[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thu, 2 May 2013 10:20:58 +0100
Martijn Grooten <sweetwatergeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Martijn,
>I'm willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt here, especially
>if the do it consistently. I assume they have a good reason for doing
>so.
It's all very sensible from the point of view, I'm sure. Of course,
there are plenty of people that find it odd, annoying or contrary to
safe practise.
>You make it sound like they change certificates twice a day. 'Normal
This change over cycle has occurred twice within the last year. It
lasts a few days until the new certificate is rolled out over all their
servers.
>users', for whom this kind of thing could indeed be a problem, should
>never have to accept a certificate anyway.
Maybe not, but that means blindly accepting *all* certs as valid.
That's unwise, at best.
>They are, but I'm still not sure whether this means that they can get
>in any Yahoo account, or that they can easily crack a lot of seemingly
>random accounts. The latter is pretty useful if you're a spammer but
I've only seen evidence of random accounts used for spamming rather
than attacks targeted at specific accounts.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
An old custom to sell your daughter
Hong Kong Garden - Siouxsie & The Banshees
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq