undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaidenn011y ago0 comments

> It's an awfully sketchy business model. Like inverse insurance.

You mean "Real Life" if I buy an item from manufacturer X, and it breaks due to a product from manufacturer Y (which almost everyone uses with the product I bought since it's complementary), it would be nice if manufacturer X would replace the item for free, but it's not sketchy or a dick move if they don't.

0 comments

hansjorg11y ago

No, not at all. That's not how SSL certificate revocation works.

If the certificate is not revoked when compromised, the party harmed may not be the StartCom customer, but anyone still trusting certificates issued by them.

When this is happening on a large scale, considering the CA status of StartCom is certainly due dilligence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsaidenn011y ago0 comments

> It's an awfully sketchy business model. Like inverse insurance.

0 comments

hansjorg11y ago

No, not at all. That's not how SSL certificate revocation works.

If the certificate is not revoked when compromised, the party harmed may not be the StartCom customer, but anyone still trusting certificates issued by them.

When this is happening on a large scale, considering the CA status of StartCom is certainly due dilligence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse