I know it's possible for a computer to be infected just by visiting a website. I also know that HTTPS websites are secure.

To my understanding, "secure" here refers to "immune to MITM attacks", but since such websites have certificates and such, is it right to assume they are "clean" and non-malicious?

  • 62
    All it means is that if you contract malware from that site, it was actually coming from that site and not somewhere else, so at least you're sure of who to blame. Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 5:42
  • 3
    "I know that your computer can get infected by just visiting a website". This is only true if your browser has a vulnerability in it. If your browser is always up to date, it's not really a problem.
    – Gudradain
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 12:55
  • 8
    @Gudradain It's usually not a problem if your browser is up to date. There's still the possibility of zero-days. (Although obviously the odds of you running into one of those is pretty slim.)
    – Ajedi32
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 15:21
  • 8
    I also know that HTTPS websites are secure. Not quite. HTTPS connections are secure. That says nothing at all about the website on the other side of the connection. Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 16:47
  • 11
    Could you, personally write a hostile web site? Sure. Could you personally get a certificate to host an HTTPS site? Sure. If you can do it, can other people do it too? Yes. Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 18:01

10 Answers 10


No, HTTPS does not necessarily mean that a site is not malicious. HTTPS means very little as to the security of a site. It's specifically geared to keep your communication with the site secure from eavesdroppers and tampering, but offers nothing as to the security of the site itself.

Yes, a site serving content over HTTPS has a certificate. That means that the individual who requested the certificate from the CA has an email address that is associated with the domain. Except in the case of Extended Validation certificates (the ones that offer a green address bar) this is literally all it means. Nobody from the CA is validating that the site is safe, secure, and not serving malware. Any site, with an SSL cert or without, can have bugs and vulnerabilities that allow an attacker to leverage them to serve an exploit. Or a admin or user who has the ability to either maliciously or unknowingly cause the site to serve malware. Even if the site itself does not, if it serves advertisements (or any other content, for that matter) from an ad network or another site, that could be vulnerable.

So, HTTPS means that nobody should be able to view or tamper with your traffic. That is all that it means.


Not at all a guarantee. HTTPS means that the web page has SSL, which simply means that your connection to the page is encrypted. The content on the page could be anything that could be posted on any web site whether encrypted by SSL or not.

Additionally, as listed in the answers in the comments below, you can be fooled into a false sense of security when (in different types of examples) the target server is compromised, or a hacker redirects your https site data to a different https encrypted location. You can still be encrypted to a site, but possibly even a fake site that looks like the real one instead.

  • 2
    What about the certificate? Don't the CAs need to verify the identity of the site owner .. etc?
    – Ulkoma
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 0:07
  • 10
    Not all certificates are bought from a CA. People can sign their own certificates. Also, not all people who pay money to a CA for a certificate are honest, people are people. Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 0:12
  • 8
    @Ulkoma Also, note that many CAs do not verify the identity of the purchaser of a certificate, but merely that the person they are dealing with is in control of the domain (e.g. by sending email to an address at the domain). You may want to look at "extended validation" ssl certificates, where the certificate issuer has warranted that they have verified identity, but even in this case the system is not foolproof.
    – Jules
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 2:07
  • Bringing up hacking, and while not directly an answer to this question, it is possible that your SSL connection could be hijacked which would fool you into a false sense of security. Check the various posts on this site about the SSLSTRIP Man in the Middle attack for more information about this type of issue: security.stackexchange.com/search?q=sslstrip Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 3:23
  • Not all SSL sites are clear of the HEARTBLEED security flaw either: security.stackexchange.com/search?q=heartbleed Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 3:32

In short: Yes, it can indeed be malicious!

Accessing a site via HTTPS means that the connection between your computer and the website's server is encrypted and secure.

What HTTPS does

  • Encrypt the data being transmitted over the network between your computer and the website's server to prevent third parties from intercepting it.
  • Prevent man in the middle attacks.

What HTTPS does not do

  • HTTPS Does not scan the content being served by the website for viruses or malicious elements

Therefore its still possible for the website's authors (or someone who has gained unauthorized access to the website) to have the website itself serve malicious content to your browser.

  • 1
    Arguably it's more accurate to say mitigates the possibility of a MITM attack. Given access to the users' machine I could install my own CA root certificate, etc. Or the user could be stupid and click the "I understand the risks" button in Chrome, etc. Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 15:47

The secure from https isn't related to content on a website/service.

It is called 'secure' because theoretically the security protocols (ssl/tsl and some others) do not allow the information being exchanged to be easily understood (it encrypts the data flow), so, even if someone would catch your packets, they would have to decrypt it to understand the message.

Now this is useful because some information such as passwords, social security number, credit card number and etc. can cause a lot of problems if they are discovered by someone intent on causing damage.

In this sense, https helps us by making difficult for a third party to know what information we exchanged with a website (and that's why most banks do utilize at least https on their services), but that doesn't stop a website or service to be infected with malicious software or an attacker to indirectly reach you by infecting a server.

Now, I inferred from your question that when you used the term 'secure' you meant it in different way (in the sense of safety against malicious content), in this sense, https does not protect you at all because it doesn't pay attention to content (what is being transmitted through the connection) itself.


