SSL Certificate - Why is "Verified by: Not specified" ?

[#1]

Hmm. Interesting, wonder why that is not displaying correctly Nibiru. I'm getting

I occasionally get this on my mobile

[#2]

Hi @Townman

All Lithiums data centres storing Plusnet data are within the EU, so even though their Head Office is in the US, they have EU data centres. I can absolutely assure you, there is no storing of data in the US>

When procuring a company, this is one of the main things we'd look for and a company would score higher, in the initial process if they have UK/EU data centres, against ones with a safe harbour agreement in the US.

As part of the procurement process a full assessment was completed by our Info Sec and DPA teams and Lithium were found to be fully compliant.

Hope this assures you. Cheers

[#3]

Something has changed !

I'm now getting -  "Verified by: DigiCert inc"

[#4]

I've had that bit about DigiCert Inc for a while, certainly while the authentication issue has been going on.

I suspect others have too.

The warning bit I have is "Owner - This website does not supply ownership information."

[#5]

@Anonymous as the SSL Certificate is now showing correctly, did you really mean to 'unfix' this?

[#6]

I wasn't the one who marked this topic as fixed !

But as the originating OP, I did unmark it because the certificate still isn't entirely right.

Can @LouisaMartin raise a ticket with Lithium to add the correct site ownership details, so that the certificate doesn't report -

as that looks so unprofessional, much like the rest of this new forum ! 

[#7]

IIRC, the old forum was similar in that respect.

[#8]

I don't care,  the old forum was an in-house project and allowances were made for that,  but this new forum is being provided by a paid external service provider who claims to have expertise in getting this sort of thing right - and therefore it should be put right.

As an aside, a few weeks ago I had been experimenting with downloading HTTPS files from here using Linux scripts (to quantify my horrendous load times), and I was getting all sorts of errors regarding the file owner was not the same as the certificate owner etc, so I had to disable the security check, and therefore invalided the tests I was trying to achieve.  Although I did discover that downloading the files appeared to be rate limited to less than 1Mbps !

The only way that this forum is ever going to be fixed, is to rapidly fix one issue at a time, make sure each issue is completely fixed, and then move on to the next, until all the major issues are resolved.

[#9]

Whilst I don't disagree about fixing things, this isn't the only website in the world that has this rather minor issue and it's pretty low priority really compared to the other problems - the worst of which is the RT Editor, so I'm waiting to see if it's properly fixed with the next forum version (due soon I gather).

[#10]

Yes it might be low priority,  but we have no idea whether it's even on anybody's to-do list.

In fact we don't even know whether a to-do list even exists, as we've never seen it, or been told what the priority issues are.

[#11]

We have addressed that last point elsewhere.