<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fraudulent *.google.com Certificate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 02:08:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: i am real</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110303</link>
		<dc:creator>i am real</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Daniel Veditz:

I&#039;ve updated to the latest Firefox (6.02) a few days ago. I found I couldn&#039;t distrust DigiNotar as reported by some of my caring forummers.

Also, I tend to conclude that you (and Mozilla) is not trying to protect your users, rather, you&#039;re trying to protect governments and politicians who seldom browse the internet anyway. Those politicians in turn will deplete your customer base, because either they&#039;ll be jailing or torturing us (i.e. no internet access), or better still, we&#039;ll be shot dead. (btw, i&#039;m NOT an iranian, but understand how it feels like if I were put in the same situation)

I repeat. I&#039;ve updated to Firefox 6.02 a few days ago. But today, I&#039;ve just downloaded Google Chrome. And it&#039;s the first time ever I&#039;ll be using Chrome. And I&#039;ll probably be sticking with Chrome until they start making screwed up decisions as to support governments instead of its users (hopefully not!).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daniel Veditz:</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve updated to the latest Firefox (6.02) a few days ago. I found I couldn&#8217;t distrust DigiNotar as reported by some of my caring forummers.</p>
<p>Also, I tend to conclude that you (and Mozilla) is not trying to protect your users, rather, you&#8217;re trying to protect governments and politicians who seldom browse the internet anyway. Those politicians in turn will deplete your customer base, because either they&#8217;ll be jailing or torturing us (i.e. no internet access), or better still, we&#8217;ll be shot dead. (btw, i&#8217;m NOT an iranian, but understand how it feels like if I were put in the same situation)</p>
<p>I repeat. I&#8217;ve updated to Firefox 6.02 a few days ago. But today, I&#8217;ve just downloaded Google Chrome. And it&#8217;s the first time ever I&#8217;ll be using Chrome. And I&#8217;ll probably be sticking with Chrome until they start making screwed up decisions as to support governments instead of its users (hopefully not!).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110302</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Daniel Veditz:

I&#039;ve updated to the latest Firefox (6.02) a few days ago. I found I couldn&#039;t distrust DigiNotar as reported by some of my caring forummers.

Also, I tend to conclude that you (and Mozilla) is not trying to protect your users, rather, you&#039;re trying to protect governments and politicians who seldom browse the internet anyway. Those politicians in turn will deplete your customer base, because either they&#039;ll be jailing or torturing us (i.e. no internet access), or better still, we&#039;ll be shot dead. (btw, i&#039;m NOT an iranian, but understand how it feels like if I were put in the same situation)

I repeat. I&#039;ve updated to Firefox 6.02 a few days ago. But today, I&#039;ve just downloaded Google Chrome. And it&#039;s the first time ever I&#039;ll be using Chrome. And I&#039;ll probably be sticking with Chrome until they start making screwed up decisions as to support governments instead of its users (hopefully not!).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daniel Veditz:</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve updated to the latest Firefox (6.02) a few days ago. I found I couldn&#8217;t distrust DigiNotar as reported by some of my caring forummers.</p>
<p>Also, I tend to conclude that you (and Mozilla) is not trying to protect your users, rather, you&#8217;re trying to protect governments and politicians who seldom browse the internet anyway. Those politicians in turn will deplete your customer base, because either they&#8217;ll be jailing or torturing us (i.e. no internet access), or better still, we&#8217;ll be shot dead. (btw, i&#8217;m NOT an iranian, but understand how it feels like if I were put in the same situation)</p>
<p>I repeat. I&#8217;ve updated to Firefox 6.02 a few days ago. But today, I&#8217;ve just downloaded Google Chrome. And it&#8217;s the first time ever I&#8217;ll be using Chrome. And I&#8217;ll probably be sticking with Chrome until they start making screwed up decisions as to support governments instead of its users (hopefully not!).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred5</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110293</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred5</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Tom

I am using Firefox 6.0.2 and have &quot;The USERTRUST Network&quot; certificates listed under the &quot;Others&quot; tab om my MacBook Air and the same is listed under the &quot;Servers&quot; tab on my Mac Desktop.

