Timeline for Why are website (such as gmail.com) certificates issued by my company?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2017 at 15:02 | comment | added | schroeder♦ | That's the idea | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 14:49 | vote | accept | Independent | ||
| Jan 24, 2017 at 14:49 | comment | added | Independent | Thanks for clarification, so this kind of certificate between client and router is just a matter of that i accept to use an client that in turn is configured to accept this kind of certificates for a, by company itself, chosen collection of sites. In reality the acceptance criteria means possibly (not obviously) put the ownership of the data provided (through those sites) into the mentioned CA "My Company ABC".. Of course this is a kind of fair trade off, instead of restrict/block sites. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 13:55 | comment | added | schroeder♦ | By the way, if you look at Gmail's certificates when you are away from your company, you will see that the issuer isn't Gmail. The CA issues the certificate. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 13:53 | comment | added | schroeder♦ | 1) no particular point - might be a technical issue, 2) browser updates can create these types of warnings (pretty common), 3) It doesn't require the company to deal with Gmail at all - no costs, no need to even inform Gmail about this action. You are using a 'proxy' - you are not actually communicating with Gmail, but your company's routers instead. It's your routers that are connecting to Gmail with the valid certificate. | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 12:34 | comment | added | Independent | You nailed the question I had. Thanks for clarification. So I what I can read from you is 1) there is no particular reason that company use a weaker encryption. They can choose to decrypt an re-encrypt anyway because they already choose to have a intercepting point before data leave (and enter) the company? 2) the new warning may just be because of a browser upgrade that are configured differently. But one question: how "big" is this take for a company to deal with each company on the other side? Costly? complicated? common? | |
| Jan 24, 2017 at 12:10 | history | answered | schroeder♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |