Hi Ben,
It's a little late, but I noticed that the information
and link for the SANS Top 25 near the top of page 6
is broken and the text is grammatically incorrect. The
information is also considerably out of date.
CWE is a trademarked term of MITRE and they
created and maintain them. SANS sim
Trustwave votes YES to Ballot 210
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Ben Wilson via
Public
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:30 PM
To: CABFPub
Subject: [cabfpub] Ballot 210: Misc. Changes to the Network and Certificate
System Security Requirements
The discussion
Apple votes Yes.
Curt
> On Aug 12, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Ben Wilson via Public
> wrote:
>
> The discussion period for this ballot is 12 days to give everyone ample time
> to review it. Voting will start at 2200 UTC on Thursday, August 24, 2017.
>
> The Network Security Working Group recommends
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 17:08, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
> The challenge, which I think is worth articulating even as I try to form a
> suggestion, is that it creates ambiguity as to what's "sufficiently not
> stupid".
>
> For example: Is a physical host running a hypervisor sufficiently isolated
>
Thanks Neil, this is all super-helpful context and an excellent summary of
what is no doubt months of discussions, and greatly appreciated :)
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Neil Dunbar via Public <
public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> I’ll take a stab at at least some of the rationale. Obvi
Ryan,
I’ll take a stab at at least some of the rationale. Obviously, others will have
different observations and priorities - so don’t take this as anything other
than my musings on the NetSec discussions. The dominant notion was that the
document which was the source of NetSec was an old one (
> On Aug 14, 2017, at 5:52 AM, Ryan Sleevi via Public
> wrote:
> It's good you have a full ballot ready to go. It'd be useful to
> understand further context behind these proposals, beyond just
> "Network Security Working Group recommends"
>
> For example, ideally it'd be useful to understand t
Hi Ben,
It's good you have a full ballot ready to go. It'd be useful to
understand further context behind these proposals, beyond just
"Network Security Working Group recommends"
For example, ideally it'd be useful to understand the overarching
motivation, and the motivation for each and every sp
Dadashov via Public"
To: Ben Wilson , CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List
Sent: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 6:49
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 210: Misc. Changes to the Network and
Certificate System Security Requirements
Hi Ben,
should we replace ETSI TS 101 456 and ETSI TS 102 042 with ETSI
cabfpub] Ballot 210: Misc. Changes to the Network and Certificate
System Security Requirements
Hi Ben,
should we replace ETSI TS 101 456 and ETSI TS 102 042 with ETSI EN 319
411-2 and ETSI EN 319 411-3?
(see
https://cabforum.org/etsi/#Qualified-Certificates---EN-319-411-2-replaces-TS-101-456).
Tha
Hi Ben,
should we replace ETSI TS 101 456 and ETSI TS 102 042 with ETSI EN 319
411-2 and ETSI EN 319 411-3?
(see
https://cabforum.org/etsi/#Qualified-Certificates---EN-319-411-2-replaces-TS-101-456).
Thanks,
M.D.
On 8/13/2017 6:30 AM, Ben Wilson via Public wrote:
ETSI TS 101 456
_
11 matches
Mail list logo
