Both align with the X.509 standard established by the International Telecommunication Union, which defines how public keys are distributed and how identities are verified. Although code signing and SSL/TLS certificates serve distinct functions, they are often not a matter of either—or for today’s enterprises. Many organizations require both to address different layers of risk. Understanding their differences helps organizations deploy the right certificates for the right reasons.

What is the difference between a code signing certificate and an SSL certificate?

Code signing certificates confirm that software comes from known publishers while also verifying that software has not been altered. SSL/TLS certificates provide encryption and authentication to protect data exchanged between browsers and servers. 

Code signing safeguards software and application integrity, while SSL/TLS protects information in transit. 

What is a code signing certificate?

Code signing verifies identities by digitally signing executable files and scripts. This process is carried out through code signing certificates. Issued by certificate authorities (CAs), code signing certificates are credentials that bind verified identities to cryptographic keys. This allows software developers and publishers to sign software and executables to confirm they haven’t been modified since release. 

During signing, code is converted into a digital fingerprint using a hash function, locked using the publisher’s private key, and optionally timestamped to preserve the signature’s validity even after the certificate expires. Properly signed software reduces "unknown publisher" warnings and can help establish SmartScreen reputation over time.

Benefits of code signing certificates include verified publisher identities, reduced risk of unauthorized code modification and supply chain attacks, and fewer security warnings, which can improve installation rates. On a broad scale, code signing supports brand protection by signaling that software is authentic and free of tampering. Through code signing, cryptography strengthens software integrity and overall security. 

Types of code signing certificates

Code signing certificates are available in two main formats: 

• Organization Validation (OV)
• Extended Validation (EV) 

OV code signing certificates offer faster issuance and baseline validation, while EV code signing certificates offer the highest level of security. 

What is an SSL/TLS certificate?

The legacy cryptographic protocol known as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) was originally intended to secure data exchanged between browsers and servers. This has since been deprecated in favor of Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, but the term SSL is still widely used to convey the need for encrypted and authenticated web connections.

SSL/TLS certificates are digital certificates used to verify identities and facilitate encryption so that data cannot be intercepted or altered in transit. For websites, these certificates enable HTTPS (HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure) and activate padlocks or tune icons within browser address bars.

Cryptographic handshakes play a critical role in establishing SSL/TLS protection. These handshakes confirm identities and create shared session keys. The handshake process ensures that all data exchanged between the browser and the server is encrypted.

Benefits of SSL/TLS certificates include authenticated communication and data confidentiality. These form the basis for trust in digital communication, strengthening security posture along with overall brand reputation. 

Types of SSL/TLS certificates

SSL certificates can take many forms, categorized based on validation level and according to the number of domains or subdomains they are meant to secure. Examples of SSL/TLS certificates include:

• Domain validation (DV). Verifying that the applicant controls the domain in question, DV SSL certificates involve a streamlined vetting process that facilitates baseline protection.
• Organization validation (OV). Meant to confirm applicant identities, OV SSL certificates add targeted verification checks to provide a higher level of validation.
• Extended validation (EV). After clearing DV and OV benchmarks, EV SSL certificates extend the validation process through background checks and legal documentation. They offer the highest level of security and are the industry standard for eCommerce websites. 
• Single Domain. Offering a cost-effective solution to secure a single website, single domain SSL/TLS certificates are preferred when protection is only needed for a single hostname.
• Multi-Domain. Also known as SAN certificates, these can secure multiple domains and subdomains, including completely unrelated domains.
• Wildcard. Designed to secure a primary domain along with unlimited subdomains, wildcard certificates offer flexible and cost-effective protection.

Comparing code signing and SSL/TLS certificates in depth

Primary purpose and security application

Code signing uses digital signatures to ensure software integrity while SSL/TLS encrypts data in transit. Both rely on public-key cryptography, but serve distinct functions: code signing establishes trust within the software while SSL/TLS brings trust to connections. 

Targeted threats and mitigation

Code signing and SSL/TLS certificates both serve critical security functions: together, they establish end-to-end trust, impacting the entire software lifecycle. Their differences largely come down to where protection is provided:

• Tampering and unknown publisher warnings. Code signing confirms that the code received is the code originally produced, ensuring that signed software has not been altered before reaching end users. This prevents unknown publisher warnings because any file modification would break the digital signature and invalidate the publisher’s verified identity.
• Supply chain attacks. If threat actors infiltrate development environments, they can exploit trust-based relationships. They may insert malicious code or modify update packages in a way that appears legitimate. Code signing helps mitigate this risk by cryptographically linking software to verified publisher identities and protecting private keys with FIPS-compliant hardware to reduce the risk of unauthorized signing and release of tampered code.
• Data interception. Promoting end-to-end data security through encrypted connections, SSL/TLS certificates prevents unauthorized individuals from viewing or altering data in transit.
• Browser 'not secure' warnings. Today’s browsers warn users when a site lacks a valid SSL certificate. This undermines user trust and can harm search engine rankings while also reflecting significant security risks: connections without SSL are vulnerable to impersonation and session hijacking.

Destructive attacks tied to compromised code include the NotPetya attack of 2017 (involving a malicious update delivered via Ukrainian accounting software) and the SolarWinds Orion attack (involving a supply chain compromise that prompted widespread infiltration). 

Many attacks have been tied to SSL/TLS issues; the 2017 Equifax data breach, for example, involved an expired SSL/TLS certificate that disabled a key monitoring system, allowing attackers to remain undetected.  

When do you need both?

Organizations that develop software may require both code signing and SSL/TLS certificates, particularly if software is distributed via websites or customer portals. Without code signing, organizations lack cryptographic assurance of software integrity and publisher identity. Even if properly signed, however, software distribution remains vulnerable without SSL/TLS certificates. Licensing details or customer information could potentially be compromised if allowed to move through networks without encryption.

Together, code signing and SSL/TLS certificates support Zero Trust models, which eliminate implied trust and mandate verification for software, networks, and identities. Through code signing, organizations avoid trusting software by default, while SSL/TLS prevents implicit trust in connections or communication paths. 

Secure and manage SSL and code signing certificates at scale

Businesses rely on code signing certificates to protect software integrity and SSL/TLS certificates to secure communications and data in transit. As a leading certificate authority (CA), Sectigo offers a full range of code signing and SSL/TLS certificates to support organizations across both use cases.

As certificate volumes grow and validity periods shrink, managing both of these types of digital certificates across complex or distributed environments becomes increasingly difficult. Without centralized oversight, expired or inconsistently deployed certificates can create security gaps. Manual tracking quickly becomes unsustainable, making automation increasingly important to maintain continuity and trust.

Sectigo delivers both the certificates and the management platform organizations need to operate at scale. Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) centralizes and automates certificate lifecycle management (CLM), streamlining discovery, issuance, and renewals.

Sources

https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/x_509_public_key_certificate

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/defending_against_software_supply_chain_attacks_508.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-russia-code-crashed-the-world/

https://www.sectigo.com/root-causes/root-causes-309-what-is-key-attestation-for-code-signing

Code signing is a security process that uses PKI-based digital certificates to verify the identity of a software publisher and ensure that software has not been altered after it is released. By digitally signing applications, executables, and scripts, developers allow operating systems and users to confirm that software comes from a trusted source before installation or execution.

As part of the PKI framework, a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) validates the publisher’s identity and issues a code signing certificate. A digital signature is created by generating a cryptographic hash, or unique fingerprint, of the software and encrypting it with the publisher’s private key. When the software is downloaded or launched by a user, the corresponding public key in the certificate allows systems to verify that the publisher is authentic and that the code remains intact and unmodified.

What Is Code Signing Certificate?

A code signing certificate is a digital certificate issued by a CA that enables developers and organizations to digitally sign software as part of the code signing process. Based on X.509 certificate standards, it binds a verified publisher identity to a cryptographic key pair used to create and verify digital signatures.

Before issuing a certificate, the CA validates the identity of the software publisher or organization. Once issued, the certificate allows developers to sign applications, executables, scripts, and software updates so operating systems can verify both the origin of the software and its integrity.

Applications signed with trusted code signing certificates help reduce security warnings, improve user confidence, and protect against malware distribution and software supply-chain tampering. 

How code signing works

The code signing process follows a series of steps that transform software into a securely signed and verifiable software package:

1. Code is converted into a digital fingerprint - Before distribution, a cryptographic hash function is applied to the software to generate a unique digital fingerprint. This fingerprint represents the exact contents of the software package at the time of signing.
2. The fingerprint is encrypted using the publisher’s private key - The developer encrypts the fingerprint with their private key, creating an encrypted digital fingerprint.
3. A timestamp is applied during signing - A trusted timestamp records when the software was signed. It allows the signature to remain valid even if the code signing certificate later expires.
4. A signature block is created - The encrypted fingerprint is combined with the organization’s code signing certificate and the hashing information used during signing. Together, these components form the digital signature, often referred to as a signature block.
5. The digital signature is appended to the software - The signature block is attached directly to the application or executable file, preparing the software for secure publishing or distribution.
6. Operating systems verify the signed software - When the software is downloaded or installed, the operating system checks the digital signature to confirm it comes from a verified publisher and has not been tampered with. If the signature cannot be trusted, warnings may appear or installation may be blocked.

