@Florian
The document is about the SSL 2.0 security deficiencies, particularly the
ones that brought its prohibition. The solutions to these deficiencies
might also have their own problems, as it's often the case in security
related topics which look like a never-ending debate (a problem, a
soluti
* RFC Errata System:
> Corrected Text
> --
>o The root certificate authority keys are overexposed. The server
> sends only one certificate signed by a root certificate authority,
> which means a frequent use of this authority keys for signing new
> certificates.
You will likely find
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2018OctDec/0013.html
useful in explaining the process and purpose of errata, and what it means,
in practice, to update the document. This understanding will hopefully make
it clear why the errata was rejected.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2
Yes, I know the deficiencies list as reported in this document is not
exhaustive but it's worth mentionning this one even in a rejected errata.
It had a greater impact than the MITM reset, the latter being mentionned.
Le jeu. 11 oct. 2018 à 15:27, RFC Errata System
a écrit :
> The following erra
