21–30 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the financial infrastructure space, and while I'm no fan of Symantec, using Let's Encrypt would get me laughed out of the room by compliance and our auditors. Some checkboxes are ceremony, some have real purpose. One size does not fit all.
What about Let's Encrypt certificates make them non compliant to your auditors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The message is that Symantec doesn't get to run a CA business anymore. Presumably the fact that a sale was somewhat necessary was priced into the purchase price.
They will own 30%of digicert. I think this deal should put digicert on a "one strike and you're out" zone as well. I don't understand what's going on. Digicert will give Symantec 800M+ cash and a 30% equity? And Symantec will generously allow the current digicert CEO to continue as the CEO of digicert? Doesn't look like Symantec is selling anything. Looks like Symantec is buying digicert from the owners of digicert.
I'm a reseller for Digicert - they just sent an announcement email about this, here's the most interesting bit: "Earlier this year, the browsers proposed a plan to limit trust in Symantec certificates after discovering issues with how they were validating and issuing digital certificates. Importantly, we feel confident that this agreement will satisfy the needs of the browser community. DigiCert is communicating this…
You may want to come up with an escape plan then. If digicert can buy Symantec so that Symantec can escape censure what message does that send? At this point Symantec should be considered so radioactive that nobody would go near it for fear of contamination. Symantec betrayed all of us and digicert, in buying it and rewarding the behaviour is doing the same.
Symantec basically killed their golden goose are are now selling it off to another company at a huge discount. If they didn't do this there's a good chance their whole business would fall apart.
I'd consider losing potentially billions of dollars over the next few years to be a pretty solid message.
How is Symantec's cert business not a toxic asset given their historical practices?
If so, the new owner can relatively easily shut down issuance under the current pipelines of questionable quality; issue new intermediates from the root, to be used in the new owner's pipelines and to make it possible to revoke/detrust the old intermediates if more serious trust issues are uncovered in the previous practices. Then the new owner gets to enjoy the benefits of the previous customer base, and installed base of the roots and pins.
In short, as long as they do a good job of making a clean separation of issuing practices, it's not a toxic asset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the financial infrastructure space, and while I'm no fan of Symantec, using Let's Encrypt would get me laughed out of the room by compliance and our auditors. Some checkboxes are ceremony, some have real purpose. One size does not fit all.
What about Let's Encrypt certificates make them non compliant to your auditors?
Eh ? About to be untrusted by google... interesting time to sell it.
Interesting time to buy it, I'd say.
Buying up their customers like this is huge for Digicert. They're getting a huge influx of paying customers at a steep discount. I'd expect Digicert to make billions off of this deal over the next decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in the financial infrastructure space, and while I'm no fan of Symantec, using Let's Encrypt would get me laughed out of the room by compliance and our auditors. Some checkboxes are ceremony, some have real purpose. One size does not fit all.
What about Let's Encrypt certificates make them non compliant to your auditors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be conflating expectations and reality. They did kill the business, but Symantec was able to salvage part of it.
They should have been utterly destroyed; not parted out to the highest bidder. I want every Symantec shareholder to feel the pain of a zero share price for what they enabled.
I think you're mostly arguing with claims I didn't make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will own 30%of digicert. I think this deal should put digicert on a "one strike and you're out" zone as well. I don't understand what's going on. Digicert will give Symantec 800M+ cash and a 30% equity? And Symantec will generously allow the current digicert CEO to continue as the CEO of digicert? Doesn't look like Symantec is selling anything. Looks like Symantec is buying digicert from the owners of digicert.
Indeed. Classic reverse buyout to escape a bad name. It's complete bullshit and the browser vendors should see right through it.
You clearly have other objectives you would like Google and Mozilla to accomplish for you, and I probably agree with many of them, but let's try to stay focused here.