Shortening certificate periods is just their way of admitting that certification revocation lists are absolutely worthless.

▲

nightpool 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, they're not useless at all. The point of shortening certificate periods is that companies complain when they have to put customers on revocation lists, because their customers need ~2 years to update a certificate. If CRLs were useless, nobody would complain about being put on them. If you follow the revocation tickets in ca-compliance bugzilla, this is the norm—not the exception. Nobody wants to revoke certificates because it will break all of their customers. Shortening the validity period means that CAs and users are more prepared for revocation events.

▲

pas 4 hours ago | parent [-]

... what are the revocation tickets about then? how is it even a question whether to put a cert on the CRL? either the customer wants to or the key has been compromised? (in which case the customer should also want to have it revoked ASAP, no?)

can you elaborate on this a bit? thank you!

	▲	bombcar 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From my experience the biggest complaints/howlings are when the signing key is compromised; e.g., your cert is valid and fine, but the authority screwed up and so they had to revoke all certs signed with their key because that leaked. E.g., collateral damage.

▲

nathanaldensr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right. It's the same debate about how long authorization cookies or tokens should last. At one point in time--only one--authentication was performed in a provable enough manner that the certificate was issued. After that--it could be seconds, hours, days, years, or never--that assumption could become invalid.