SSL Certificate for Issued Without Validation

Unethical business practices of an SSL Certificate reseller have been exposed and it is causing many to wonder about the security and practices of SSL providers.

It all started when people started receiving this email stating that their SSL certificate was going to expire:

Dear Webmaster,

*** Expire Notice for SSL Certificate issued to * ***

Your SSL certificate will expire in 10 Days! It is important that you
purchase a new certificate to ensure that the security of your website
or application is maintained. If you are not the webmaster please
forward this message to the appropriate person in your organization.

Current Certificate:
  Cert Type.: Standard SSL (or similar)
  Valid from: 2008-01-01
  Expires...: 2008-12-31
  Hostname..: *

Renew with Certstar:
One to five year terms available starting at just $29 per year.

This email is sent as courtesy reminding you to replace your SSL
certificate before it expires and does not indicate customer
relationship. Replacing/renewal services for certificates are offered by
a multiple providers we do however you will trust Certstar for your
certificate needs.

If you require support or would like to discuss your options with a
sales representative, please use the contact details below.

The problem is that the email came from a Comodo reseller (CertStar) who was emailing customers of other certificate authorities. When users clicked the link, the page actually looked like the page of the Certificate Authority that the certificate was originally bought from which tricks people into thinking that they are renewing with the same company. This would obviously piss off people thinking that they are renewing their certificate with the same provider. It also really pisses off the SSL providers that are losing their customers.

One provider then decided to investigate the reseller. StartCom's Eddy Nigg ordered an SSL certificate on CertStar's site to find out who issued the certificates. He found that he was able to order a certificate for without having to go through any validation or verify that he was authorized to order the certificate. He also did this for his own domain,, without having to do any validation. Apparently, Comodo allows its resellers to do (or not do) their own validation.

This has grave implications for security because it means a hacker could get a certificate for a popular website and perform man-in-the-middle attacks without a user ever seeing an error about an invalid certificate. After Eddy posted this on his blog, several things happened:

  • Comodo investigated this reseller and suspended their ability to issue certificates. They also revoked the certificate for
  • CertStar replaced their order page with a page saying that the certificate is not actually a CertStar certificate. This really shouldn't affect anything if CertStar is unable to issue certificates anyway. It just seems to be a last-ditch attempt to appear legitimate.
    CertStar scam page
    They even tried to act like issuing a certificate to Mozilla was just a mistake saying, "A glitch in our validation system has today caused a certificate to be issued to a person who successfully abused our system. We have now strengthened our domain validation system so that such abuse cannot happen again. Comodo has handled this issue in a professional way by invoking the certificate immediately after issuing and contacting Certstar. "
  • Discussion about revoking Comodo's root certificate and the security implications have come up.

It will be interesting to see what kind of changes occur from this incident. It may increase the value of EV certificates or it may just cause Comodo to rethink its reseller program policies.

Note: A lot of people seem to think that this incident demonstrates that Certificate Authorities and SSL doesn't work at all. This is not the case. This event shows the weakness of certain kinds of certificates (domain-validated only certificates) and weakness in the practice of one particular CA. This, by no means, demonstrates that all CAs are money grubbing machines that don't even do their job right. The most valuable lessons we can learn from this are to recognize the value of real vetting and validation and realize that some CAs need to clean up their policies and procedures.

For more disccussion and info about this visit:

Originally posted on Tue Dec 23, 2008

Comments (5)

  1. Greg Perkins:
    Dec 24, 2008 at 10:06 AM

    Amen, bas. It's really ludicrous. There needs to be a way to use a self-signed certificate that appears as what you are doing -- keeping a secure channel with an unsigned foreign party. Because that's actually often all that needs to be done. Hegemonic foolishness aside, of course.

  2. anonymous:
    Dec 24, 2008 at 07:37 AM

    I used to have a comodo reseller account starting back in 2003, I noticed as time went on their validation process became less and less difficult to pass.... guess they kept that trend going.

  3. bas:
    Dec 23, 2008 at 04:47 PM

    SSL certification market is the biggest scam of the internet. It's a disgrace that one has to pay hundreds of dollars for a wildcard certificate. It costs virtually nothing to hold a CA that will sign certificates. Good name my ass, they are all scammers, from Verisign to Comodo and whatever brand. A bigger disgrace is that an open source browser forces you to go to a single source and pay for the flagship product, otherwise you are branded a scamartist by this piece of garbage browser called Firefox.

  4. Beren:
    Dec 23, 2008 at 03:30 PM

    As many security people argue the whole concept of certificate authorities is flawed.

  5. Eddy Nigg:
    Dec 23, 2008 at 01:58 PM

    Your article is even better than mine, this was exactly how it happened. For the good of all CAs, I really hope that the affected CA rethinks their business practices. They've come under critics previously - a pity nobody listened. If we are at it, perhaps you want to add StartCom to your CA reviews pages?

Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: