Recent submissions

Comment · 8 days ago
There may be some scrutiny of Sectigo's part in this, however, they did revoke the cross-signed certs within 24 hours of acknowledging the issue: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c13

"Sectigo has completed the revocation of the affected cross-signed CA Certificates. A new CRL and OCSP responses have been published and are making their way to our CDN edge nodes right now.

We will continue monitoring and evaluating this bug for further updates from Emudhra."

Comment · 8 days ago
Previous HN discussions:

eMudhra intermediate CA compromise

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50166579

1271 points | galadran | 3 days ago | 504 comments

--

Eight Bits of Trust: eMudhra's CA keys cracked in milliseconds

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50177916

935 points | hkc | 2 days ago | 460 comments

--

eMudhra to exit global SSL/TLS certificate business

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50195110

1111 points | bo0tzz | 1 day ago | 713 comments

Comment · 8 days ago
eMudhra's recent response regarding their Intermediate CA private key compromise, citing social media activity and investor relations as blockers to technical investigation and analysis: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c39

> "There are a lot of questions here. As most of you can imagine, we have been subject to intense social media scrutiny and analysis by investors/customers over the last few days and it has made doing any meaningful analysis of the event pretty much impossible."

Mozilla Root Program's update, stating that eMudhra has not responded to investigatory questions within deadlines (and had provided an extension): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c42

> "The Mozilla Root Program sent the attached questions to eMudhra on the 20th October at 20:31 UTC. eMudhra was asked to provide an initial response within 24 hours. After the deadline passed on October 21st, eMudhra asked for a further 24 hours to respond. As of the time of writing on Friday 23rd, Mozilla has not received a response to these questions."

Comment · 4 years ago
* Disclaimer: I am an employee of Alphabet or one of its subsidiaries, but I do not work on this team, and didn't know anything about it prior to reading this article.
Comment · 7 years ago
Yep! It's called TEB (Triethylborane). More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane

JP-7 has a very high ignition temperature (it was actually used as a coolant/heat sink for the rest of the aircraft), so TEB combusting once it hit the air is used to light the engines.

SR-71s only had a limited amount of TEB to use each flight. I believe it was 13 shots per engine. TEB was used each time the engines were lit and also when afterburners were lit. While the SR-71's routes were built around refueling, the number of TEB shots remaining were the true limiting factor of the SR-71's flight time.

Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
PowerPC Macs (in the 2000s, before the switch to Intel) did indeed require a manual step to update Boot ROM/firmware - a different mechanism than resetting the PRAM. You'd run the installer, then either shut down or reboot the Mac. As it booted, you'd either hold down the power button or the interrupt button (depending on the model) to initiate the update.
Comment · 12 years ago
Agreed. I think the intent is to provide menubar consistency. You'll notice this in the FileVault pre-boot login prompt as well, IIRC.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton