←back to thread

482 points sanqui | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
noitpmeder ◴[] No.42285295[source]
Not clear (to me) in the original post -- was this done accidentally or intentionally?
replies(4): >>42285340 #>>42285374 #>>42285593 #>>42285609 #
woodson ◴[] No.42285609[source]
As a CA, how does one accidentally issue a certificate for google.com? I mean, is there a scenario that isn't malicious?
replies(3): >>42285625 #>>42286101 #>>42288078 #
tptacek ◴[] No.42285625[source]
Yes, if the interception system involved was meant only for resources within Brazil’s own agency networks.
replies(2): >>42285842 #>>42286581 #
lxgr ◴[] No.42285842[source]
But that's not allowed for publicly trusted roots under any circumstances, right? Not sure if that would qualify as an accident.
replies(1): >>42285964 #
foota ◴[] No.42285964[source]
I think the parent is saying that if they meant to use the cert only internally (e.g., to monitor employees) then that would arguably not be malicious.
replies(4): >>42285966 #>>42286063 #>>42286215 #>>42286226 #
1. grayhatter ◴[] No.42286063[source]
> (e.g., to monitor employees) then that would arguably not be malicious.

If only there was a way to monitor company equipment without issuing a cert for a public 3rd party.

replies(1): >>42289210 #
2. switch007 ◴[] No.42289210[source]
AI screen monitoring right