I've always thought that company names like "Entrust" are hostages to fortune, daring the Fates to intervene. In this case the Fates are the browser vendors.
There's now also the problem of competing with a free alternative that increasingly almost everyone knows about.
There's now also the problem of competing with a free alternative that increasingly almost everyone knows about.
If you read through some of the incidents in bugzilla, you get the strong impression that Entrust’s market is specifically the people for which something like LetsEncrypt isn’t currently a viable alternative (or at least a difficult one).
In trying to justify not revoking misused certificates, one example they gave for a customer they were granting extended deadlines to was some organization that was contractually obligated to their customers to provide at least 90 days notice of any certificate updates.
While the deliverable is essentially the same, I don’t think Entrust and LetsEncrypt have really been in competition.
Comments
I've always thought that company names like "Entrust" are hostages to fortune, daring the Fates to intervene. In this case the Fates are the browser vendors.
There's now also the problem of competing with a free alternative that increasingly almost everyone knows about.
If you read through some of the incidents in bugzilla, you get the strong impression that Entrust’s market is specifically the people for which something like LetsEncrypt isn’t currently a viable alternative (or at least a difficult one).
In trying to justify not revoking misused certificates, one example they gave for a customer they were granting extended deadlines to was some organization that was contractually obligated to their customers to provide at least 90 days notice of any certificate updates.
While the deliverable is essentially the same, I don’t think Entrust and LetsEncrypt have really been in competition.