Bug 1986968 Comment 2 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
(In reply to Christopher Kunz from comment #1)
> In my opinion, this is not the case here. Neither 1.1.1.1 nor 2.2.2.2 have ceased operation or changed proprietors. I think that you should have used reason #4 (superseded)

I think it could also be “keyCompromise” because they key is known by someone who is not owner of the certified address.
Revision 1 by
on 
(In reply to Christopher Kunz from comment #1)
> In my opinion, this is not the case here. Neither 1.1.1.1 nor 2.2.2.2 have ceased operation or changed proprietors. I think that you should have used reason #4 (superseded)

I think it could also be “keyCompromise” because they secret key is known by someone who is not owner of the certified address. This also indicates that even past signatures made with this key have to be distrusted.
Revision 2 by
on 
(In reply to Christopher Kunz from comment #1)
> In my opinion, this is not the case here. Neither 1.1.1.1 nor 2.2.2.2 have ceased operation or changed proprietors. I think that you should have used reason #4 (superseded)

I think it could also be “keyCompromise” because the secret key is known to someone who is not owner of the certified address. This also indicates that even past signatures made with this key have to be distrusted.

Back to Bug 1986968 Comment 2