Comment

Comment by floatingatoll

Comodo is communicating actively in the bug, in the email discussion, and proactively CC'd the original reporter on the bug that was filed about this without being asked to do so.

The general rule in Operations work is tolerance. You don't fire someone for making a mistake, you fire them for lying about the mistake, for refusing to avoid mistake-prone behaviors, and other problem of that sort.

Applying that same principle to CA operations, why on earth should Comodo be "fired" as a CA for this? They're actively working to solve it, they're responsive, and the agreements they operate under will compel a post-mortem into existence if only to meet the terms of their next CA audit.

If, after investigation, they are found to be willfully violating policy, knowingly lying about CAA support, fail to produce an acceptable post-mortem, and/or fail their next CA audit, then of course they should be at risk of direct sanctions - not just a verbal reprimand.

So if your initial response to this issue is "Comodo should be fired", remember that in Operations culture that specific response "X should be fired" is a harmful response to a zero-day report of an incident, and many Operations teams would fire anyone who called for a firing in response to a fresh incident, in order to protect others from that harmful posture.

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton