Comment 103 for bug 310999

(In reply to comment #84)
> Hey Doktor - the operation was successful - the patient died? This is actually
> not what we want. Don't kill the patient, root out the source of the problem.
> Or yank the root.

Understandable, given that issuing certs is one of your company's businesses. :-) However, I have to go with The H Security:

<snip>
The incident is further proof that the entire concept of SSL and of users' trust in the Certificate Authorities are standing on feet of clay. After all, a certificate is also considered trustworthy even if it is issued by a CA reseller based in a country to which users probably wouldn't even go on holiday for security reasons. And the promised technologies don't even work when a compromised certificate is made public. It is time to come up with a new concept – and "EV-SSL" certificates, at least, should not be a part of it .
</snip>

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/SSL-meltdown-forces-browser-developers-to-update-1213358.html

> As such why is bug 642395 restricted?

Security by obscurity? :P Someone should unlock it promptly, gets ridiculous.