This website was recently declared - by all web-browsers - as unsafe or a potential security risk, despite having been considered safe (by the same web-browsers) the previous day.
These claims were made simply because its SSL certificate had erroneously been allowed to expire: error message; 'ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID'.
The reason for this error is that the website's service (server) provider failed to renew the site's SSL certificate; and it took more than four-days to restore!
After [more than] four-days, however, despite no changes having been made to the website during the intervening period, these same web-browsers automatically reinstated the site's safety credentials.
SSL Certificates are issued under the Guise of [website] security.
Websites are declared safe by all web-browsers as long as this certificate is current; i.e. a fee has been paid and the only investigation required to declare it so, is identification of its owners!
The very day a certificate expires, web-browsers are free to declare the associated website unsafe, despite remaining unchanged.
The web-browser owners and operators are not required to perform any due diligence or investigation of any kind to justify their claims regarding any website.
To publicly declare a website unsafe simply because a certification fee has not been paid is - in CalQlata's opinion - extortion; which is illegal.
It is about time this protection racket is investigated and stopped.
At the very least, claims made publicly by the owners and operators of web-browsers must be limited to "the SSL certificate has expired"; claims regarding safety or security must be stopped unless such claims can be validated.
current SSL certification is no guarantee that a website is safe,
the lack of a certificate is no guarantee that a website is unsafe.
In fact SSL certification does nothing to ensure the safety or security of any site, it simply generates yet more income for its recipients,
The pdf file below shows the results achieved when trying to access CalQlata's website immediately after its SSL certificate had expired (despite having been paid for a month previously).
No investigation whatsoever was carried out by the associated web-browsers before issuing the claims declaring the site "unsafe" or a "potential security risk", or, even when its security credentials were restored five days later.