:09:32 PM UTC-8, Joanna Fox wrote:
> >> I agree on the surface this bug appears to be the same, but the root cause
> >> is a different. The issue for
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 1:57:28 AM UTC-7, Ryan Hurst wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:29:05 PM UTC+2, Matthew Hardeman wrote:
> > This story is still breaking, but early indications are that:
> >
> > 1. An attacker at AS10297 (or a customer thereof) announced several more
> >
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:33:31 AM UTC-8, jo...@letsencrypt.org wrote:
> At approximately 5 p.m. Pacific time on January 9, 2018, we received a report
> from Frans Rosén of Detectify outlining a method of exploiting some shared
> hosting infrastructures to obtain certificates for
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 6:44:51 PM UTC-7, Peter Bowen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jeremy Rowley via dev-security-policy
> wrote:
> > Today, DigiCert and Symantec announced that DigiCert is acquiring the
> > Symantec CA assets, including
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:02:51 PM UTC-7, Jonathan Rudenberg wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2017, at 14:41, urijah--- via dev-security-policy
> > wrote:
> >
> > Apparently, in at least one case, the certificate was issued directly(!) to
> > localhost by
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 5:12:43 PM UTC-8, Peter Bowen wrote:
> "auditing standards that underlie the accepted audit schemes found in
> Section 8.1"
>
> This is obviously a error in the BRs. That language is taken from
> Section 8.1 and there is no list of schemes in 8.1.
>
> 8.4 does
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-8, Santhan Raj wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:22:34 AM UTC-8, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > That is why, despite some IPR-related tangles, Mozilla will be requiring
> > in its next CA Communication that all CAs move to using only those
> >
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:22:34 AM UTC-8, Gervase Markham wrote:
> That is why, despite some IPR-related tangles, Mozilla will be requiring
> in its next CA Communication that all CAs move to using only those
> documented methods in a fairly short timeframe, regardless of what the
> BRs
9 matches
Mail list logo