Diginotar and Diginotar B.V. are listed under the &quot;Authorities&quot; tab on both.

Could Mozilla please clarify &lt;b&gt;exactly&lt;/b&gt; what the updates were supposed to do and verify that this is indeed what is happening upon upgrade.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tom</p>
<p>I am using Firefox 6.0.2 and have &#8220;The USERTRUST Network&#8221; certificates listed under the &#8220;Others&#8221; tab om my MacBook Air and the same is listed under the &#8220;Servers&#8221; tab on my Mac Desktop.</p>
<p>Diginotar and Diginotar B.V. are listed under the &#8220;Authorities&#8221; tab on both.</p>
<p>Could Mozilla please clarify <b>exactly</b> what the updates were supposed to do and verify that this is indeed what is happening upon upgrade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110282</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 07:58:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[to me, it looks like &quot;mozilla&quot; screwed up with FF build 3.6.22.. with FF build 3.6.22, it looks like there are &quot;server exceptions&quot; for FRAUDULENT &quot;usertrust&quot; certificates, where fraudulent &quot;usertrust&quot; certificates will be trusted, automatically, overriding any security-checks-because of the &quot;server exceptions&quot; which were added to FF build 3.6.22..

i am referring to the &quot;server exceptions&quot; in &quot;FF/tools/options/advanced/view certificates/servers&quot;..]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>to me, it looks like &#8220;mozilla&#8221; screwed up with FF build 3.6.22.. with FF build 3.6.22, it looks like there are &#8220;server exceptions&#8221; for FRAUDULENT &#8220;usertrust&#8221; certificates, where fraudulent &#8220;usertrust&#8221; certificates will be trusted, automatically, overriding any security-checks-because of the &#8220;server exceptions&#8221; which were added to FF build 3.6.22..</p>
<p>i am referring to the &#8220;server exceptions&#8221; in &#8220;FF/tools/options/advanced/view certificates/servers&#8221;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Bernier</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110228</link>
		<dc:creator>David Bernier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:35:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I support Mozilla&#039;s decision to revoke the
trust in the DigiNotar-issued SSL certificates.

I think it&#039;s a very good pro-active security
decision.  It&#039;s unfortunate for DigiNotar,
but in my view is justified by the risks that
would follow from doing nothing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I support Mozilla&#8217;s decision to revoke the<br />
trust in the DigiNotar-issued SSL certificates.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s a very good pro-active security<br />
decision.  It&#8217;s unfortunate for DigiNotar,<br />
but in my view is justified by the risks that<br />
would follow from doing nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brian</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110225</link>
		<dc:creator>brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:21:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110225</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@52 (GlaDOS): &lt;blockquote&gt;I’m not understanding the connection between this CA root certificate being revoked and Iranians being jailed, tortured, or even killed. Could somebody please explain this?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Have you not been paying attention?  The Iranian government is presently (and has been for a few decades) violently suppressing any dissent amongst its citizens.  By the means listed above.

Being able to do MitM attacks allows the Iranian government to intercept what people THINK are secure communications and use them to root out dissenters more easily.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@52 (GlaDOS):<br />
<blockquote>I’m not understanding the connection between this CA root certificate being revoked and Iranians being jailed, tortured, or even killed. Could somebody please explain this?</p></blockquote>
<p>Have you not been paying attention?  The Iranian government is presently (and has been for a few decades) violently suppressing any dissent amongst its citizens.  By the means listed above.</p>
<p>Being able to do MitM attacks allows the Iranian government to intercept what people THINK are secure communications and use them to root out dissenters more easily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan Ostemor</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110183</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan Ostemor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Daniel Veditz

&gt; The Dutch government, the owner of the Staat der Nederlanden roots, asked that we
&gt; not revoke their certs. 

