On a requirement they voted for half a year ago for a standard specified 5 years ago. It's sloppy and sloppy is not a property you want in a certificate authority.
From experience working with them, sloppy is an excellent way to describe Comodo.
Three days is quite a long time to be late, so I'd hope someone over there is getting a reprimand, but yeah, it's also not a disaster. They're response and time to remedy this will be more telling I think.
Three days over a weekend, though. Context matters. Even if it's the most critical incident, you can't force employees to work outside of business hours.
Except they claimed to support it a long time before this. It’s not that they were late, it’s that they lied.
That makes no difference as to when the three days where. I never made any claims as to why it's late or them lying. I merely clarified that the three days were over a period where people don't usually work.
Karunamon et. al. are not saying your point is wrong; they are saying it is irrelevant, and if their facts are correct then they are right.
It's not about them being late these 3 days. It's about them lying about having already implemented this months ago.
How do you know they lied? What if they implemented it but simply did not flip the switch?
'Lie' is indeed a strong term, informally suggesting an intent to deceive. Personally, I would suspect negligence and incompetence rather than deceit, but negligence is a serious matter here.
Given the general crappiness of the CA industry, my first instinct is to say they willfully said "yeah we support it" without actually doing it first, knowing that it wasn't actually done.
The ballot was in March, so they have 6 month to prepare for it, not only 3 days to implement a surprising change.
These 3 days don't matter when you have months of lead time.
I wonder about what else is Comodo being "not too serious" while they promise to be "super serious" about them in their marketing campaigns?