What Would It Take To Have Open CA Authorities?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday July 18, 2008 @07:06AM from the sounds-like-vc-pitch-time dept.

trainman writes "With the release of Firefox 3, those who have been using self-signed certificates for SSL now face a huge issue — the big, scary warning FF3 issues which is very unintuitive for non-technical users. It seems Firefox is pushing more websites in to the monopolistic arms of companies such as Verisign. For smaller, especially non-profit groups, which will never have issues with domain typo scammers, this adds an extra and difficult-to-swallow cost. Does a service such as this need the same level of scrutiny and cost since all that is being done is verifying domain and certificate match? This extra hand holding adds a tremendous cost and allows monopolistic companies such as Verisign to thrive. Can organizations such as Mozilla not move towards a model that helps break this monopoly, helping establish a CA root authority that's cheap (free?) and only links the certificate to the domain, not actual verification of who owns the domain?"

2 of 529 comments (clear)

HUGE by btaranto · 2008-07-18 07:37 · Score: 0, Troll

i don't want understand the people anymore... #$%#@#@!@#!
Re:A difficult and hard to swallow cost? by Sir_Real · 2008-07-18 08:10 · Score: 0, Troll

$27 a year? (GoDaddy) $50 a year? (InstantSSL) etc.
Sorry, but if an organisation can't swallow around $50 a year then they have more serious problems that wanting SSL.

You're a short sighted nitwit.
Dipshits like you ask dumbfuck questions like "If you're not guilty of anything, what do you have to hide?"
Just crawl back into bucket of dumb, die, and leave the rest of us alone.
Fuck my karma.