crt.sh reports it was revoked on the 26th: https://crt.sh/?id=274083328
Issuer: COMODO
Alternatively, Microsoft might have had something to do with it (they're super anti-piracy, and have a contract with all the CAs that requires them to unilaterally revoke any cert at Microsoft's discretion), but I think that's far less likely than the court order.
source?
> If Microsoft, it its sole discretion, identifies a DV Server Authentication certificate is being used to promote malware or unwanted software, Microsoft will contact the responsible CA and request that it revoke the certificate. The CA must either revoke the certificate within a commercially-reasonable timeframe, or it must request an exception from Microsoft within two (2) business days of receiving Microsoft’s request. Microsoft may either grant or deny the exception at its sole discretion. In the event that Microsoft does not grant the exception, the CA must revoke the certificate within a commercially-reasonable timeframe not to exceed two (2) business days.
Hell no, and neither does microsoft.
Microsoft's only option is to completely drop the root cert, right? So there's no real non-nuclear option...
In the broader sense, this is one downside of the shift towards Lets Encrypt and CAs being more interchangable: increased power of the root stores relative to them.
Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's evil.
In small-scale disputes MS (and other browser vendors) would not have to nuke an entire large CA to get their way. In principle they could just blacklist the individual certs/names, leaving the CA's other certs alone.
That ability/implied threat probably does mean that the CAs tend to comply with MS piracy/copyright-related revocation requests, because refusing to comply would piss off MS (and possibly law enforcement) without actually stopping them from getting their way by other means.
I'm sure they could challenge it if they wanted to step on to US soil which, in this case, probably isn't such a good idea.