| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CAChina Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CAPosted Feb 2, 2010 19:34 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)In reply to: China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CA by josh Parent article: China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CA
Sorry, but I find no hard evidence in that entry. In fact this entry omits any evidence of any other malware detection software from around the world declaring that software as malware.
(Log in to post comments)
China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CA Posted Feb 2, 2010 23:16 UTC (Tue) by redguardtoo (guest, #39215) [Link]
You found no evidence because you did NOT try.
See,
Or,
You can ask your Chinese friend to help you if you don't know Chinese
There is hard evidence that most Chinese IT guys don't trust CNNIC at all. Yes, I'm one of those Chinese guys because I know the notorious history of CNNIC too well.
China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CA Posted Feb 2, 2010 23:28 UTC (Tue) by redguardtoo (guest, #39215) [Link]
I just googled CNNIC and 我 (means 'I').
The result is the hard evidence how average Chinese "trust" CNNIC.
China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CA Posted Feb 3, 2010 7:29 UTC (Wed) by farter (guest, #62197) [Link]
You really don't need to understand Chinese to know about CNNIC.
Just google "CNNIC malware". For instance, this page on MS: http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/Encyclope....
Maybe I'm xenophobic, but IMHO, any institution having an entry bearing its name in nearly all major malware databases simple is not trustworthy, period.
China Internet Network Information Center accepted as a Mozilla root CA Posted Feb 3, 2010 15:56 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
josh above pointed to a certain section of a Wikipedia article as an evidence of some fact. I merely pointed out that the specific section provides no evidence.
You claim that there is evidence elsewhere? Fine. BTW: you can still fix that Wikipedia article. I generally have some more trust in Wikipedia articles that are popular enough because they have been reviewed by enough eyeballs, and it is usually easy to tell when the content of the article is controversial (which means I should then further review the talk page and relevant links.
What I saw in the bug report was a bunch of poeple shouting. Beyond shouting, they provided relatively little supporting evidence.
|
|
||||||||||||