Thanks for that response. It is well-written and transparently constructed. That said, you&#x27;re reading quite a bit more agenda and polemic in TrendMicro&#x27;s post than I did. Possibly because you&#x27;ve seen this kind of post before :)<p>If you can allow me a bit of proofreading, there are a few typo&#x27;s in the article:<p><i>[..] that said it is can be summarized as:</i> -&gt; lose the &quot;is&quot;<p><i>Maybe the then the issue is</i> -&gt; lose the first &quot;the&quot;<p><i>It had nothing to do with SSL, the attacker had full control of a subdomain and the attack would have still worked without it.</i> -&gt; The final &quot;it&quot; should presumably refer to SSL, but in this construct it refers to &quot;control&quot;.<p><i>I say “could” because in that not everyone is aware of</i> -&gt; lose &quot;in that&quot; ?<p><i>Until all CAs are required to log all of the SSL certificates they issue into CT Logs and add are required to CAA</i> -&gt; Not sure of your intent here. &quot;And CAA records are required before requesting certs&quot;?<p>Also, your quotes from the original article render for me (in firefox) as single-line textboxes with scrollbars. Maybe you can change it to force automatic wrapping?