On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 2:03:20 PM UTC-8, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:08:46PM -0800, Apple CA via dev-security-policy
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-8, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > > [aside: this is how incident reports should be done, IMHO]
> >
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 07:08:46PM -0800, Apple CA via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-8, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > [aside: this is how incident reports should be done, IMHO]
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 07:23:27PM -0800, Apple CA via
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 5:32:12 PM UTC-8, Apple CA wrote:
> On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-8, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > [aside: this is how incident reports should be done, IMHO]
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 07:23:27PM -0800, Apple CA via dev-security-policy
> > wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-8, Matt Palmer wrote:
> [aside: this is how incident reports should be done, IMHO]
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 07:23:27PM -0800, Apple CA via dev-security-policy
> wrote:
> > We did not have an accurate understanding of how the vulnerability
[aside: this is how incident reports should be done, IMHO]
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 07:23:27PM -0800, Apple CA via dev-security-policy
wrote:
> We did not have an accurate understanding of how the vulnerability scanner
> worked. Our understanding of its capabilities lead us to believe it was
>
On November 22, Apple submitted an incident report:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1598829, which is reposted below.
Incident Report
1. How your CA first became aware of the problem (e.g. via a problem report
submitted to your Problem Reporting Mechanism, a discussion in
6 matches
Mail list logo