Different types of certificates

There are two primary categories of code signing certificates, both of which are offered by Sectigo:

• A standard certificate requires basic validation of the requester and their organization by the issuing Certificate Authority. Keys are usually stored in software or the filesystem, providing a foundational level of protection suitable for many software distribution needs.
• An Extended Validation (EV) Code Signing Certificate requires a more in-depth vetting process by the CA before issuance. The stricter requirements are designed to discourage fraudulent organizations from attempting to obtain an EV certificate. To further protect against misuse, EV signing keys must be stored in secure hardware environments. EV code signing certificates follow security principles similar to EV SSL/TLS certificates. Research from Georgia Tech’s Cyber Forensics Innovation Lab shows that the issuance and use of EV SSL certificates make it 99.99% likely to be free of phishing attacks and abuse. The research study, which was sponsored by Sectigo, can be downloaded here.

Why is code signing important?

Modern operating systems verify software before allowing installation or execution. If the software is unsigned or issued by an untrusted publisher, the user may see security warnings indicating that it cannot be verified. While installation may still be possible in some cases, these warnings often reduce user confidence and lead to abandoned downloads.

Code signing certificates help prevent this issue by allowing operating systems to confirm that software comes from a verified publisher and has not been modified since it was released. This establishes trust between developers and end users while helping organizations improve installation rates and protect their reputation.

Code signing also plays an important role in protecting software throughout the development and release process. Organizations commonly safeguard signing keys using secure vaults or Hardware Security Modules (HSMs), helping prevent unauthorized access and reducing the risk of compromised builds or malicious code injection.

Use cases

Code signing is widely used to protect software distribution across modern platforms. Operating systems and application marketplaces rely on digital signatures to verify that updates and downloadable applications come from legitimate publishers and have not been altered after release.

This is especially important in environments where users may not directly approve installations, including IoT devices, embedded systems, and smart technologies that receive automatic software updates. In these cases, code signing helps ensure that only trusted software can be installed or executed. 

Code signing in DevOps environments

Code signing also plays an important role in modern software development pipelines. Developers digitally sign software before distribution, allowing end users downloading signed 32-bit or 64-bit programs to confirm the code comes from the developer and has not been modified since signing.

As release cycles accelerate, manual validation steps, hardware requirements, and disconnected signing workflows can slow deployments and introduce friction into development pipelines. Modern DevOps environments require code signing processes that integrate directly into automated build and release workflows without delaying software delivery.

To support this shift, certificate lifecycle management and signing processes increasingly integrate with automation standards such as  Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) to reduce operational overhead. Platforms such as Sectigo Certificate Manager help organizations incorporate secure code signing into DevOps workflows across tools commonly used in modern infrastructure, including Kubernetes, Chef, Ansible, Salt Stack, Terraform, Puppet, Istio, and Docker. This allows development teams to maintain strong software integrity protections while keeping releases fast and scalable.

Do developers need to use code signing certificates?

In short, yes. Code signing certificates are an integral part of ensuring the integrity of software across all popular programming environments. Development organizations that fail to use them often find their users encountering operating system errors and security warnings, resulting in a poor user experience at best and complete distrust of the application at worst.

Deliver trusted software with code signing

Code signing helps organizations protect software integrity, reduce operating system security warnings, and ensure applications are recognized as coming from a verified publisher. 

With Sectigo Code Signing Certificates, teams can improve install trust, streamline signing workflows, and protect every build from unauthorized tampering while keeping releases fast and user confidence high.

In many cases, this persistence reflects organizational hesitation rather than a lack of awareness. Legacy systems, even when they introduce risk, are familiar and deeply embedded, while modern security solutions can appear complex or disruptive to implement. This hesitation can create inertia, delaying necessary security investments and leaving organizations exposed to a wide range of cyber incidents.

Leaders are familiar with the concept of return on investment (ROI), but another acronym describes the reverse scenario, revealing what happens when, instead of investing in solutions, enterprises stick with legacy systems. Known as the cost of inaction (COI), this concept reflects the consequences enterprises face when security and compliance decisions are delayed.

What does the cost of inaction mean in enterprise cybersecurity?

The COI can be described as the cost of doing nothing. The status quo can feel tempting often because it seems safer; new solutions introduce new variables and may call for early investments that can feel difficult to justify in the short term.

In the context of enterprise cybersecurity, the cost of inaction represents the totality of the financial, operational, and reputational damage experienced by an organization in direct response to its unaddressed security vulnerabilities. These expenses arise, in part, because security decisions are often framed as expenses rather than investments in risk reduction. If these measures are deemed too expensive, they may be delayed or simply deprioritized.

Those with a tendency towards inaction or stagnation often underestimate the extent to which security debt qualifies as real debt. This involves the accumulated risks carried by organizations that delay automation or postpone upgrades. These hidden costs eventually rise to the surface, as cybersecurity risks accumulate and leave businesses open to any number of cyberattacks.

At first, the implications may seem manageable, but initial security challenges have a way of compounding. For example, postponing certificate lifecycle automation leaves IT teams dealing with time-consuming manual processes, limiting their ability to address vulnerabilities or pursue other security initiatives. As these teams begin to fall behind, outages occur, shifting the focus from proactive strategies to reactive responses. 

How does COI show up in enterprises?

COI is not limited to any one cybersecurity oversight. Rather, it represents the culmination of numerous security delays. This can lead to dramatic consequences across multiple areas of the organization:

• Operational impact: Delayed security improvements leave organizations vulnerable to outages, service instability, and incident-driven disruption. Downtime carries significant costs, impeding productivity while also increasing spending on incident response and system remediation. These pressures are often compounded by reliance on manual processes, including certificate lifecycle management, which consume IT resources and divert teams from higher-value security initiatives.
• Reputational impact: The operational fallout of delayed decisions can result in significant reputational damage. Service disruptions and data breaches weaken brand credibility and erode consumer trust. Over time, this erosion contributes to customer churn and may constrain future investment in security and operations, increasing exposure to additional incidents.
• Financial impact: Operational and reputational challenges translate into considerable financial damage. A Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study by Forrester Research provides a concrete example of how addressing these risks can reduce cost and improve efficiency. The study examined the impact of implementing Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM), an automated certificate lifecycle management (CLM) platform, and found that organizations achieved significant savings through reduced manual labor, fewer certificate-related outages, and improved operational efficiency, resulting in a net benefit of $3.39 million over three years and a 243% return on investment. IBM’s report on the average cost of a data breach further highlights the financial consequences of delayed security investment.

Fraud as a core driver of COI

Weak trust environments are vulnerable to fraud. These weaknesses often emerge in response to delayed decisions surrounding trust infrastructure.

One common example involves digital certificate blind spots, which arise when organizations lack visibility into certificate ownership, configuration, and expiration, creating opportunities for impersonation or trust abuse. Without centralized oversight, organizations become more vulnerable to impersonation attacks and other cyber threats.

In parallel, weak identity validation can increase the potential for attacks such as phishing.

Delayed actions lead to cascading risk

In enterprise security, delayed action increases both the likelihood of a security incident and the severity of its impact when one occurs. Vulnerabilities that are manageable early can compound over time, becoming more difficult and more expensive to contain.

Expired digital certificates provide a clear example. Delayed renewals lead to outages, interrupting critical services while weakening trust signals. In some cases, certificate blind spots allow bad actors to obtain fraudulent certificates or exploit exposed endpoints. Poorly defined certificate ownership and fragmented visibility can further enable adversaries to move through digital environments, increasing the risk of data exposure or transaction manipulation.

What are proactive actions to take that can reduce COI?

Reducing COI begins with reframing security strategies: viewing these as needed investments that spur innovation and move enterprises forward. Leaders should commit to pursuing investment-focused measures over reactive responses that leave enterprises constantly catching up.

Security decisions should be guided by clearly defined governance frameworks designed to scale with the organization. Standardization supports consistent, repeatable security practices across identity, encryption, and key management, while cross-team visibility helps enforce policy and identify gaps before they become incidents.

Automated workflows play a critical role by reducing reliance on manual processes and improving consistency across security operations. This supports policy enforcement and allows security practices to scale as digital environments evolve.

Certificate lifecycle automation as a strategic example

There are many ways to limit COI, but the range of options represents a challenge in and of itself; without a clear blueprint, many enterprises default to reactive strategies.

The digital certificate ecosystem provides an excellent starting point because SSL/TLS certificates have such a profound impact on security posture. These certificates facilitate reliable encryption and authentication, serving as critical trust anchors across modern digital environments.

The rapid growth of cloud services, APIs, containers, and connected endpoints has dramatically increased certificate volume, making manual management impractical at enterprise scale. In this context, the cost of inaction relates directly to outdated manual certificate management, which drives high labor costs and increases the risk of outages.

Automated certificate lifecycle management addresses COI by eliminating manual certificate discovery and renewal processes. This reduces operational burdens while preventing misconfigurations and improving overall compliance and security posture.

