[RonanSoleste]

When you request an EV. They call you by the phone number that you give to ask if you requested a certificate. That was the complete extend of the validation. I could be a scammer with a specificity designed domain name and they would just accept it, no questions asked.

[wnevets]

> In addition to all of the authentication steps CAs take for DV and OV certificates, EV certificates require vetting of the business organization’s operational existence, physical address and a telephone call to verify the employment status of the requestor. [1]

[1] https://www.digicert.com/difference-between-dv-ov-and-ev-ssl...

Tying a phone number to a physical address and company is a lot more useful than just proof of control over a domain. Of course its not 100% fool proof and depends on the quality of the CA but still very useful.

[matrss]

> Tying a phone number to a physical address and company is a lot more useful than just proof of control over a domain.

It might be useful in some cases, but it is never any more secure than domain validation. Which is why browsers don't treat it in a special way anymore, but if you want you can still get EV certificates.

[monerozcash]

It was easy to provide the information for an existing business you're completely unrelated to. Reliably verifying that a person actually represents a company isn't possible in most of the world.

[fpoling]

Many countries has official register of companies with at least post box address. Requiring to answer a physical letter sent to an address from the central register will be much more reliable.

[monerozcash]

Sure, and then someone just registers a company with the exact same name in another jurisdiction and EV is thwarted anyway

[Ajedi32]

IMO it would make sense to tie into the trademark system. Allowing companies to build a brand reputation and protect it from impersonators is literally the whole point of that part of our legal system.

Imagine if only the owner of the McDonald's trademark could issue a certificate which displays the McDonald's name and logo, for example.

[Uvix]

Depends on the registrar. Globalsign required the phone number to be one publicly listed for the company in some business registry (I forget exactly which one), so it had to be someone in our main corporate office who'd deal with them on the phone.

[progmetaldev]

Dun and Bradstreet (?). I believe I'm remembering this correctly. I still deal with a few financial institutions that insist on using an EV SSL certificate on their websites. I may be wrong, but I believe that having an EV SSL gives a larger insurance dollar amount should the security be compromised from the EV certificate (although I imagine it would be nearly impossible to prove).

When I last reissued an EV SSL (recently), I had to create a CNAME record to prove domain ownership, as well as provide the financial institution's CEO's information which they matched up with Dun & Bradstreet and called to confirm. The entire process took about three days to complete.

[pests]

Still required for Apple Dev account last time I had to go through the process a few years ago

[Uvix]

I do believe Dun & Bradstreet was it. Thanks!

[bangaladore]

For an online business in a dubious (but legal) domain, my co-owner spent a few hundred bucks registering a business in New Mexico with a registered agent to get an EV cert.

So, a barrier to entry, but not much of one.

[invokestatic]

I have an almost identical story except the state in question was Nevada. I’m curious what “dubious” domain it was, for me it was video game cheats. Maybe I’m actually the co-owner you’re talking about. :)

[dale-cooper]

This made me curious. Like selling cheats for games?

[bangaladore]

Yes, both in the case of them and I.

[AlbinoDrought]

I'd love a referral to your certificate authority and rep - we go through a big kerfluffle each renewal period, only eventually receiving the certificate after a long exchange of government docs and CPA letters. For us, only the last step is the phonecall like you say.

[wnevets]

The replies to my original comment make it obvious who has gotten an EV cert from a quality CA before and who hasn't.

[BHSPitMonkey]

This exchange seemingly proves the argument that user trust gained from the EV treatment is misplaced, and that the endeavor was a farce all along. It's not as though the user's browser was distinguishing the good CAs from the bad!

[wnevets]

I disagree. I specifically said in my original comment they were very useful for those that knew what EV certs were and EV certs weren't.

You may not know that Digicert is a quality CA who wasn't going to risk their position as a CA to sign an EV cert for a typo squatting phishing site pretending to be PayPal but there are those who do. The green UI in chrome & firefox made finding all of this information out incredibly simple and obvious.

[brians]

Having run an EV issuing practice… they were required to contact you at a D&B listed number or address.

[realityking]

EV certs also showed the legal name of the company that requested the certificate - that was an advantage.

[duskwuff]

Which would have made sense if company names were unique - which they aren't. See e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.security.policy/c/Nj... for an example of how this was abused.

[wbl]

It was used correctly. What CAs wanted to sell wasn't something browsers wanted to support, and EV was the compromise. It just happens that what EV meant wasn't that useful irl.

[crote]

What's the alternative, showing the company's unique registration ID?

