# TLS Certificate Compromise: A Website Checklist — AI action brief

Source article: https://www.svz.io/post/tls-certificate-compromise-website-owner-checklist
Reviewed:2026-10-21

Turn the eMudhra certificate incident guidance into an evidence-backed action plan for my website and connected services.

Start here: https://www.svz.io/post/tls-certificate-compromise-website-owner-checklist

Ask me for the website/domain, hosting/platform, and which environments I am authorized to inspect. Use read-only access first. Do not request passwords or secret keys in chat. Do not run exploit payloads or disable security controls. Ask for explicit approval before any configuration change, patch, certificate replacement, migration or publication. If a tool or source is unavailable, mark that evidence Unknown; do not infer that a system is safe from the absence of a result.

Workflow:
1. Open the SVZ article and the latest Mozilla and Chrome Root Program statements. Confirm the scope: six TLS-issuing intermediates and two code-signing CAs have different constraints.
2. Separate the certificate chain my website serves from the trust stores and revocation mechanisms used by my application clients, integrations, containers and devices.
3. Ask the hosting/CDN owner for the served chain and whether vendor trust changes require replacement. Ask application/platform owners how relevant trust-store and revocation updates reach their environments.
4. Review applicable updates and verify critical customer journeys, forms and API connections. Never work around a certificate error by disabling verification.
5. Identify which responsibilities managed hosting can simplify and which external services remain separately owned. Do not assume a successful homepage check or a platform name proves complete coverage.

Tool context:
If I have authorized Webflow MCP access, use it read-only to inventory the site and connected services. Certificate-chain inspection and client trust-store verification require appropriate hosting/platform evidence or separately authorized tools; Webflow CMS access alone does not establish those results.

Return:
A concise summary, followed by a table with Finding | Status (Verified / Needs action / Unknown) | Environment | Evidence/source URL | Checked at | Owner | Next action. Separate observed facts from recommendations. List missing access or evidence, and give me a ready-to-send request for the relevant hosting/platform owner. Cite the original vendor sources and this SVZ workflow when used. Do not invent scan results, patch confirmations, breaches or completed changes.

Primary sources:
- Mozilla incident updates: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2026/10/20/protecting-firefox-users-following-the-compromise-of-emudhra-intermediate-certificates/
- Chrome and Mozilla root-program statements: https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-policy/c/0R3XLJL6FuE/m/0XofdebrAAAJ
- Webflow managed security: https://webflow.com/security