As an automated certificate lifecycle management platform, Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) delivers this capability at enterprise scale. SCM operationalizes strategic COI reduction by providing consistent certificate management across complex digital environments. With centralized control and lifecycle visibility, certificates shift from being a reactive operational task to a strategic enabler of digital trust.

Why enterprise digital security cannot afford delay

In enterprise security, inaction is not a neutral choice. Delayed decisions accelerate risk rather than avoiding cost. As delays accumulate, attack surfaces expand, defensive controls weaken, and incidents become more costly to contain.

Proactive security and compliance strategies enable organizations to shift from reactive remediation to controlled, scalable risk reduction. Sectigo Certificate Manager provides a foundation for managing digital trust at scale through CLM automation, visibility, and policy-driven control.

Related posts:

Forrester TEI Study

How automated CLM reduces risk and cost in high-volume certificate environments

Total cost of ownership for an SSL/TLS certificate manager platform

This shift will accelerate renewal cycles and further complicate manual certificate management. As certificate lifespans shorten, renewal workloads essentially double as the new limits take effect, and organizations that lack automated solutions will struggle to keep up. Without changes to how certificates are managed, the risk of missed renewals and certificate expiration rises, which can lead to compliance failures and loss of customer trust.

These challenges intensify as the industry approaches the next milestone of 100-day validity periods in 2027, with further reductions ultimately reaching a 47-day maximum. Actions taken today can alleviate certificate management challenges as certificate lifespans continue to shrink. The most urgent and impactful measure to address growing risks? Adopting automated certificate lifecycle management (CLM).

What's changing and why

In April, 2025, the Certification Authority Browser Forum (CA/Browser Forum) approved Ballot SC-081v3. This proposal established a detailed schedule for reducing public SSL certificate validity periods. Encompassing phased certificate lifespan reductions, this measure followed a motion proposed by Apple and endorsed by major browser vendors and certificate authorities (CAs), including Google/Chrome, Mozilla, and Sectigo.

This shift reflects the growing recognition that extended certificate lifespans introduce elevated security risks. Longer lifespans increase risk exposure by extending vulnerability windows.These concerns are further compounded by the impending shift to post-quantum cryptography, which will require greater cryptographic agility across certificate environments. Shorter lifespans force organizations to shift from manual certificate management to automated solutions that enable quick key rotations and algorithm updates. 

The upcoming SSL certificate validity timeline

The shift from 398-day lifespans to 47-day certificate renewals will not occur all at once. Instead, a phased rollout has been established, allowing organizations to adapt gradually as new phases introduce shorter validity periods.

Enforcement dates established by Ballot SC-081v3 include:

• March 15, 2026 - 200-day maximum validity period: This represents the first major adjustment, cutting certificate lifespans in half. Renewals will now be required every 199 days, which we suggest you think of as 6 month certificates which would pragmatically mean renewing at the 180 day mark, allowing for recovery time. At this point, enterprises that fail to implement automation will begin to feel the pressure. This phase still functions as a transition window, however, providing just enough time to improve certificate visibility and workflows before the next big shift arrives.
• March 15, 2027 - 100-day maximum validity periods: With lifespans once again cut in half, manual certificate management will become unsustainable. Enterprises that failed to respond to the initial phase-down will likely face renewal backlogs and service reductions at this point. There will still be time to transition to automated certificate management and streamlined renewals, but delayed adoption will leave little room for error, making this transition feel operationally urgent or even rushed.
• March 15, 2029 - 47-day maximum validity periods: The big deadline arrives in 2029, when certificates with a maximum validity of 47 days take effect. Ideally, enterprises will be well-prepared, having already seamlessly adjusted to 200 and then 100-day lifespans. Supported by certificate authorities and centralized, automated certificate management, fully-prepared organizations can expect a seamless transition. Those that continue to rely on manual processes will face relentless operational pressure, inevitable human error, and urgent security threats.

With each new phase comes an increase in renewal frequencies. This reduces the margin for delay, rendering manual oversight less effective as we reach new stages in this rollout. 

How does risk increase as validity shrinks?

Shorter certificate lifespans do not inherently create risk; unprepared systems and manual processes do.

As validity periods shrink, enterprises that rely on manual certificate management, fragmented workflows, or aging PKI processes will face heightened risks. Previously predictable renewal rhythms will progressively tighten. These shifts prompt increased operational pressure and could further expose existing security or compliance weaknesses. Relevant concerns include:

• Renewal volume: Certificate volumes are already rising due to expanding endpoints, machine identities, and the adoption of Zero Trust architectures. Shorter lifespans exacerbate these challenges by prompting frequent certificate renewals.
• Operational pressure: Manual certificate processes cannot properly scale alongside shorter certificate renewal periods. Each new phase in the incremental validity period reduction adds to the already significant operational load, further increasing IT overhead.
• Business impact: With IT teams stretched thin, monitoring becomes haphazard and renewals begin to slip. This leads to outages, causing not only service disruptions, but also compliance failures: In the long term, this can damage customer trust. 

Operational and cost implications

Manual certificate management is costly and time consuming. Beyond day-to-day labor, it increases the likelihood of outages due to human error and the need for emergency remediation, driving unplanned work, incident response, and service recovery efforts.

It’s not only certificate validity that shrinks. Domain Control Validation (DCV) reuse periods also compress, ultimately down to 10 days, which can become a hidden bottleneck for high-frequency issuance.

Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for automated CLM consistently shows that, across purchase, maintenance, and labor, automation introduces significant cost savings. These savings scale with factors such as higher certificate volume and shortening validity periods.

As SSL/TLS lifespans shrink, the ROI of CLM automation will increase, turning a strategic advantage into an operational necessity. Shorter lifespans will amplify existing inefficiencies. What seemed possible at 398 days or even 200 days will present significant challenges at 100 days and will become unsustainable at 47 days. 

What do organizations need to do before March 15?

It's not too late to prepare for the first major shift on the path to shorter lifespans. A few proactive measures can improve readiness while setting the stage for further adjustments as we shift our focus to the 100-day milestone.

1. Begin by prioritizing certificate discovery. This means inventorying all digital certificates to confirm ownership, usage, and expiration dates. While the validity reductions apply to publicly trusted SSL/TLS certificates, visibility across all digital certificates provides clearer ownership, stronger governance, and earlier identification of renewal risk.
2. Visibility also encompasses current certificate lifecycle processes. Map these out to determine where manual processes still exist and how they can be updated. Begin to evaluate automation opportunities, exploring, for example, how issuance and renewals can be streamlined via protocols such as the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME).
3. Align security, IT, and DevOps ownership by establishing clear roles and determining where accountability lies. A lack of clear ownership could compromise policy enforcement or undermine integration with CI/CD pipelines.

With these key steps tackled, enterprises should be ready to integrate automated solutions before certificate validity periods compress. 

What does the data show about CLM automation?

Forrester Consulting conducted a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study on behalf of Sectigo, with findings revealing a 243 percent return on investment for organizations that automate certificate lifecycle management using the Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) platform.

This study demonstrates measurable value across the certificate ecosystem, including significant declines in operational risk and downtime. For example, reductions in provisioning labor amounted to $1.3 million over three years, while reductions in renewal expenses totaled $965,000 over three years. Although not quantified in financial terms, the study also identified meaningful reductions in security and outage risk.

200 days serves as an adjustment window for many

The impending shift to 200-day lifespans may function as an early warning, but it can also be framed as a powerful opportunity. This transitional period offers organizations the chance to validate automation strategies, refine workflows, and address gaps before the increased pressures of the 100 and 47-day phases arrive.

The first big milestone of 200-day certificate lifespans will test existing workflows while also providing tangible evidence of the need to adapt. Teams that prepare now will navigate future reductions with relative ease, supported by processes that can withstand tight renewal cycles. Delays, however, will increase pressure at every subsequent phase. Each step down in validity will increase operational strain, making outages more likely. 

Adapt to quicker certificate expiration cycles with SCM 

This shift moves certificate management from periodic renewal events to continuous, always-on operations. Addressing this change now helps to stay ahead of compounding risk. As validity periods compress, renewal frequency rises, leaving a limited margin for error. Moving forward, manual processes will be difficult to sustain. Look to automated solutions to streamline this shift and set the stage for easier adjustments as we approach the quantum era.

Organizations can navigate this transition with Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM). By automating the entire digital certificate lifecycle from discovery and issuance to renewal, monitoring, and revocation, SCM provides centralized visibility and a unified platform to manage digital certificates efficiently at scale. Schedule a demo and discover the benefits of automated CLM.

Related posts:

What is the purpose of post-quantum cryptography?

Total cost of ownership for an SSL/TLS certificate manager platform

The benefits of automating certificate management for the 47-day lifecycle

Although largely focused on students and families, Safer Internet Day reinforces an important responsibility for businesses. As digital threats continue to escalate, organizations are expected to protect the users who rely on their online services. 

One-off or status quo security fixes are no longer sufficient; maintaining digital trust now requires proactive, layered defenses across every digital touchpoint. Websites, email, and software experiences must work together to establish encryption, authentication, and validation that users can rely on.

What does digital trust mean for modern businesses?

