The information security community is generally very adamant that users should not proceed to visit websites that have invalid SSL certificates. Web browsers have gotten less and less cooperative with users who want to ignore these warnings. However, I regularly browse websites that don't have any SSL certificate at all.

I see that an invalid certificate is some indication that there might be an active attacker, but for all you know, there could also be an active attacker targeting you when browsing cleartext http, but you would not get any warning about it.

Do I expose myself to greater risk by browsing sites with invalid certificates than sites with no certificate at all?

  • 1
    Invalid TLS certificates might be a sign that something bad is going on. – A. Hersean Oct 2 '17 at 9:49
  • It depends on the nature of the invalidity. If it has just expired it may just be an oversight. If it is anything else it is probably a sign something may be going on. – Trickycm Oct 2 '17 at 10:39

Yes, sites with invalid certificates do expose you to more risk than regular HTTP sites with no certificate, though only slightly more.

In terms of the security of the connection itself your intuition is correct; a site with an invalid certificate is no worse than a plain HTTP site. In fact, in the (rather uncommon) case where an attacker is capable of passively observing your connection but not of modifying it, an HTTPS site with an invalid certificate is actually just as good as one with a valid certificate. Against active man-in-the-middle attackers however, HTTPS connections using an invalid certificate aren't much better than plain HTTP.

The security of the connection itself isn't the only consideration here though. There are other important differences between visiting a plaintext HTTP site and an HTTPS site with an invalid certificate which may make the latter scenario somewhat more risky.

For one, sites which use HTTPS connections may be more likely to transfer sensitive information over that connection. Cookies marked with the "Secure" flag, for example, will not be transmitted over unencrypted HTTP connections, but will be transmitted over HTTPS connections with an invalid certificate if you bypass the security warning. This means that if you logged into a site previously when it was using a valid certificate, then came back to it later and it's using an invalid certificate, bypassing the security warning could instantly give an attacker access to your account.

Additionally, some of the more powerful features of the web are, for security reasons, only available on sites which use HTTPS. If you bypass the security warning for an HTTPS site with an invalid certificate, you could be giving an attacker access to these features.

For example an attacker might install a Service Worker for the site you're accessing, allowing them to control your future communications with that site even if you later go back to accessing the site over a secure connection with a valid certificate. Or if you previously granted that site access to the Geolocation API, an attacker would be able to use that access to monitor your GPS location. For a full list of APIs that are only accessible on HTTPS pages, see the Features restricted to secure contexts page on MDN.

Overall though, these additional risks are relatively minor compared to the risks that using an insecure connection in the first place already exposes you to. You should exercise caution when browsing plain HTTP sites, just as you would when accessing a site after bypassing a security warning, as both of those scenarios are quite risky.


Well, Yes and no. Yes, you are exposed to more risk because you bypass the security layers of your browser to visit the page with the invalid certificate, exposing you to all kinds of attacks, but now they also have access to stuff normally protected as being 'SSL only'.

No, an unsafe page is an unsafe page. TLS does not change this in the slightest and plain HTTP has all kinds of possible manipulations in transit. However the browser will treat it as unsafe and not load in mixed content (without a warning).

So in conclusion I would say that that yes you expose yourself to a greater risk by bypassing the security features.

  • Ok. Will current mainstream web browsers execute Java, Javascript etc. with less warnings on invalid https than on cleartext http? – Magnus Oct 2 '17 at 9:43
  • what browser executes java without warning? (most even require you to explicitly run it). The warning about the security implications is shown only once, so it is basically gone after you accept it. And a HTTP Loaded Javascript can not access HTTPS loaded cookies / local storage / etc. – LvB Oct 2 '17 at 9:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.