[Discuss] Who sells the least expensive SSL certs right now?

[bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu)
<blu at nedharvey.com> wrote:
>> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
>> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Shirley M?rquez
>> D?lcey
>>
>> Free certificates shouldn't be a business model. They should be
>> something that you do to give back to the community, to help keep the
>> internet an open place for everybody.
>
> While we're at it, let's ban commercial software, and copyright and patent and trademarks.  Computers are able to copy all these things at zero cost; it should be free for everyone.  Unicorns and rainbows for the win!   ;-)
>
> Sorry, I know I'm being a jerk.  But the argument that the *only* provider of commonly trusted free certs is extorting people by charging for revocation is foolishness.  If that argument holds, then *no* certificate authority should be able to charge for issuing certs.

No argument from me on this.  However, I am not sure why I would ever bother to
revoke a certificate for a general purpose web site.   Why wouldn't I
just stop using it
and go get a new certificate from whatever CA I want?   As for someone
else spoofing my site with the stolen cert, I thought that it was
still possible to get certificates signed for almost any domain from
some of the CAs.   So revoking a stolen certificate isn't going to
help that much to protect against man in the middle attacks.  I don't
think it is going to stop someone who recorded the entire session from
decrypting it once they get the private key either.  What am I missing
here?

Bill Bogstad