So you decided to trust some politicians? Never heard that politicians sometimes not exactly tell the truth? You have a compromised registrar, you have root certs from that registrar, and yet you trust a few politicians if they telly you &quot;don&#039;t worry, everything is fine&quot;? Stupid.

Which interests do you represent? The interests of the worldwide users of firefox, their lives sometimes being in danger, or the interests of some who-gives-a-toss government?

This is not a question of being fair, this is a question of being firm.

Cut out the cancer to make sure it doesn&#039;t do any damage any more. Stop working in the interests of governments and CAs. Start, just once, start working in the interests of your users.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daniel Veditz</p>
<p>&gt; The Dutch government, the owner of the Staat der Nederlanden roots, asked that we<br />
&gt; not revoke their certs. </p>
<p>So you decided to trust some politicians? Never heard that politicians sometimes not exactly tell the truth? You have a compromised registrar, you have root certs from that registrar, and yet you trust a few politicians if they telly you &#8220;don&#8217;t worry, everything is fine&#8221;? Stupid.</p>
<p>Which interests do you represent? The interests of the worldwide users of firefox, their lives sometimes being in danger, or the interests of some who-gives-a-toss government?</p>
<p>This is not a question of being fair, this is a question of being firm.</p>
<p>Cut out the cancer to make sure it doesn&#8217;t do any damage any more. Stop working in the interests of governments and CAs. Start, just once, start working in the interests of your users.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: theappalasian</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110179</link>
		<dc:creator>theappalasian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:42:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@blah That&#039;s rather unfair.  Mozilla did right.  DigiNotar was incompetent.  The Dutch government even revoked it&#039;s own certs. What more validation do you need?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@blah That&#8217;s rather unfair.  Mozilla did right.  DigiNotar was incompetent.  The Dutch government even revoked it&#8217;s own certs. What more validation do you need?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Veditz</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110177</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Veditz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&gt; There’s no indication in all of this (probably due to a lack of
&gt; disclosure by DigiNotar) that anything has been done about the
&gt; fraudulent certificate for Mozilla that DigiNotar also issued.

DigiNotar did give us a list of the fraudulent certificates that they caught and revoked, including several variants on an addons.mozilla.org certificate. Neither we nor they know which ones they did NOT catch (only that there are some out there). They can&#039;t revoke certs they don&#039;t know about; the only remaining way to invalidate those certificates is to invalidate the root.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; There’s no indication in all of this (probably due to a lack of<br />
&gt; disclosure by DigiNotar) that anything has been done about the<br />
&gt; fraudulent certificate for Mozilla that DigiNotar also issued.</p>
<p>DigiNotar did give us a list of the fraudulent certificates that they caught and revoked, including several variants on an addons.mozilla.org certificate. Neither we nor they know which ones they did NOT catch (only that there are some out there). They can&#8217;t revoke certs they don&#8217;t know about; the only remaining way to invalidate those certificates is to invalidate the root.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt McCutchen</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.org/security/2011/08/29/fraudulent-google-com-certificate/comment-page-2/#comment-110174</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt McCutchen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 05:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.org/security/?p=527#comment-110174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Opera is claiming that their users were protected because the SSL badge turns off if OCSP is unreachable (http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2011/08/30/when-certificate-authorities-are-hacked-2).  That&#039;s &quot;rubbish&quot;, as Adam Langley would say.  I pointed them to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327181#c14.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Opera is claiming that their users were protected because the SSL badge turns off if OCSP is unreachable (<a href="http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2011/08/30/when-certificate-authorities-are-hacked-2" rel="nofollow">http://my.opera.com/securitygroup/blog/2011/08/30/when-certificate-authorities-are-hacked-2</a>).  That&#8217;s &#8220;rubbish&#8221;, as Adam Langley would say.  I pointed them to <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327181#c14" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327181#c14</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
