[cabfpub] EV Code Signing maximum validity
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
eddy_nigg at startcom.org
Fri Apr 12 19:39:01 UTC 2013
On 04/12/2013 10:23 PM, From Rob Stradling:
> Jeremy wrote "The risk with long-term EV Code Signing certs is
> primarily a loss of the private key, which is why we required a
> hardware token."
>
> I have to agree that "loss of the private key" is a significant problem.
There is no reason to deny it and I agree as well - however, were those
EV validated certificates (or validated to the same level)? In my
opinion there are a couple of problems for both sides with this
(hardware token) requirement which hinders adoption as well. Not that we
wouldn't favor everybody using some hardware token, requiring is a problem.
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO
StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
XMPP: startcom at startcom.org <xmpp:startcom at startcom.org>
Blog: Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Twitter: Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130412/57c2712d/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4540 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130412/57c2712d/attachment-0001.p7s>
More information about the Public
mailing list