| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I think it's really quite silly that we keep inconveniencing ourselves |
| 4 |
>> and our user by not having proper certificates that get recognized by |
| 5 |
>> all the major browsers, preferably wildcard variants (particularly for |
| 6 |
>> Bugzilla attachments). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> My knee-jerk reaction is that your browser has a bug. It thinks that |
| 9 |
> it is appropriate to sound alarms for unauthenticated SSL connections |
| 10 |
> but not for unauthenticated non-SSL connections. A workaround is to |
| 11 |
> emerge ca-certificates. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That said, I do understand your concerns (my pet peeves with the CA |
| 14 |
> infrastructure and modern browsers notwithstanding). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Doesn't work on my non-gentoo OS..Perhaps we should provide debs and rpms? :) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I'd be happy to handle the certificates and renew them every time when |
| 21 |
>> needed, passing them on to infra staff via a channel they deem secure |
| 22 |
>> enough, although it would be nice if someone else can provide me with |
| 23 |
>> funds (e.g. the Trust/Foundation?). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I'm sure the trustees would be interested as long as this was aligned |
| 26 |
> with infra. I'd reach out to them first and work out a plan - paying |
| 27 |
> for it is likely to not be a big issue (and we've had offers of |
| 28 |
> donated certificates as well). |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Rich |
| 31 |
> |
Archives