<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Rob Stradling via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Is there anyone who believes that _expiration_ currently "works"?<br>
<br>
When a typical browser encounters an expired server certificate, it shows a warning that the user can click through.  The user is only advised to avoid harm.  I wonder how many users don't heed that advice?<br>
<br>
However, when a typical browser encounters a server certificate that it knows to be revoked, it shows a warning that the user *cannot* click through.  The user is *forced* to avoid harm.<br>
<br>
What's stopping browsers from treating expired certs in the same way that they treat known revoked certs?<br>
<br>
(FWIW, I've made this point before:<br>
<a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.security.policy/T11up58JkFc/uMNrXQsIzf0J" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/ms<wbr>g/mozilla.dev.security.policy/<wbr>T11up58JkFc/uMNrXQsIzf0J</a>)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps it's worth starting a separate thread for that discussion?</div><div><br></div><div>And perhaps it's worth reviewing <a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Qmpl-5epx0B5C2t4XsUTyjgbwab_rXfK_4iHqX3IC30/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.gf44795496_0_1">https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Qmpl-5epx0B5C2t4XsUTyjgbwab_rXfK_4iHqX3IC30/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000&slide=id.gf44795496_0_1</a> from last year's Real World Crypto as well? </div></div><br></div></div>