Yes, and furthermore there&#x27;s a very good reason to believe that this claim is true: as soon as they do, every copy of Chrome behind AT&amp;T&#x27;s network will go and snitch to Google, who will promptly investigate and get Verisign in deep trouble.<p>Here&#x27;s what happened when Symantec issued fake Google certificates last year:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;09&#x2F;improved-digital-certificate-security.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;09&#x2F;improved-d...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;sustaining-digital-certificate-security.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;sustaining...</a><p>&quot;Therefore we are firstly going to require that as of June 1st, 2016, all certificates issued by Symantec itself will be required to support Certificate Transparency. After this date, certificates newly issued by Symantec that do not conform to the Chromium Certificate Transparency policy may result in [annoying certificate warnings, just like self-signed certs].&quot;<p>And that was just the work of a couple of employees who were inappropriately testing their issuance system and weren&#x27;t even intending to attack anything. They got fired, which I expect is also a big part of why Google&#x27;s response was so <i>light</i>.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.symantec.com&#x2F;connect&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;tough-day-leaders" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.symantec.com&#x2F;connect&#x2F;blogs&#x2F;tough-day-leaders</a>