top | item 46625950 (no title) securesaml | 1 month ago it is less of a problem for revoking attacker's keys (but maybe it has access to victim's contents?).agreed it shouldn't be used to revoke non-malicious/your own keys discuss order hn newest nebezb|1 month ago The poster you originally replied to is suggesting this for revoking the attackers keys. Not for revocation of their own keys… unknown|1 month ago [deleted] securesaml|1 month ago there's still some risk of publishing an attacker's key. For example, what if the attacker's key had access to sensitive user data? load replies (2)
nebezb|1 month ago The poster you originally replied to is suggesting this for revoking the attackers keys. Not for revocation of their own keys… unknown|1 month ago [deleted] securesaml|1 month ago there's still some risk of publishing an attacker's key. For example, what if the attacker's key had access to sensitive user data? load replies (2)
securesaml|1 month ago there's still some risk of publishing an attacker's key. For example, what if the attacker's key had access to sensitive user data? load replies (2)
nebezb|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
securesaml|1 month ago