[nicolast]

Cases like this seem to confirm the approach LetsEncrypt took of only issuing certificates of a somewhat-short lifetime, which kind-of forces a user to fully automate the handling of certificates (monitoring expiration, taking measures to request a new cert in time, deploying the new cert,...).

The practice of issuing certificates with a (sometimes very) long lifetime, from one year and up, results in a situation where such automation is not strictly required, and complex bureaucratic processes can be put in place to replace certs, which becomes a major issue when 'emergency' revocations are necessary. I'd argue such bureaucratic processes don't even increase 'security', because in the end they rely on people performing manual operations (often with more rights granted than strictly required), whilst an automated system can be more easily vetted, tested, and locked down.