Yes, it can easily be - malicious JavaScript or viruses can be transferred over HTTPS as easily as over HTTP no problem. It may be somewhat less likely as the source of the valid verified HTTPS message is known.

However still may happen if the HTTPS site has had security hole, has been attacked, compromised and malicious content has been installed on it. It will not be for long, soon the administrator know one or another way and remove the malware. However I would prefer to avoid trusting the content just because it was delivered over HTTPS.


Add to the list that the CA itself could have been hacked (e.g. DigiNotar) and used to issue fake certificates, or your browser might be forced to use fake CAs specifically so that your connection might be intercepted and tampered with - as is sometimes used on corporate networks.

Oh, also the certificate might have been faked because it was using MD5. As has been already said, that lock icon in your browser means something else than you think it does :).

  • 2
    Your browser should not be trusting certificates signed with MD5. For instance Firefox stopped trusting them in 2012: wiki.mozilla.org/CA:MD5and1024
    – Ángel
    Commented Aug 29, 2014 at 8:08

In addition to the other points raised, it's worth mentioning that even a trusted site (for example, your bank), could still be infected by a virus that makes it behave maliciously. So even if you trust the organization, https still does not guarantee that the website doesn't do malicious things.


All an authenticated HTTPS connection does is validate that if https://www.example.com is shown in the address bar, that you are in fact connected to www.example.com.

The certificate does not certify that www.example.com is not malicious in any way. An Extended Validation Certificate with a green highlight shown around the address bar will allow you to know the actual organisation behind the site, so if you trust them you can trust the website. There are also Organisation Verified certificates, however it is hard for regular users to distinguish these from Domain Verified certificates.

DV certs are very easy to get hold of - so unless you know and trust the domain of the site already, you should not afford any additional trust in the site just because it uses https.


A Pharming attack can be used to redirect your traffic to a malicious server. This server will connect to the legit one and will authenticate on it as if it is you. Then it will present to you the information or web page from the legit server. For you - it will appear as you are connected securely to the legit server but now there is a MITM that has access to the channel and he can read everything on it. This kind of attack is difficult to execute but it can render HTTPS useless...

So the site dose not have to be malicious, it can be your bank. But, using this approach, some one can get all of your account data, credentials, etc even though the site is HTTPS.

  • 2
    ONLY if you ignore the (increasingly obnoxious) warnings about mismatched certificate, or the attacker is able to get a fraudulent cert by deceiving the CA (should be impossible, especially for EV) or subverting it (has happened, but rarely). Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 9:50
  • As I said... difficult to execute :)
    – It-Z
    Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 11:13

Also one thing to consider very carefully, is that certain antiviruses work by scanning the traffic. If the site is using HTTPS, a virus can in fact slip undetected past the radar.

This is especially important if you either have a antivirus service provided by your ISP, your employer, or your school, which is based on a "Proxy". This is why some proxies actually pretend to be MITMs like BlueCoat Proxy, and then unpack the encrypted traffic, read it, and then send it along with a spoofed certificate (which all client computers behind this Proxy is configured to accept, either via a GPO or by a NAC device).

Thus, HTTPS is a double edged sword. It can be used by the good guys to hide good data (credit card numbers, passwords etc) from the bad guys (eg scammers, hackers). But it can also be used by the bad guys to hide bad data (eg viruses, illegal files etc) from the good guys (virus scanners, law enforcement etc)

So in the "virus protection parlance", you should AVOID using HTTPS.

  • The usual antivirus configuration has the browser asking the local antivirus to scan downloaded files before the user is given access to them, this works fine with HTTPS. As for proxy virus scanners, yes they have to play MITM. Basing your (non)use of HTTPS on the possible existence of a poorly configured proxy virus scanner doesn't seem very smart. It wouldn't do anything that a local scanner can't do, and a normal user doesn't really have any choice regarding HTTPS anyway. Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 14:28
  • What I meant is when you have the choice to use a HTTPS variant or a HTTP variant, where SSL is not mandatory. Its not a poor configuration to have a Proxy that Scans files for viruses. Its pretty smart for some ISPs, Corporations or schools to provide AV service for their users without them having to install anything (except for a root certificate if they cant push it via NAC/GPO). However, when theres no MITM, you should avoid using HTTPS when HTTP is available if the site is untrusted. Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 18:06
  • I understand what you want to say, I almost upvoted you but when I read the last line I did not because you need to assess how much more risks would we encounter if we do not use HTTPS unlike the extreme situation you described (even if it is a smart and feasible scenario). Regards
    – user45139
    Commented Aug 16, 2015 at 16:56
  • @begueradj It depends on what you want to protect against. If your main intent is not to get viruses in the computer, its better not to use HTTPS to allow central proxies to scan the traffic. But if your intent is to protect data from being read by third party, its better to use HTTPS. A good middle-line when designing a Corporate security policy about virus scanning is to enable (force) HTTPS on important sites like banks and such, and forcefully disable HTTPS on all other non-important sites. Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 23:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .