LibreSSL is not a complete rewrite.

Yes, but this saying nothing about the future of it etc.

This reminds me that the reason Server 2003 got an extra year of support is that they waited until after Vista SP1 to release Server 2008, and Vista RTM had many well-known problems.

I think calling it a "remix" is reasonable in this case. The idea is Marissa wants to get rid of some of the people hired under the previous CEO and replace it with much more talented people. Abuse of the term is still bad of course.

Well, Apple once got Blue Box on NuKernel, which would have been a good starting point.

Well, SSLv2 did take a lot of additional code to support, but the same is not true for SSLv3. I think every browser was going to disable SSLv3 soon thanks to POODLE.

That blog article actually inspired my own wishlist for Satya on my own blog that is poorly written.

Older versions of the Certicom TLS stack used in older versions of WebLogic are affected for example (change to JSSE).

What is sad is that OpenSSL disabled the EXPORT1024 ciphersuites in 2006. If you don't know what these are, in year 1999 the US government raised the limit to 56-bit encryption and 1024-bit RSA. They were described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/dr... . And for the record it was in year 2000 that the restrictions was removed for "retail" software.

I'd rather focus on fixing the problems with using real names than "doxing" anonymous posters, for example.

I wonder what would happen if governments made all banks non-profit or something like that.

I wonder what would happen if government made all banks non-profit or something list that.

More importantly, Malwarebytes was designed for fighting malware like this and has the expertise.

What bad certificates are you talking about?

I don't think Mozilla is that bad.