ygjb-dupe
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
- a key is made public, and we have to call a user or refund them (for retention purposes)
- a key is made public, and we revoked the key, potentially breaking the customers builds/deploys and potentially knocking a customers stuff out (if, for example, a key is disabled during a push to production).
In fairness, your operation of the vehicle has a substantial impact on the outcome of operating the vehicle, the the decision loop that your brain implements while driving is largely incapable of effectively processing and executing on the volume of information and variables that are in play in the circumstances that lead to high speed collisions.
Anecdotally you might feel in control, but it is probably worth noting that most people, drunk or sober, tired on fully awake, fully alert or texting, felt like they were in control when they were suddenly the cause of, or involved in a collision.
Having the commit will make it maore feasible to fund vehicles that are intended for a specific area, and the pool model allows Uber to recover margin during pricing surges and users who don't want to pay the commit (after all, the discount on the fare would only apply to the portion of the pool fare ascribed to the subscribed to the passenger).
Depending on the city, better might be faster, more available, less racist, less intense experience, cleaner, etc, etc, etc.
They don't need to be cheaper in most places, at least not yet.
I don't buy into enough of the eco system, but do Apple devices sharing an Apple ID to sync over LAN/WLAN instead of hitting icloud?
Setting aside the purely utilitarian aspect of being required to use a piece of software to do a task or as part of a job, consistency increases efficiency by reducing the amount of time spent understanding the deviations from expectation in the user interface.
Open source tools to run a CA / PKI have existed for a good long time, they just haven't been easy to use.
Automated certificate issuance software has also existed for awhile, but it hasn't been terribly awesome.
The bigger issue is trust - launching a new CA is quite expensive since you need to invest and build all the technology and processes, then get them all audited, and then present the results to the various organizations who control who control which CAs are trusted (see https://cabforum.org/)
The motivation for running a CA has typically been financial - even vendors that provide free certificates (StartSSL, Comodo, etc) have done so as path to moving customers to paid services.
Lets Encrypt/ISRG was kicked off by a group of folks who care deeply about security and had the technical chops and inside knowledge (some (all?) of the founding team) were from Mozilla and had both guidance and experience dealing with the CAB.
In short, there is no good reason not to have done this, and independent of this, another team within Mozilla had started to think about how we could tackle this before we found out the LE work was in flight :)
It is.
> And let other people work on it and just cover 3 people managing this + architecture costs.
Um, Lets Encrypt, in the course of the last year has inadvertently become one of the largest issuers, and has become critical infrastructure for many of it's users who would suddenly have to pay for certificates, assuming they configured LE certs and Strict Transport Security. If LE was only 3 "managers" + cloud infrastructure, it wouldn't be reliable.
> You don't need 2.9 mil per year to process 60k certificate requests a day with system that is practically finished. What else is there to do which open source community could not do it itself?
The service isn't "practically finished", they need to continue to improve the service to reduce costs, improve the operations capabilities of the service as it grows, From LE: Staffing is our dominant cost. We currently have eight full time employees, plus two full time staff that are employed by other entities (Mozilla and EFF). This includes five operations/sysadmin staff, three software developers, one communications and fundraising person, and an executive director.
>Thousands of companies and developers use letsencrypt, a lot of potential man power to help if you ask me. You could easily cut costs 5-6 times. Or am i missing something here?
You are missing alot... this is not an open source project that anyone other than an existing CA can consume and hit the ground running. If any other major CA decided to consume Boulder, and offer it as a service, they could eat LE for lunch, but for anyone else, they need a massive investment in the logistics of becoming a CA.
Over and above that, LE is a team run on a shoestring, and yet they are building out infrastructure that is likely to be highly targeted by a broad range of attackers. Wether it's DoS, folks trying to get mis-issued certs, or a number of other objectives, that they are running and keeping the service up with that few people and that little money is an impressive feat.