Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're totally right, but how much is the very small minority?

What irks me slightly is that this is the type of thinking I typically see from companies like Google, where only 0.1% of users will be affected by a change, but 0.1% of a billion is 1 million people.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, perhaps I'm the only person who might be affected, in which case who cares. But LetsEncrypt is a critical service provider at this point, they shouldn't calculate impact like a commercial entity that can ignore people due to lack of revenue implications.

How unreasonable would I be if I expected TLS client clock precision to be part of the TLS spec, and such changes should require a version bump? That's probably extreme, but how can we ensure stability and reliability when these systems billions use change? Is the CA/B making decisions for everyone, even the minority? Do browser vendors care if some IoT device stops working?





We can ensure stability and reliability with RTCs and NTP. The minority here is systems with no RTC that try to perform TLS operations before NTP is operational. The fix is to move NTP earlier in the dependency tree. Or just wait a minute.

I don’t want the CAB to defer security wins for the 99% because of hardware and software trade offs the 1% made.


I'll trust you know more than I and concede on this then. I didn't consider the security benefits to be worth even a minor convenience to even a handful of people.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: