Timeline for Heartbleed - is this scenario possible? how bad would it be?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2014 at 14:51 | comment | added | Jason | I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the trust chain was a chain of SSL certificates, served the way typical SSL certificates are served. I should have done some more reading first :) | |
| Apr 11, 2014 at 14:44 | vote | accept | Jason | ||
| Apr 10, 2014 at 23:07 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSecurity/status/454395244885577728 | ||
| Apr 10, 2014 at 21:48 | comment | added | Neophyte | Exposing the CA externally does not make any sense to me. I approve of the above comments. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 21:39 | comment | added | Matt Nordhoff | All your "correct?"s and "right?"s are correct and right. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 21:29 | comment | added | user27909 | It would take an astonishing amount of incompetence for a CA to keep their root signing key on a webserver. Although one or two of the 600+ of them do manage to astonish everyone occasionally... | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 21:20 | answer | added | Andrew Russell | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 21:10 | comment | added | Stephen Touset | It would take an astonishing amount of incompetence for a CA to use their root signing key directly to secure TLS connections. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 21:01 | history | edited | AviD♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 10, 2014 at 20:34 | history | asked | Jason | CC BY-SA 3.0 |