> The public record of Alegeus Technologies LLC v. DigiCert shows no attempt by DigiCert to contest the court’s order prior to the end of its preferred period of nearly 120 hours, even though such a motion could have freed DigiCert to revoke the certificates days earlier.
and
> The other question in comment 28 was for the language establishing DigiCert’s right to revoke Alegeus Technologies certificates. DigiCert has waffled on this point, first implying that this language was to be found on its website but later refusing to confirm that the language on the site applied to Alegeus Technologies at the time.
SPECULATION: Digicert may have offered special terms to Alegeus, and possibly other customers. They may have chosen not to dispute the TRO in court because they did not have grounds to do so under those agreements. They may also have included confidentiality terms in those contracts that prevented them from speaking about it.
OPINION: I am surprised that the forum allowed the issue to be closed without the above quoted questions being satisfied, though it is possible they are addressed elsewhere, I have not done a complete reading of all the linked issues.
> Even though DigiCert’s TOU and MSA prohibited Alegeus from taking the action it did, once it filed for a TRO and the court almost immediately granted it, DigiCert’s hands were tied
> Even though DigiCert’s TOU and MSA prohibited Alegeus from taking the action it did, once it filed for a TRO and the court almost immediately granted it, DigiCert’s hands were tied
So did the judge just not read the TOU before signing the TRO?
I wonder if the CAB forum would have standing to sue Alegeus and/or that judge for interfering with the PKI process with an invalid TRO.
> The public record of Alegeus Technologies LLC v. DigiCert shows no attempt by DigiCert to contest the court’s order prior to the end of its preferred period of nearly 120 hours, even though such a motion could have freed DigiCert to revoke the certificates days earlier.
and
> The other question in comment 28 was for the language establishing DigiCert’s right to revoke Alegeus Technologies certificates. DigiCert has waffled on this point, first implying that this language was to be found on its website but later refusing to confirm that the language on the site applied to Alegeus Technologies at the time.
SPECULATION: Digicert may have offered special terms to Alegeus, and possibly other customers. They may have chosen not to dispute the TRO in court because they did not have grounds to do so under those agreements. They may also have included confidentiality terms in those contracts that prevented them from speaking about it.
OPINION: I am surprised that the forum allowed the issue to be closed without the above quoted questions being satisfied, though it is possible they are addressed elsewhere, I have not done a complete reading of all the linked issues.
EDIT to add: DigiCert has a response in a different thread here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1910805#c43 that would appear to contradict my speculation. Specifically
> Even though DigiCert’s TOU and MSA prohibited Alegeus from taking the action it did, once it filed for a TRO and the court almost immediately granted it, DigiCert’s hands were tied