Trusteer warning message

When I was logging on to my bank websites I found that Trusteer Rapport was bringing up a warning that ‘This website is using an invalid certificate.’ It gave the reason for the error as ‘Bad certificate’ and the Signer was given as ‘PrivDog Secure Connection Inspector CA.’
After doing some research online I uninstalled PrivDog and now I find that Trusteer no longer brings up any warning message.
Does this mean that PrivDog is at fault?
I am using Windows 8.1 fully up to date with Comodo firewall and AVG free antivirus.

That warning message is due to the method used in the new V3 product piece of PrivDog with HTTPS sites. It operates as a firewall proxy (that’s a best guess) and intercepts the page and certificate and passes a new page and certificate (which is the certificate you saw). I use/test and have clients with that product too. Rapport is doing its job, i.e. it is suppose to warn about Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) with verification of certificate. The old add-on V2 PrivDog (legacy) won’t do that and still works with Firefox which also works with Rapport. If you want both, that’s one work-around.

I haven’t tried any “exceptions” tests on the new V3, but there is a possibility that might work.

If you look at my posts on the .97 announcement thread, you see my discussion on that issue and the regression bug on high CPU…WHICH THEY STILL HAVEN’T FIXED…and am not wasting test time until they do. :-TD

The following is what one of the developers told me:

We use the same approach many AVs have taken. On install we generate a root certificate with random keys and install it into the local certificate store. We then generate a certificate on-the-fly for each web site visited and pass our certificate back to the browser. We then have a man-in-the-middle allowing the software to decrypt and re-encrypt.

Many thanks for the two replies. If I use PD as it works at the moment and Trusteer raises a warning message I have to find out if there is a problem or if PD is giving a false positive. With things as they stand it seems I am better off without PD.

What happens when you add the bank’s url to the PD exclusions? Does that make the warning go?

I’m afraid I didn’t try excluding the site. I was fairly confident that the bank web site was OK so felt that something was wrong and originally assumed the fault was with Trusteer. Then research led me to consider PrivDog. And sure enough, when I uninstalled PrivDog the problem disappeared. Had I retained PrivDog, whenever Trusteer threw up a warning I would have had to spend time checking to see if there really was a problem with the site I was visiting or if the problem was again with PrivDog. I took the easy way out and removed PrivDog. Trusteer can now do its job without throwing up false warnings.

“We then have a man-in-the-middle allowing the software to decrypt and re-encrypt.” Why would I want PD to be the MITM and entrust it to my data? And why is it that Dragon has no issues while Chrome and IE do?