Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Authorise expenditure of $535.00 USD for Microsoft Authenticode signing certificate #347

Closed
rvagg opened this issue Sep 12, 2017 · 17 comments

Comments

@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Sep 12, 2017

It was just brought to my attention that our .msi signing certificate is due to expire on the 23rd of October. This certificate is how our installer avoids any warning messages about being untrusted when run on Windows.

Options are:

  • 1 year: $223.00 USD
  • 2 years: $397.00 USD
  • 3 years: $535.00 USD

Given how annoying this whole process is, and that it seems like they may be lifting the security requirements for using these keys which may mean our next one needs to be used off a USB device, I'd like to go with the 3 year option. We have an account with DigiCert and if approved I'll just give the login details to the finance people at the Linux Foundation to click through and purchase it for us. I'd like this authorised ASAP so we don't have to leave this to the last minute. Sorry there wasn't more warning, I haven't received any notifications about it expiring from DigiCert.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Sep 12, 2017

Ping @mrhinkle @hackygolucky

@refack
Copy link

refack commented Sep 12, 2017

/s/lifting/raising/, right?

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

SGTM +!

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented Sep 12, 2017 via email

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

+1 from me.

@addaleax
Copy link
Member

SGTM

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@cjihrig
Copy link
Contributor

cjihrig commented Sep 20, 2017

LGTM. 3 years sounds fine.

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Sep 20, 2017

LGTM

@ChALkeR
Copy link
Member

ChALkeR commented Sep 20, 2017

LGTM, 3 years looks like the best choice here.

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

Discussed in the TSC meeting today, no opposition to going with the 3 year cert so lets just do that.

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented Oct 3, 2017

@rvagg have you gone ahead with this ? Wondering if we can close the issue.

@fhinkel
Copy link
Member

fhinkel commented Oct 11, 2017

ping @rvagg

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2017

👍 making it happen now

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2017

Got a new certificate. Unfortunately the Linux Foundation decided to ask Mark Hinkle for permission after I submitted the request for them to pay for it (referencing this thread) and he told them to only pay for 1 year so we can "replace it with Lets Encrypt after that".

So we have a 1 year certificate and will have to revisit this again in a year. I'll try and figure out why I/we didn't get notification from DigiCert about the renewal so it doesn't hit us by surprise again.

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Oct 12, 2017

Pushing to get a 3-year cause of the USB requirement. None of us wants to be hit with the requirement to have physical access to a signing server so the further we can push that down the road the better. This may mean we have to wear additional expenditure if the 1-year renewal can't be upgraded but I'll push for the executive to own that expense and it not come from the TSC budget since we explicitly requested a 3-year.

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Oct 13, 2017

OK, they phoned DigiCert and extended it out to 3-years, so yay! Will close this now and discuss progress back in nodejs/build#874 on getting it installed.

@rvagg rvagg closed this as completed Oct 13, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests