@alexstamos In a system of virtuous actors with a shared common goal of ensuring online security, I wouldn't disagree with. But alas...
-
-
@BRIAN_____@a_z_e_t Actually we should force one set of rules for ALL CAs. Some BR all agree on & are forced to comply with. No exceptions. -
@BRIAN_____@a_z_e_t If a private person can comply w/ all those requirements, why not allow that CA? Make it hard enough & you'll be fine. -
@BRIAN_____@a_z_e_t Which doesn't mean the current CAB/F BR are easy to comply with, but they must be enforced. No TBTF exemptions! -
@TheSecurityFail@BRIAN_____ yea but that's CA vs. sub-CA. -
@a_z_e_t@BRIAN_____ A Sub-CA is like a normal CA where somebody indicated he believes your lies. With a normal CA you lie to yourself. -
@TheSecurityFail@BRIAN_____ well they said 'name restricted'. -
@a_z_e_t@BRIAN_____ The thing about Honest Achmed was not that you MAY as well trust him, but it showed that you SHOULD NOT all the others. -
@TheSecurityFail@BRIAN_____ well. I said I'm for less CAs, right? if there's a proper process for name-restricted subs, maybe. - 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@BRIAN_____@sleevi_@alexstamos that would be fine by me. But making sub-CAs exclusively available to big-tech is not a solution.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.