> In addition, we discovered that a few outstanding employees, who had successfully undergone our stringent on-boarding and security trainings, failed to follow our policies. Despite their best intentions, this failure to follow policies has led to their termination after a thoughtful review process. Because you rely on us to protect the digital world, we hold ourselves to a “no compromise” bar for such breaches. As a result, it was the only call we could make.

> As much as we hate to lose valuable colleagues, we are the industry leader in online safety and security, and it is imperative that we maintain the absolute highest standards. At the end of day, we hang our hats on trust, and that trust is built by doing what we say we’re going to do.

Wow.

I have to say that I respect that decision. Without knowing the circumstances, I have to say that willful disregard for security policy while handling materials as sensitive as a CA cert is indeed not something I'd want to see from employees at a CA.

Agreed that the steps taken vis-a-vis these employees may have been the right one if they indeed breached company policy. But I do have an issue with publicizing this so openly, and using this to showoff of how serious "we" are. Even with the best intentions, you will run into bad apples. You still need to have the right controls, preferably automated, to avoid sensitive material to be used for internal purposes. Blogging on how they terminated employees doesn't help to showcase their leadership imho.

There is no basis for respecting a decision stemming from a "no compromise" policy. Such a policy is designed to substitute mechanical action for judgment and discretion.

Cf. the child-porn case also on the front page now (kid has picture of self on phone; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247764). It's probably also based on some kind of zero-tolerance policy or campaign promise.

Had the announcement merely referred to the "thoughtful review process" (which is good) but not then nullified the meaning of that process with a thoughtless "no compromise" standard (which is silly), then it'd be at least eligible for respect.

Looks like that article got pulled?

Disable HTTPS-Everywhere for the site if you have that installed. Took me quite a while to figure out.

Why does the https redirect to http? Symantec can't afford to give itself a certificate?

the java server pages application that serves the main site has extended validation https://www.symantec.com/index.jsp

but connect doesn't. It seems like https://www.symantec.com/connect/ redirects to http://www.symantec.com/connect/

r.port="https"===o[0]?"443":"80"

Why can't Symantec afford to put ssl on its connect site? It is not like they have to pay anyone for a certificate...

Not even that, the domain already has a certificate, they're forcing a redirect to HTTP on a domain that already has a certificate.