CAs invented EVs because the wanted to sell something which could make them more money than DVs. The fact that company names aren't unique means that the whole concept was fundamentally flawed from the start: there is no identifier which is both human-readable and guaranteed to uniquely identify an entity. They wanted to sell something which can't exist. The closest thing we have got is... domain names.

[duskwuff]

The alternative would have been to have the CA use human judgement when approving EV certificates and reject applications from organizations whose names shadowed better-known firms, or to only accept applications from a select set of organizations (like, say, banks). But either of those possibilities would have increased the cost of the program and limited the pool of applicants, so CAs chose the cheap, easy path which led to EV certificates becoming meaningless.

[kbolino]

How many CAs do you think there are? How many countries do you think they operate in?

Maybe we could augment the old EV cert indicator with a flag icon, but now there's yet another thing that users have to pay attention to. Maybe the CA/Browser Forum could run a clearinghouse for company names, but apart from trivial examples, there might very well be legitimate cases of two companies with the same name in the same country, just in different industries. Now do we augment the indicator with an industry icon too? Then the company changes its name, or forms a subsidiary relationship, or what have you. Now do we need to put "Meta (formerly Facebook)" or "Facebook (division of Meta)" etc. in the name?

There's just so many problems with the EV cert approach at Internet scale and they're largely beyond solvable with current infrastructure and end-user expectations.

[crote]

How do you decide when a company is "well-known"? What's going to happen when there are two well-known companies with the same name or a very similar name? What if a well-known company in country A expands to country B, where a well-known company with that name (but active in a different industry) already exists? How are you going to deal with subsidiaries which are both legally and organizationally separate? Who gets to keep the EV when a company spins off a division but both parts retain the same name?

"Use human judgement" might work for trivial examples of fraud, but it quickly breaks down once you try applying it to the real world. Besides, how are you going to apply the same "human judgement" across hundreds of employees at dozens of CAs? If anything, you're just begging to get sued by large corporations whose complex situation fell on the wrong side of your human judgement.

[crote]

The problem is that people wrongly believe that company names are unique. In reality you're just some paperwork and a token registration fee away from a name clash.

If anything, it's a disadvantage. People are going to be less cautious about things like the website's domain name if they see a familiar-sounding company name in that green bar. "stripe-payment.com" instead of "stripe.com"? Well, the EV says "Stripe, Inc.", so surely you're on the right website and it is totally safe to enter your credentials...

[dismantlethesun]

In many countries, company names are unique to that country. And combined with country TLDs controlled by the nation-state itself, it'd be possible for at least barclays.co.uk to be provably owned by the UK bank itself when a EV cert is presented by the domain.

In the US though, every state has it's own registry, and names overlap without the power of trademark protection applying to markets your company is not in.

[roelschroeven]

Are company names even unique within the UK? Sure, there can be only one bank named Barclays because of trademark laws, but can't there be a company in a different sector with the same name? Like Apple the computer business vs Apple the record company?

Or don't you have small local businesses (restaurants, pubs, stores) with duplicate names as long as they're in different locations? I know here in Flanders we have, for example, tens if not more places called "Café Onder den toren" (roughly translated as "Pub beneath the tower"). Do all local businesses in the UK have different names?

[crote]

That's not exactly a great example, is it? "Barclay" even has a disambiguation page on Wikipedia, because it's a reasonably common Scottish surname.

For example, there used to be a Scottish company constructing steam locomotives which traded under the "Barclays & Co" name - because it was founded by one Andrew Barclay. There's also the Barclay Academy secondary school, and a Bentley dealer which until recently operated as Jack Barclay Ltd.

And that's just the UK ones! Barclays operates internationally, which means they want "barclays.com", so suddenly there's also Barclay-the-record-label, Barclay-the-cigarette-brand, Barclay-the-liquor-brand, Barclay College, golf tournament The Barclays, Barclays Center (whose naming rights were bought by the bank, but they of course want their own completely distinct website), Barclay Theatre, three Barclay Hotels.

Of course there's also all the stuff under "Barkley", "Barkly", "Berkley", and probably a dozen other variations just waiting to be used to scam dyslexic Barclays custumers.

[dismantlethesun]

Barclays used to operate under Barclays Bank PLC. IMO, if disambiguation was problematic online they would have reverted back to that name.

You bring up good points, but I don't think that company naming has to be 100% proof against confusion, it's just one more helpful thing for consumers to identify whom they are doing business with.

In the case of close names like "Barkley", if they're doing banking, there is probably a trademark case against if they actually use it to confuse customers.

Intrestingly enough, "Barkley Holdings" was registered by competing bank HSBC: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...