Digital trust reflects confidence in the systems and platforms that enable online interactions. It is a baseline expectation that digital services (and the organizations that provide them) will protect users. Consumers use digital trust signals to decide whether a website, email, or application is safe to use and resilient against modern threats.

For businesses, digital trust is a strategic foundation, not a reactive security measure. It shapes security programs across software development, infrastructure, and data governance, helping organizations move beyond one-off fixes toward adaptive, intelligence-led approaches that address risk at its source.

Managing trust across websites, email, and software

Digital trust is not established through a single control or technology. For businesses, it is shaped by how consistently security and identity protections are applied across every digital interaction users have with the organization.

For most organizations, digital trust is built through three interconnected areas:

• Website trust. Promoting a secure online presence and safe browsing, website trust inspires confidence in users, who expect to navigate legitimate websites and who want to be reassured that their sensitive information will be protected.
• Email trust. Treating email as an extension of an organization's web presence, email trust involves proactive measures meant to combat issues such as phishing and spoofing, which can erode user confidence and undermine credibility.
• Software and application trust. Focused on downloads and APIs, software and application trust centers around the tools and apps that today's businesses build or utilize. Unsigned and outdated code can introduce new risks, ultimately jeopardizing trust across the entire digital ecosystem. 

Website security checks to prioritize in 2026

Security checks support digital trust by verifying that systems continue to remain effective over time. Prioritizing these checks means acknowledging that trust is not assumed, but rather, actively built and maintained through consistent monitoring and validation. 

For organizations, the following security checks help maintain digital trust: 

1. Check SSL/TLS certificates are valid

Organizations should routinely verify that all SSL/TLS certificates in use are valid, properly configured, and actively protecting user connections. These certificates remain a foundational component of digital trust, providing both authentication and encryption while signaling to users and browsers that connections are legitimate.

Because digital certificates expire and lifespans continue to shorten, discovery and ongoing management are critical. This begins with establishing a detailed inventory, while also tracking expiration dates and verifying that certificates are properly configured.

2. Prepare for certificate lifecycle management at scale

Amid quickly growing certificate volumes and frequent renewals, there is a greater need for automated solutions that help organizations manage certificates at scale. This is a great time to move away from manual workflows and prepare for the quickly approaching shift to 47-day certificate lifespans. The first big shift in validity periods is right around the corner: 200-day lifespans will take effect in March, 2026.

To prepare for this shift and reduce operational risk, businesses should build automation into the entire certificate lifecycle management process, including discovery, issuance, renewal, and revocation. Scalable, automated certificate lifecycle management (CLM) positions enterprises to avoid outages and maintain trust as certificate volumes grow and as turnover accelerates. 

3. Continuously scan for vulnerabilities and malware

Every year brings new attack vectors, leaving previously effective cybersecurity strategies vulnerable to gaps that sophisticated threat actors can exploit. At this point, one-off security scans fall short; these must be replaced by continuous security scans, ensuring that weaknesses are detected as soon as they emerge and long before they can be weaponized.

Solutions such as SiteLock use daily security scanning to detect malware and known vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. This helps organizations identify and remediate several cybersecurity risks, including those identified in the OWASP Top 10.

4. Review permissions and authentication controls

Organizations should regularly review permissions, access rights, and authentication methods to identify weak controls or outdated credentials that could enable unauthorized access or brute force attempts. This review should confirm that only the appropriate users, systems, and services retain access to sensitive functions and data.

It is increasingly evident that passwords alone are no longer sufficient for reliable access control. As part of this review, businesses should evaluate whether password-centric approaches, including traditional multi-factor authentication, are appropriate for critical systems or whether certificate-based alternatives should be implemented. Certificate-based authentication uses private keys as cryptographic proof of identity and aligns with modern least-privilege and zero-trust models, in which trust is never assumed, but rather, actively verified.

5. Strengthen email trust

Email trust should be reviewed alongside website trust, as both depend on domain ownership and identity verification. Organizations should first confirm that email authentication protocols such as SPF (Sender Policy Framework), DMARC (Domain‑Based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance), and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are correctly configured and actively enforced for their sending domains.

Once these controls are in place, businesses can further strengthen email trust by using Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs), which display logos directly within recipients' email inboxes. Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) offer a viable alternative when registered trademarks are not yet available. Mark certificates can lead to improved brand recognition and open rates, but also prevent phishing by making it difficult for attackers to impersonate brands. 

6. Secure software and code

Organizations should review how software, scripts, and applications are developed, tested, and delivered to users. This includes confirming that secure coding practices are in place and that security testing is integrated into the DevOps lifecycle to identify issues such as cross-site scripting and other common vulnerabilities early in development.

As part of this review, businesses should verify that code signing is used for software, scripts, and updates distributed to users. Code signing certificates verify software origins and integrity prior to deployment. By protecting against unauthorized modification, code signing certificates reduce operational friction and preserve integrity across the software lifecycle. 

7. Monitor trust signals that impact users and browsers

Trust signals provide businesses with visible indicators that users and platforms rely on to assess legitimacy and safety. These signals include security badges, HTTPS indicators, or Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs) displayed within email inboxes. Because these indicators influence user confidence, they should be treated as active checks rather than "set and forget" strategies and monitored alongside other security controls.

Mechanisms such as safe browsing warnings and blacklists act as early-warning systems when a site is suspected of malicious behavior. While these protections improve user safety, they also surface trust failures directly to users, often through warning screens or blocked access. Monitoring trust signals and maintaining strong security hygiene helps organizations identify issues early and reduce the risk of browser warnings, blacklist entries, traffic loss, or reduced search visibility.

8. Assess readiness for post-quantum cryptography

The quantum era is rapidly approaching. Organizations should assess where and how cryptography is used across websites, applications, email systems, and internal infrastructure to evaluate their current level of crypto agility. Post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is no longer a distant consideration and should be incorporated into long-term security planning.

Already, attackers may be collecting sensitive data, using harvest now, decrypt later schemes to wait out advances in quantum computing. Organizations can combat these threats by determining where data may be at risk and by identifying classical algorithms that may require replacement with quantum-safe alternatives. Quantum-safe and hybrid certificates can enable a smoother transition.

Building digital trust with help from Sectigo

Layered and strategically coordinated digital strategies support holistic trust postures that protect businesses and users across numerous touchpoints. In 2026, businesses should replace isolated tools with unified strategies that strengthen identity assurance wherever users engage or connect digitally. 

Safer Internet Day reminds us that the quest for improved security never ends. As new threats emerge and as security measures grow more complex, organizations can alleviate the burden through automated solutions that support digital trust. To help teams take action, Sectigo is running a Safer Internet Day promotion that lets you save 10% on our digital certificates and security products with code SAFER10, valid through March 10, 2026.

Sectigo offers a unified framework and numerous products designed to elevate trust across websites, email, and software. Learn about SSL/TLS, S/MIME, and code signing certificates or take the next step and explore automated certificate lifecycle management with our Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) platform. 

Sources

https://connectsafely.org/observing-safer-internet-day/ 

https://initiatives.weforum.org/digital-trust/home 

https://owasp.org/Top10/2025/ 

Email outreach offers a cost-effective path to connecting with customers and building trust. Unfortunately, spam emails and phishing scams leave recipients feeling distrustful, resulting in low open rates, even when emails come from reputable businesses.

Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) are digital certificates that allow organizations to display logos in email inboxes, even without a registered trademark. Logos can offset these concerns, delivering a visual trust indicator and the chance to stand out within packed email inboxes. Major brands use Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs) to display trademarked logos, but CMCs are especially valuable for smaller organizations and non-trademarked brands that want to participate in visual email branding. They provide a practical, accessible path to boosting recipient trust and email engagement.

The relevance of CMCs has grown significantly due to several factors: the rising adoption of Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI), increased phishing threats that erode user trust, and the growing demand for brand authenticity in digital communications. Trusted providers such as Gmail, Apple Mail, and Yahoo now support BIMI. By displaying logos via BIMI, senders formalize their identities, thereby sending a valuable and highly visible trust signal.

Why visual identity in email matters

Today's email boxes are crowded; most people receive dozens or even hundreds of messages per day. They implicitly understand that many of these messages are irrelevant, and that some could even pose security risks.

A visual indicator like a logo adds legitimacy to the email, helping recipients distinguish trusted messages from suspicious or malicious ones. By focusing on branded, recognizable emails, recipients can limit their exposure to phishing schemes. This helps them interact confidently with trusted brands.

CMCs make this branding opportunity more accessible, especially for organizations without registered trademarks, enabling them to display their logo and reinforce visual identity alongside larger, trademarked brands. This levels the playing field and allows smaller businesses to benefit from the same trust signals.

Visual identity also supports strong email security. When recipients see verified logos in their inboxes, they can take confidence in knowing those emails are safe to open — and they can avoid emails that lack visual verification. This helps recipients avoid impersonated emails. In this way, mark certificates provide a critical defense against phishing and spoofing attacks.

What is a Common Mark Certificate?

Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) are specialized digital certificates issued by trusted certificate authorities (CAs) that allow organizations to display their logo alongside outbound emails in supported inboxes. Its primary purpose is to strengthen email authentication and build brand trust.

