Wait. I&#x27;m the last person to defend Symantec (see [1] [2]) but the headline seems to be a load of rubbish, or at least certainly isn&#x27;t backed by the content of the article.<p>Here are the only two reseller quotes from the article:<p>&gt; Reseller rep.:<p>&gt; We regret to inform you that certificate [number] for www.canary.pw domain has been revoked by the Certificate Authority due to the site being flagged as potentially containing malware in a recent site scanning by Symantec (owner of GeoTrust). Unfortunately we were not warned of the upcoming revocation, so we apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause.<p>A single website, that allows people to search stolen data, eg the Ashley Madison hack, and asks people to submit stolen data, has had it&#x27;s certificate revoked.<p>and:<p>&gt; Reseller rep.:<p>&gt; As per our check with Symantec, they will no longer be issuing SSL certs to .PW domains. You are advised to remove the SSL certificate from the server to avoid security errors related to a revoked certificate.<p>&gt; And furthermore Symantec are no longer issuing certificates for the .pw TLD.<p>Neither quote equates to Symantec having &#x27;revoked all SSL certificates for .PW TLD domains&#x27; as mentioned in the headline and this HN submission.<p>As much as I dislike Symantec - and I really dislike Symantec - I think this article&#x27;s headline is false.<p>[1]. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;certsimple.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;seal-in-search" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;certsimple.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;seal-in-search</a><p>[2]. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;certsimple.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;sgc-ssl-certificates" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;certsimple.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;sgc-ssl-certificates</a>