DigiCert, a Certificate Authority (CA), issued a DMCA takedown notice against a Mozilla Bugzilla post detailing a vulnerability in their certificate issuance process. This vulnerability allowed the fraudulent issuance of certificates for *.mozilla.org, a significant security risk. While DigiCert later claimed the takedown was accidental and retracted it, the initial action sparked concern within the Mozilla community regarding potential censorship and the chilling effect such legal threats could have on open security research and vulnerability disclosure. The incident highlights the tension between responsible disclosure and legal protection, particularly when vulnerabilities involve prominent organizations.
This Bugzilla report, titled "DigiCert: Threat of legal action to stifle Bugzilla discourse," details a concerning interaction between Mozilla developers and representatives of DigiCert, a prominent Certificate Authority (CA). The issue at hand revolves around public discussion on the Mozilla Bugzilla platform regarding a specific certificate issuance incident involving DigiCert. The report alleges that DigiCert, instead of engaging in open and constructive dialogue about the technical aspects and potential security implications of the incident being discussed on the platform, resorted to legal threats aimed at suppressing further conversation and removing existing commentary.
The author of the Bugzilla report expresses apprehension that such actions by a trusted CA like DigiCert could have a chilling effect on the vital role Bugzilla plays in fostering transparency and collaborative security research. They argue that open discussion of potential vulnerabilities and certificate issuance problems is paramount to maintaining the integrity and security of the internet ecosystem. The report highlights the potential conflict between the desire of a CA to protect its reputation and the broader community interest in openly analyzing and addressing potential weaknesses in certificate issuance processes. The author underscores the importance of Bugzilla as a crucial platform for facilitating this essential public discourse and argues that legal threats against such discourse are detrimental to the collective security efforts of the internet community. The report concludes by calling for a reaffirmation of Mozilla's commitment to maintaining an open and transparent platform for discussing security issues, even in the face of pressure from external entities. The implication is that succumbing to such pressure could set a dangerous precedent, potentially discouraging future disclosures and hindering the collaborative identification and resolution of security vulnerabilities.
Summary of Comments ( 125 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43167087
HN commenters largely express outrage at DigiCert's legal threat against Mozilla for publicly disclosing a vulnerability in their software via Bugzilla, viewing it as an attempt to stifle legitimate security research and responsible disclosure. Several highlight the chilling effect such actions can have on vulnerability reporting, potentially leading to more undisclosed vulnerabilities being exploited. Some question the legality and ethics of DigiCert's response, especially given the public nature of the Bugzilla entry. A few commenters sympathize with DigiCert's frustration with the delayed disclosure but still condemn their approach. The overall sentiment is strongly against DigiCert's handling of the situation.
The Hacker News post "DigiCert: Threat of legal action to stifle Bugzilla discourse" (linking to a Mozilla Bugzilla report about DigiCert's revocation of a certificate used for WireGuard) sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments.
Many commenters expressed outrage and concern over DigiCert's handling of the situation, viewing their legal threat as an attempt to suppress legitimate discussion of a potential security issue. They saw it as a heavy-handed response that discouraged responsible disclosure and could have chilling effects on future vulnerability reporting. Some specifically criticized the use of legal threats in response to public interest concerns around certificate revocation practices, arguing it sets a bad precedent.
Several comments focused on the technical aspects of certificate revocation, debating the merits of DigiCert's actions and whether the revocation was justified. Some questioned if the key compromise was genuine or a result of a misunderstanding, while others discussed the broader challenges and limitations of certificate revocation mechanisms. This sparked a back-and-forth about best practices and responsibilities in such scenarios.
A few comments highlighted the potential implications for WireGuard users, expressing concern about the disruption caused by the revocation and the potential for similar incidents in the future. They discussed the importance of clear communication and transparency from Certificate Authorities (CAs) during such events.
Some commenters questioned the Bugzilla forum as the appropriate venue for this discussion, suggesting that a more private channel might have been more suitable for addressing the legal concerns raised by DigiCert. However, others countered that the public nature of the discussion was crucial for transparency and accountability.
There was also discussion about the legal aspects of the situation, with commenters speculating about the basis of DigiCert's legal threat and the potential outcomes. Some pointed to potential defamation or tortious interference claims, while others questioned the validity of such claims in this context.
Finally, several commenters offered alternative interpretations of DigiCert's actions, suggesting they might have been motivated by a desire to protect their reputation or avoid potential liability, rather than to stifle legitimate discourse. They encouraged considering the perspectives of all involved parties.