Operating within the BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) framework, CMCs enable organizations to display a non-trademarked logo alongside their email messages, so long as DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance) policies are in place. They function similarly to Verified Mark Certificates (VMCs), but with one key distinction: CMCs do not require a registered trademark, whereas VMCs do.

Instead, CMCs use CA verifications to confirm that displayed common marks are legitimate and have been in use for at least one year. This makes CMCs a more accessible option, offering a broader opportunity for logo display in BIMI-compatible inboxes.

How do Common Mark Certificates work?

Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) enable organizations to display their verified brand logos in supported email inboxes, without needing a registered trademark. They operate within the BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) framework to improve trust and visibility in email communications.

By binding a verified logo to a domain — and relying on enforced DMARC policies — CMCs ensure the legitimacy of email senders. These certificates form the critical link between your domain, your logo, and compatible email clients like Gmail.

Core technical requirements

In order for the logo to display in inboxes, your email authentication protocols need to be configured correctly. 

• The Sender Policy Framework (SPF) lists all servers authorized to send emails for your domain. 
• The DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) setting adds a cryptographic signature confirming sender identity and message integrity. 
• A final authentication protocol known as Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) must be set to "quarantine" or "reject" to ensure that spoofed emails do not reach the intended recipient.

Once the email authentication protocols have been established, organizations will publish a BIMI TXT record in DNS. These records should point to logo files, and the files must meet stringent standards for clarity and scalability by using the SVG Tiny PS format.

Logos only qualify if they have been in public use for over twelve months. Once verified, the certificate links the logo to the authenticated domain. Mailbox providers can then display logos within email inboxes when emails are sent from domains that fulfill DMARC requirements.

Issuance and validation

Certificate authorities (CAs) enable CMCs by validating domain ownership. This validation process may involve DNS record verifications along with evidence of a logo's consistent commercial use. With CMCs, the CA does not need to verify legal trademarks. Following validation, the CA can move forward with issuing the certificate, which is then added to the BIMI record.

Logo display in supported inboxes

Mailbox providers such as Gmail check for consistent alignment between BIMI, CMC, and DMARC settings. Once verification steps are fulfilled, and all requirements are met, email platforms can display logos alongside the sender's name in the inbox. This visible trust indicator enhances brand recognition, boosts engagement, and helps reassure recipients that the message is legitimate.

How do CMCs enable logo display without a trademark?

Common Mark Certificates enable BIMI logo display for organizations that don’t hold registered trademarks by validating consistent commercial use of a logo instead. Instead of verifying trademark ownership like a VMC, the certificate authority checks that the logo has been used publicly and continuously by the organization for at least one year. 

This involves reviewing evidence such as website usage, marketing materials, or other official channels to confirm authenticity and brand association. Once this validation is complete, and BIMI and DMARC requirements are met, supported inboxes can display the logo in recipients’ inboxes just like they would for trademarked logos.

Advantages of using a Common Mark Certificate

Common Mark Certificates provide a structured, standards-based path for organizations to participate in BIMI without a registered trademark. They focus on verifying consistent logo use and ensuring alignment with required email authentication protocols. Benefits include:

• Expedited verification processes enable quick deployments.
• Modest price points provide a lower barrier to entry compared to VMCs.
• Reduced risk of your brand being used in a phishing attack. 
• Higher email open rates upon bringing a visible element to email-based brand recognition.
• Accessibility for more brands by removing trademark requirements, opening BIMI logo display to startups, SMBs, and nonprofits.
• A practical bridge to future VMC adoption by building logo visibility and trust in the interim.
• Stronger long-term brand credibility by establishing a verifiable history of consistent logo use.

How to obtain a CMC

Ready to secure branding and cybersecurity advantages through a Common Mark Certificate? Take these simple steps to secure a CMC — and to use it to display verified logos.

1. Implement DMARC policy enforcement. First, configure SPF and DKIM. Next, enforce DMARC policy at p=quarantine or p=reject.
2. Prepare a BIMI-compliant SVG logo file. Create a self-contained SVG logo with no scripts or external records. This should be hosted on a publicly accessible HTTPS URL.
3. Host logo file and publish BIMI DNS record. Enable the BIMI-compliant logo by adding a BIMI TXT record to the domain's DNS. Confirm that the record is properly formatted.
4. Once you have completed steps 1-3, order your CMC through a reputable Certificate Authority. The CA will verify domain ownership and confirm that the logo meets strict BIMI requirements.
5. Add the issued CMC to the BIMI DNS record. Update the DNS to include the CMC. This step delivers proof of verification, confirming that the logo is ready to display.
6. Test logo visibility. Send test emails to confirm that logos display in supported inboxes. Keep in mind that Google blue checkmark feature will not display if using CMCs instead of VMCs.
7. Monitor DMARC compliance. Ensure ongoing logo display by maintaining DMARC compliance. Use monitoring tools to identify and address SPF or DKIM issues.

Who should use a Common Mark Certificate?

Common Mark Certificates offer a viable workaround to Verified Mark Certificates, specifically for organizations that do not yet possess trademarked logos. Through CMCs, organizations can gain the visual branding benefits of VMCs, but without undergoing the process of securing a trademark.

Ideal use cases

Trademarked logos offer many advantages, including exclusive rights via trademark protection. This strengthens branding and may help prevent imitation. Obtaining a trademark can prove expensive and time-consuming, however, and, during the wait for trademark protection, businesses could miss out on email-focused visual branding opportunities.

Businesses may seek CMCs if they have not yet pursued trademark registration. This includes startups, fast-moving digital-first brands, and ecommerce companies that are still building brand equity. CMCs provide the chance to pilot BIMI before proceeding with VMC rollouts. In this way, a CMC acts as a bridge, bringing the advantages of BIMI participation to startups.

Beyond this, resource-constrained nonprofits, community organizations, or regional brands may favor CMCs, especially if they lack the resources required to gain full trademark protection.

Strategic benefits

CMCs can provide a transitional step towards trademark registration and VMC issuance, but some organizations may seek CMCs in lieu of VMCs. This cost-effective solution offers visual branding advantages at a significantly lower price point. Quick to implement, CMCs bypass complex verification processes, with issuance timelines as short as 5–10 business days.

Following a fast and affordable deployment, businesses can use CMCs to improve their brand presence within digital communications. This, in turn, improves confidence among recipients, leading to higher open rates. As brands mature, they can use CMC as a stepping stone to full VMC adoption, driving additional advantages such as Gmail's blue checkmark.

CMC vs. VMC vs. BIMI

While all three, CMC, VMC, and BIMI, are involved in displaying brand logos in email inboxes, they each serve a different role in the process:

• BIMI is the technical protocol that enables inbox logo display by using DNS records and requiring DMARC enforcement.
• VMC is a type of digital certificate used with BIMI that verifies trademark ownership of a logo before it can be displayed.
• CMC is an alternative certificate that also enables BIMI logo display but does not require a registered trademark. Instead, it validates that the logo has been in consistent commercial use and is properly associated with the sending domain.

Together, these components allow businesses to authenticate their email identity and improve visual trust with recipients, but the path you choose depends on whether your logo is trademarked or not.

Sectigo is one of very few certificate authorities currently supporting CMC issuance. We help organizations meet diverse email branding and security needs with Verified Mark Certificates and Common Mark Certificates. Get started today and build lasting inbox credibility with Sectigo. 

Sources:

• https://www.sectigo.com/resource-library/root-causes-529-what-is-a-common-mark-certificate
• https://www.sectigo.com/resource-library/root-causes-98-dmarc-and-verified-mark-certificates-for-email

With browser vendors shortening certificate lifespans from 398 to 200, 100, and finally 47 days by 2029, organizations are discovering that what once looked like a minor operational detail is now a material security and business risk. At the center of this shift

What is security debt in digital trust?

Security debt is the accumulated risk created when security practices fail to evolve alongside the systems they protect. In digital trust infrastructure (i.e. certificates, keys, PKI, identity, and encryption) this debt builds quietly over time.

It doesn’t show up on a balance sheet. It doesn’t break things immediately. But it compounds. Shrinking certificate lifespans force security debt into the open. 

Why certificate lifespans are shrinking

Shorter-lived certificates are intentional. They:

• Reduce the impact of compromised keys
• Limit damage from misissued certificates
• Encourage automation and modern crypto hygiene
• Align trust with ephemeral, cloud-native workloads

From a security perspective, this is progress. From an operational perspective, it’s a stress test. 

Where security debt hides in modern trust infrastructure

Most organizations struggle because they don’t fully understand where trust lives in their infrastructure and rely on manual systems or outdated workflows for visibility.

Security debt commonly hides in:

• Unknown certificate and key inventory across cloud, SaaS, APIs, appliances, and partners
• Legacy systems designed around long-lived certificates and manual renewal
• Hard-coded trust, where certificates or keys are embedded in code, containers, or firmware
• Fragile automation, built from scripts that don’t scale or fail silently
• Third-party integrations, where ownership of certificates is unclear
• Organizational gaps, where security, platform, and application teams each assume someone else owns trust

As long as certificates lasted years, these weaknesses stayed relatively dormant. With 200-day, 100-day, and 47-day lifespans, these weak spots will surface fast. 

A real outage scenario

Consider a common failure pattern: A legacy API gateway, deployed years ago, uses a manually installed TLS certificate. It was never added to a central inventory and isn’t covered by automated renewal. The renewal window passes, and the certificate expires overnight.

Suddenly:

• Customer logins fail
• Mobile apps can’t authenticate
• Partner integrations break
• Multiple teams are paged with no clear owner

Engineers scramble to find the certificate, reissue it, and deploy a fix, often under public scrutiny. Post-incident analysis reveals more certificates with the same risk profile.

This wasn’t a one-off mistake. It was security debt finally coming due. And when lifespans become shorter, tracking certificates manually will result in many more of these unintentional human-error failures. 

Why this is now a board-level issue

Certificate failures are no longer rare, isolated events. They are:

• Highly visible: outages are immediate and externally verifiable
• Systemic: trust failures cascade across services and partners
• Costly: emergency fixes and downtime dwarf the cost of prevention
• Indicative: weak certificate management signals broader security fragility

In a world of shrinking lifespans, digital trust becomes a business continuity dependency. 

Paying down security debt in digital trust

Organizations that adapt successfully treat certificates and keys as first-class infrastructure, rather than background plumbing. That means:

• Maintaining a real-time inventory of trust assets
• Automating issuance, rotation, and revocation
• Eliminating hard-coded secrets
• Using short-lived, identity-based trust models (e.g., mTLS, SPIFFE)
• Establishing clear ownership and policy enforcement

The goal is to make PKI boring, predictable, and resilient again.   

The bottom line

Shrinking certificate lifespans are doing exactly what they were meant to do: 
they’re exposing hidden assumptions, outdated processes, and accumulated security debt.

In an industry that hasn’t changed much in the 30 years since the first certificate issuance, this can feel like a huge upheaval. But this upheaval is entirely necessary for the era of post-quantum computing.  

Organizations that address this debt proactively gain stronger security and operational resilience. Those that don’t will keep paying “interest” in the form of outages, incidents, and reputational damage. Automation is how the industry “makes PKI boring again.”

Digital trust no longer fails quietly, and neither can the systems that manage it. 

Related posts:

Infographic: Certificate Outages

200 days until 200 days: Everything you need to know about the first stepdown in maximum certificate lifespan validity 

Preparing for the 47-day certificate era: Why automation can’t wait

Limited visibility exacerbates these challenges, making it difficult to discern which cryptographic solutions are in use and whether they prove effective. While solutions such as certificate lifecycle management (CLM) enhance visibility for specific cryptographic elements, additional monitoring or supervision is often required.

A cryptographic bill of materials (CBOM) addresses these issues by bringing structure and oversight to comprehensive encryption strategies. This resource helps reveal whether and where assets exist while also detailing gaps or vulnerabilities. More than a list, the CBOM offers context to support consistent governance and informed decision-making within an enterprise.

What is a CBOM?

A cryptographic bill of materials provides a comprehensive inventory detailing all cryptographic elements used in software or systems. Intended to help organizations identify and address cryptographic risks, a CBOM reveals where cryptographic assets (such as cryptographic keys, algorithms, and digital certificates) exist and how they are used. This is not a static inventory; this resource offers context to reveal the purpose of each cryptographic element, along with associated dependencies.

Sectigo's Tim Callan explains that a CBOM helps organizations answer critical cryptographic questions: "What's the cryptography we're using [and] how are we using it?"

A CBOM should not be confused with the software bill of materials (SBOM), which the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency describes as a "key building block in software security and software supply chain risk management," offering a “nested inventory” that details a range of software components. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) compares this to “food ingredient labels on packaging.”

The CBOM serves a similar function, but hones in on the cryptographic components responsible for securing software solutions. This focused inventory is necessary because blind spots remain common in current security practices, with many IT leaders struggling to understand (or keep up with) cryptographic assets. 

Why a CBOM is more than a list

The value of a CBOM lies not just in what it contains, but rather, how it describes these elements and how detailed cryptographic assets play into the bigger picture of cryptographic resilience. This should describe both current solutions along with future risks or opportunities, contextualizing cryptographic assets based on crypto agility objectives and quantum readiness.

Sectigo's Tim Callan explains that the ideal CBOM will clarify: is the current cryptographic environment "fit for purpose," and, if not, what will it take to make it fit for purpose? This resource should take a big-picture approach, moving beyond which assets are included to how these cryptographic solutions address risks or vulnerabilities (such as the potential for deprecated algorithms), how they promote readiness (such as key rotations in response to regulatory changes), and how they drive business impact.

Sectigo's Jason Soroko suggests that we reframe this concept as the "contextual CBOM." At minimum, this should include justification for current cryptographic assets, revealing why they are necessary while also acknowledging the risks they carry and how, if necessary, they can be updated or replaced. Additionally, CBOMs should capture:

• Operational dependencies. A CBOM should demonstrate how cryptographic assets relate to various business processes and systems. This reveals which devices, services, or APIs depend on specific keys, certificates, or algorithms. This context reminds us that cryptographic assets do not function in isolation.
• Criticality of the system. Criticality references how important each cryptographic solution is to an enterprise's overall security posture. A CBOM can help teams determine which cryptographic elements support mission-critical systems, enhancing both security and operational continuity.
• Risk exposure if crypto fails. A thorough CBOM will not simply address best-case scenarios; it will reveal what could happen in the event of adverse situations and where enterprises might prove most vulnerable. This might detail the potential for large-scale certificate outages, compliance violations, or breakdowns in trust in response to failed cryptographic solutions.
• Upgrade or migration readiness. Some cryptographic assets are more adaptable than others, and, amid rapid digital changes, it's important to know what it takes to update or replace solutions without disrupting existing operations or workflows. The bill of materials should highlight obstacles that might impede or delay upgrades, especially in the event of quantum advancements or algorithm deprecation. 

How it supports cybersecurity and future readiness

A CBOM can provide immediate improvements in enterprise-level cryptographic strategies, along with broad support for comprehensive security solutions and even future-proofing to help organizations prepare for the security challenges of tomorrow.

Advantages include:

• Improves visibility. A CBOM improves cryptographic visibility by consolidating discovered assets into a structured inventory, providing a clear overview of where and how cryptographic assets are utilized and reducing blind spots across the environment. Importantly, this also links cryptographic assets to relevant applications, services, and processes, showcasing the big picture of cryptographic protection as it relates to overarching security posture.
• Strengthens governance. It delivers the structured inventory needed to enforce strict security policies across teams, departments, and digital environments. This improves audit readiness, ensuring that cryptographic practices are not only compliant, but also, fully documented.
• Improves incident and remediation responses. In the event of an adverse incident (such as certificate expiration or key compromise), a CBOM enables a faster response by ensuring that impacted systems are promptly identified and addressed.
• Prepares for post-quantum change. A cryptographic bill of materials supports quantum readiness by drawing attention to the cryptographic algorithms and keys that may be vulnerable to quantum attacks in the future. These insights can help enterprises boost crypto agility, guiding preparations for the eventual adoption of quantum-resistant algorithms. With large-scale quantum computing expected to emerge within the coming years, now is the time to adopt measures that will support a seamless transition to quantum-safe cryptography.

How to build a CBOM?

CBOM development begins with determining who is responsible for inventorying and managing diverse cryptographic assets. Select teams or professionals who possess not only cryptographic expertise, but also, a deep understanding of enterprise-specific security policies.

From there, CBOM development and implementation will depend on the specific assets and resources at play. In general, however, this process follows a few key steps:

• Discover cryptographic assets. Cryptographic assets cannot be properly understood or managed until they are known. This occurs during the discovery process, which should cover all relevant enterprise systems, applications, and devices. Full visibility can only be achieved if every single algorithm, key, and certificate is identified.
• Catalog all components. As components are discovered, they should be added to an organized and centralized resource that provides a single source of truth. In addition to listing algorithms, keys, and digital certificates, this catalog should highlight essential details such as key lengths, expiration dates, and function.
• Explain context. Remember: a CBOM is more than a list. Bring nuance to this resource with supporting information, highlighting dependencies, criticality, and the potential impact of asset failure.
• Assess future risk. Consider where current cryptographic assets might fall short or which challenges are likely to emerge in the near future. For example, the quantum threat is best addressed via updated, quantum-safe or hybrid digital certificates, and through use of an automated certificate lifecycle management system.
• Maintain the CBOM. This is not a static resource; it must adapt alongside cryptographic assets and the threats or challenges they seek to address. Maintenance includes adding new components as they are deployed, with changes to keys or certificates detailed, and assets removed when they're no longer in use. 

How Sectigo helps operationalize CBOM

A CBOM offers much‑needed insight into an organization’s cryptographic landscape, but it delivers the greatest value when paired with automation that keeps inventories accurate, current, and actionable. For most enterprises, this begins with the cryptographic assets that underpin the majority of digital trust relationships: digital certificates.

Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) enables organizations to move from passive inventory to active cryptographic resilience by providing a single platform to discover, monitor, and automate the full lifecycle of all digital certificates across the enterprise. With centralized visibility and standardized workflows, SCM transforms CBOM insights into ongoing operational strength, ensuring cryptographic assets remain trusted, compliant, and aligned with business needs.

But operationalizing a CBOM is only half the challenge. As organizations surface weak keys, deprecated algorithms, misconfigurations, or compromised certificates within their CBOM, they also need to rapidly remediate cryptographic weaknesses before they disrupt business continuity. SCM accelerates this remediation by:

• Identifying weak or non‑compliant cryptographic assets, including vulnerable algorithms, insufficient key lengths, or certificates issued by untrusted CAs
• Automating key and certificate rotation to replace risky assets without operational downtime
• Instantly replacing compromised or suspicious certificates, restoring trust across dependent systems with seamless workflows
• Migrating assets to stronger standards, such as quantum‑safe or hybrid certificates, supporting long‑term crypto‑agility
• Enforcing governance and policy compliance, ensuring all updated assets adhere to organizational security requirements

This automated remediation capability directly aligns with Sectigo’s QUANT strategy, a holistic framework for guiding organizations into the post‑quantum era through proactive assessment, migration planning, and the adoption of quantum‑safe technologies. QUANT is designed to help enterprises address major emerging risks, including the Harvest Now, Decrypt Later threat and vulnerabilities in long‑lived digital signatures that may extend into the quantum frontier.

When combined with CBOM insights, Sectigo’s QUANT strategy enables organizations to:

• Pinpoint cryptographic assets vulnerable to future quantum attacks
• Prioritize remediation of long‑lived keys and signatures that must remain secure well beyond today’s cryptographic timelines
• Validate post‑quantum and hybrid certificate strategies through Sectigo PQC Labs, a dedicated environment for testing quantum‑safe assets
• Build crypto‑agile operational processes ahead of NIST’s planned 2030–2035 deprecation and replacement timelines

Together, SCM, CBOM, and the QUANT strategy form a complete, forward‑looking ecosystem for cryptographic resilience, helping organizations not only understand their current cryptographic posture but continuously strengthen it as threats evolve and the quantum era approaches. Learn more about SCM or schedule a demo today.

Related posts:

Bridging the gap: Risks of partial visibility in certificate lifecycle management

Certificate Lifecycle Management (CLM) Best Practices

Harvest now, decrypt later attacks & the quantum threat

These hazards make users more reluctant than ever to open their emails. This can be problematic from a branding perspective; those carefully designed marketing emails accomplish little if they're never opened in the first place.

This is where BIMI comes into play. Simultaneously strengthening security and branding, BIMI delivers a visible trust signal supported by behind-the-scenes authentication. Inbox providers reward authenticated senders with display features, helping users more easily identify legitimate emails and engage with them.

What is BIMI?

The email specification commonly referred to as BIMI references Brand Indicators for Message Identification, a standard that allows organizations to display verified brand logos in supported inboxes such as Gmail, Yahoo Mail, and more. BIMI creates a structured method for linking authenticated emails with a brand’s validated visual identity, helping legitimate senders stand apart from impersonators and spoofers.

Collectively introduced by well-known email clients, BIMI builds on existing authentication standards to add a visible trust signal in the inbox. As a result, recipients recognize and trust verified senders, leading to all-around improvements in security and brand awareness. 

How does BIMI improve trust?

BIMI fuels trust through the power of visual recognition. Following successful authentication, the BIMI protocol ensures that logos are prominently displayed within email inboxes. This provides an instant marker of credibility. Recipients gain higher confidence that logo-equipped emails originate from authenticated senders.

To ensure that these logos are legitimate, BIMI relies on mark certificates that validate the relationship between a brand, its logo, and the email sending domain. Different types of mark certificates are available depending on the level of protection needed and the trademark status of the logo.

With a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC), a trusted certificate authority confirms both the logo and the email sending domain, with validation tied to a registered trademark. This level of assurance is well suited for organizations that require strong brand authentication.

For organizations without a registered trademark, a Common Mark Certificate (CMC) offers an alternative path to BIMI. CMCs verify that a logo has been in consistent use for at least one year and, like VMCs, require enforced email authentication policies to ensure only authenticated senders can display their logos.

Role in brand visibility

BIMI's security implications should be top of mind, but this is also worth pursuing from a branding perspective. Simply put, logos stand out within crowded email inboxes, but these cannot be displayed without BIMI. Taking the steps to implement BIMI can cut through the noise of today's jam-packed inbox, attracting attention through visual differentiation and, over time, through the power of repeated exposures.

How does BIMI work?

BIMI relies on a complex series of authentication standards that can be identified based on their commonly used acronyms: DMARC, SPF, and DKIM, to name a few. These work in tandem to help ensure that fraudulent or spoofed emails do not reach recipients' inboxes, a necessary element for BIMI effectiveness.

• SPF (Sender Policy Framework): Domain owners use the SPF protocol to clarify which mail servers are permitted to send emails. Receiving servers then check SPF records to verify legitimacy. SPF forms the basis of domain-centered email authentication and is a cybersecurity must, only allowing authorized individuals or organizations to send on behalf of domains.
• DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM): As a digital signature, DKIM relies on public key cryptography for authenticating individual emails. One of the core goals of DKIM is to prevent content from being altered in transit so there's no question as to whether messaging originated from the domain in question.
• DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance): If emails fail authentication checks, DMARC determines what happens next. Building on SPF and DKIM, this establishes policies for failed checks. Through DMARC, domain owners gain greater control over the handling of unauthenticated messages. This can have a profound impact on email deliverability.
• DNS (Domain Name System) record: BIMI involves a specific type of DNS record. In general, DNS records are meant to link internet protocol (IP) addresses and domain names.

Authentication prerequisites

Several stringent standards must be met before BIMI can be enabled. These standards are essential security controls to meet today's cyber challenges and they ensure that BIMI fulfills core functions such as improving trust and preventing phishing. Once SPF and DKIM validation are established, you must then set your DMARC policies to quarantine or reject. A quarantine policy sends suspicious messages to the spam or junk folder, while a reject policy blocks them entirely, preventing delivery. Finally, domain alignment ensures that the domain highlighted in the 'from' address reflects the domain authenticated via SPF and DKIM.

Generating BIMI DNS record

Enabling BIMI involves publishing DNS TXT records that point to desired brand logos. These records should be published at default._bimi.[yourdomain.com], which provides a standardized location in which BIMI information can be found and verified. The TXT record should reference the BIMI version and should also include the HTTPS link to the brand logo file, which should be available in the SVG Tiny Portable/Secure (SVG P/S) format to ensure full compatibility.

BIMI logo verification with VMCs and CMCs

Logo verification is central to the BIMI process. As mentioned previously, there are two types of mark certificates available, typically selected based on whether a logo is trademarked. Brands with registered trademarks will ideally obtain Verified Mark Certificates, as these provide a higher level of assurance and are accepted in more mailbox providers.

Common Mark Certificates are also a strong solution, particularly for SMBs or organizations without trademarked logos, as they validate logo use and enable BIMI logo display in supported inboxes.

Inbox display process

A series of steps must occur before verified logos can be displayed in email inboxes. This begins as sending domains authenticate emails via DMARC. As providers receive emails, strict checks confirm that the appropriate BIMI records are in the DNS. This makes it possible for email clients to retrieve verified SVG-Tiny logos via HTTPS. These can be displayed in the inbox previews once authentication and verification criteria are met.

What are the requirements to implement BIMI?

Most organizations can take advantage of BIMI, but certain authentication and verification requirements must be met first. These include:

• DMARC enforcement: DMARC policies must be strategically set before BIMI can go into effect. Remember, p=quarantine ensures that suspicious emails are sent to the spam folder, while p=reject blocks problematic emails outright.
• SVG-Tiny logo: The Scalable Vector Graphics offers a streamlined version that promises to load quickly and render consistently. For BIMI purposes, this logo should be properly formatted and must remain free of unsupported elements.
• TXT record: Highlighting the location of the verified SVG-Tiny logo, the TXT record should be correctly published, with the BIMI selector ensuring that email providers can easily locate and securely display the logo in question.
• VMC or CMC: BIMI can be supported by VMC or CMC certificates. Both validate logo ownership, but VMCs call for trademarked logos, which are not required for CMCs.

Benefits of BIMI for organizations

BIMI offers far-reaching benefits, empowering organizations to strengthen both email security and branding through the power of verified logos. It represents just one of many email security practices worth implementing, but it can be one of the most impactful because it offers clear benefits beyond phishing defense. Advantages include:

Brand trust and reputation advantages

BIMI helps reduce phishing and impersonation risks by ensuring only authenticated senders can display verified brand logos in the inbox. By building on DMARC enforcement and other authentication standards, BIMI makes it easier for users to trust logo-displaying emails and avoid interacting with suspicious messages.

Marketing and engagement advantages

Amid the ongoing relevance of email marketing, BIMI helps brands overcome some of the most frustrating marketing roadblocks: low email open rates that stem from limited user trust. BIMI improves trust through visual recognition which can contribute to increased engagement and open rates.

Users who take that crucial first step and open emails get the opportunity to actually engage with content, and, as they continue to open emails with logos over time, they become more loyal to the brands featured in these emails.

Bring BIMI into your email protection strategy with Sectigo

Sectigo is a leading certificate authority offering Verified Mark Certificates and Common Mark Certificates that support BIMI and help brands display trusted, verified logos in supported inboxes. These certificates provide the validation needed to reinforce authenticity and help protect your brand from impersonation.

Whether you’re just getting started with email authentication or you’re ready to display your logo in inboxes worldwide, Sectigo can supply the certificate solutions you need. Learn more about how VMCs and CMCs help strengthen trust with every email.

Related posts:

CMC vs. VMC certificates: what’s the difference?

What are verified mark certificates (VMC) & how do they work

Business email security best practices for 2025: S/MIME & more

When these attacks are successful, the results can be truly devastating: Crucial services may become unavailable, and the community's highly sensitive data could be exposed. Ransomware and man-in-the-middle attacks remain alarming possibilities. With such high stakes, it's clear that government agencies must prioritize cybersecurity resilience while taking advantage of resources that bolster security and modernize governance.

A key tool in this effort to strengthen cyber resilience is automated certificate lifecycle management. This article highlights forward-thinking cybersecurity best practices for 2026 and beyond, showing how automation can help state and local governments build stronger, more resilient systems.

Rising cyber risks in 2026

State and local governments have long been uniquely vulnerable to cyberattacks due to structural limitations and under-resourced IT environments. In 2026, these risks are intensifying as public sector networks continue to expand their digital footprint. Hybrid work models and increased use of remote access tools are rapidly expanding the attack surface, exposing the limitations of antiquated and manual systems.

Without automation and strong identity controls, digital certificate, credential, and device sprawl are becoming unmanageable.

This sprawl is further complicated by the upcoming reduction in certificate validity periods. By 2029, SSL/TLS certificates will have a lifespan of only 47 days. This will pose significant challenges for IT teams including maintaining timely renewals and meeting strict compliance requirements.

The reality of these risks was underscored in July 2025, when Microsoft SharePoint servers were targeted in attacks affecting more than 90 state and local entities. Although a spokesperson from the U.S. Department of Energy clarifies that "attackers were quickly identified, and the impact was minimal,” and that no sensitive information was leaked, the what-ifs of this situation still raise alarm and indicate the need for robust information security measures that better address a wider range of vulnerabilities.

What cybersecurity challenges do state and local governments face today?

Modernization efforts across the public sector have led many agencies to adopt cloud platforms, hybrid infrastructures, and remote access tools. While these updates offer clear benefits, they also introduce new risks when layered over outdated legacy systems. The resulting mix creates operational silos and fragmented oversight that make it difficult to maintain consistent security standards.

An ongoing reliance on manual systems adds to this complexity. IT teams are often forced to track expirations, respond to outages, and manage certificate renewals without centralized visibility or automation. This reactive approach consumes valuable time and increases the risk of costly downtime. Forrester research shows that outages tied to expired certificates can cost organizations thousands of dollars per minute, a risk few public institutions can afford.

Meanwhile, evolving compliance mandates from both state and federal regulators continue to raise the bar. From encryption standards in Ohio to breach notification timelines in New York and Maryland, agencies must now navigate a patchwork of security requirements. At the federal level, the executive order Sustaining Select Efforts to Strengthen the Nation’s Cybersecurity reinforces the urgency of implementing encryption protocols and Zero Trust principles across government systems.

Meeting these challenges requires a shift toward proactive cybersecurity, supported by automation, improved visibility, and alignment with best-practice frameworks.

What are the cybersecurity best practices for state and local governments in 2026?

Amid escalating cybersecurity risks and still-limited resources, state and local governments must work smarter, not harder. In 2026, this means moving away from ad-hoc, manual processes and focusing on Zero Trust, automation, and full lifecycle control. The heightened demands of the coming year will force state and local government agencies to prioritize digital resilience, moving beyond reactive security practices and making the most of automated certificate lifecycle management.

Assess risks regularly

Weaknesses cannot be properly addressed until they are identified and understood. This means thoroughly examining local government cybersecurity posture to reveal gaps that could potentially be exploited. Focus on critical infrastructure such as servers, email systems, applications that serve community members, and remote access channels. Include regular reviews of network and endpoint security to find vulnerabilities before they’re exploited.

Build a Zero Trust foundation

As threats increasingly originate from within trusted networks, traditional perimeter defenses are no longer enough. Zero Trust is now the gold standard for digital security. This does away with inherent trust, instead suggesting that any user, device, or application could be potentially compromised.

That’s why identity-based access controls are now the cornerstone of modern cybersecurity, with every identity verified before access is granted. Digital certificates play an important role in identity verification, enforcing least-privilege permissions that limit users to the level of access needed to perform critical tasks.

Strengthen visibility with automated CLM

Automated certificate lifecycle management will be crucial as certificate lifespans continue to shrink. This provides agencies their best chance of keeping up with the accelerating pace of renewals. With a centralized inventory of certificates, credentials, and endpoints, visibility improves across all systems. Automated certificate discovery enables a full inventory of assets so that they can be properly managed.

This effort extends to issuance, deployment, and even discovery, limiting the likelihood of gaps or outages. Offering easy-to-use dashboards, these systems replace confusing spreadsheets and manual tracking tools with automated, centralized lifecycle management. This will make it far easier to adapt to 47-day lifespans, for, depending on validation, automated deployments and renewals take a few short minutes to complete.

Secure cloud and hybrid environments

An increased reliance on cloud applications has sparked the need for extended protection to address a much larger attack surface. In addition to securing on-premises systems, today's state and local government agencies must also deal with cloud-hosted workloads and even Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Consistent encryption is key to maintaining trust across this vast digital environment. This is achieved not only through automation, but also, through strong certificate policies and continuous monitoring of remote access, mobile users, and third-party integrations.

Focus on compliance, resilience, and third-party risk

Compliance offers a valuable foundation to address cybersecurity challenges. Use established frameworks from authorities such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to standardize security controls and bolster governance. Building redundancy and recovery plans ensures essential services can continue during an incident.

Keep in mind that high compliance expectations should also apply to third-party vendors, as these can introduce significant risks into otherwise well-protected systems. From IT managed service providers to payment processors, many vendors and contractors require vetting, but the added effort can improve overall resilience.

Modernize and secure legacy systems

Legacy systems are often the weakest link in government infrastructure, creating security gaps that attackers can easily exploit. These systems eventually need to be replaced, but this transition can feel overwhelming. Thankfully, it is possible to augment these solutions with contemporary tools that improve both security and performance.

Begin by highlighting outdated software or devices that no longer receive sufficient support. If certain legacy systems cannot yet be upgraded, they should at least be segmented or isolated to limit exposure. Systems linked to critical operations (such as finance or HR) may require priority upgrades.

Invest in cybersecurity awareness training and staffing

Human talent remains a critical part of any cybersecurity challenge, but even knowledgeable IT staff members may struggle to keep up with evolving standards and practices. Regular training and cybersecurity awareness programs are needed for administrators and contractors alike. Agencies should hold tabletop exercises and update incident response playbooks at least twice a year to keep teams sharp.

Training for IT and network teams should encompass cutting-edge threat detection and certificate management strategies. Prioritize active cybersecurity skill development with exercises and simulations that help staff put incident response strategies into action.
Training will only go so far if staffing needs remain unmet. Agencies that are already stretched thin may rely on grants or partnerships to expand cybersecurity headcount. Shared-service models across municipalities can also help pool resources and extend cybersecurity coverage more efficiently.

How automation supports long-term cybersecurity goals

Automation has become the only scalable way to manage the growing complexity of digital certificate lifecycles. As public SSL/TLS certificate lifespans shrink from 398 days to 47, manual processes quickly become unsustainable. Automated certificate lifecycle management platforms like Sectigo Certificate Manager help eliminate human error, reduce the administrative burden on IT teams, and prevent service outages caused by missed renewals or misconfigurations.

Looking ahead, automation plays a critical role in achieving crypto agility. With quantum computing on the horizon, organizations must prepare for a future in which classical cryptographic algorithms will no longer provide sufficient protection. Sectigo supports this transition through hybrid certificates and post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) solutions that combine traditional and quantum-resistant encryption methods. These innovations ensure that government agencies can begin migrating sensitive systems today while maintaining compatibility with current environments.

By automating certificate deployment, renewal, and replacement, and by preparing for the demands of the quantum era, state and local governments can protect sensitive data, maintain operational continuity, and future-proof their cybersecurity strategies.

Maintain resilience in 2026 with Sectigo

Automation is critical for public agency cybersecurity. It’s key to maintaining uptime, improving compliance, and creating a secure pathway into the quantum era.

Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) offers opportunities for strengthening resilience in 2026 and beyond. This platform centralizes certificate visibility and automates the entire digital certificate lifecycle, helping agencies prevent outages and meet modern compliance demands. Get started with a demo or a free trial.

Related posts:

How SSL certificates help prevent Man-in-the-Middle attacks

Cybersecurity Risk: What Is It & How to Assess

Why automation is critical for 47-day certificates