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.

To support organizations strengthening cybersecurity in 2026, Sectigo is offering 10% off digital certificates and security products with code SAFER10 (valid through March 10, 2026).

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 Unsigned and outdated code can introduce new risks, ultimately jeopardizing trust across the entire digital ecosystem.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

When these systems are interrupted, the consequences can be severe: Sensitive information becomes even more vulnerable. If this is accessed, organizations could face eroding consumer trust along with considerable compliance challenges. Another risk? Major delays that ripple across the entire global supply chain.

Cyberattacks are rising across airlines, ports, and supply chain networks. Threat actors increasingly view transport and logistics as prime targets, exploiting even minor vulnerabilities to cause data leaks and major disruptions in airline operations, freight tracking, and more.

While there is no single strategy or solution for combating these attacks, digital certificate management has a critical role to play. This role will only grow as certificate validity periods shrink. The next big milestone: 47-day certificate lifespans, which are set to become the new standard in 2029.

Escalating cyber threats in transport & logistics

Cybercriminals cause devastation across many sectors, but their impact in the logistics space is especially alarming. They increasingly target critical infrastructure, using social engineering and legitimate administrative tools to infiltrate systems. Once inside, they can compromise everything from transit schedules to shipments.

These attacks can disrupt the supply chain, bringing critical operations to a halt. The ripple effects can be felt across the entire economy and throughout vulnerable communities, leading to far-reaching effects, including shortages, delays, and price increases.

These issues become far more likely when digital certificates, like SSL/TLS certificates, are allowed to expire. Outages from expired certificates create openings for hackers and can spark devastating consequences, with a single outage costing up to $9,000 per minute, or between $500,000 and $5 million total.

Example of a high-profile attack on a logistics system

This recent example reveals the extensive damage that threat actors can cause when critical digital safeguards, including but not limited to digital certificates, are not properly managed.

Scattered Spider

Attacker group Scattered Spider (UNC3944) has carried out campaigns targeting airlines and other transport operations, relying heavily on social engineering and identity compromise to infiltrate systems. This group poses significant risk to T&L operations. According to Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG), their tactics follow a ‘living-off-the-land (LoTL)’ approach, which leverages existing administrative tools and manipulated trust. This method can bypass many traditional security controls that organizations have long relied on.

This attack highlights a key vulnerability in many organizations: the human element. Systems that depend on manual processes, including manual certificate management, are more prone to mistakes and social engineering exploits. Without automation, even well-intentioned employees can inadvertently create openings for threat actors.

Why digital certificates matter during attacks

It takes a comprehensive security strategy to prevent and mitigate logistics-focused attacks. Digital certificates are a key component, delivering both encryption and authentication. Encryption helps protect sensitive information from interception, while authentication verifies that access is limited to trusted and authorized parties.

When SSL certificates expire or are mismanaged, recovery becomes more difficult. Certificate outages reduce resilience during high-pressure incidents and increase the risk of further compromise. Certificates therefore provide essential protection and help maintain continuity during incidents.

Automated certificate lifecycle management (CLM) helps to close common gaps and ensures certificates don’t become the weak link attackers exploit. By renewing and deploying certificates without human error, automated management prevents expired digital certificates from becoming the weakest points. This strengthens overall defenses and helps organizations maintain continuity if incidents do occur.

Automated certificate management solutions, like Sectigo Certificate Manager, provide the visibility and control needed to reduce security gaps and limit potential attacker movement within critical networks. These systems streamline every stage of the SSL lifecycle—from certificate issuance and deployment to renewal and beyond. They also support identity management, helping organizations advance toward zero-trust security models in which every interaction is verified.

What certificate management challenges do T&L operations face?

Transport and logistics organizations face many digital security challenges above and beyond the constant risk of cyberattack. These operations must maintain constant uptime to properly serve consumers and to avoid supply chain issues and bottlenecks. Their networks are inherently complex and increasingly interspersed, adding extra challenges to already complicated security initiatives.

While digital certificates provide a baseline of protection, these can easily fall short, especially for organizations that continue to rely on outdated manual management solutions.

Common challenges include:

High certificate volume across global networks

As operations expand and certificate validity periods shrink, organizations face growing certificate volume alongside an increasing rate of renewal. These challenges take place within vast networks that encompass numerous warehouses, carriers, and digital systems. With each extra channel or IoT device comes the need for expanded protection and the need to properly deploy and renew digital certificates in a timely manner.

Tracking expirations is already a challenge, and it will intensify as lifespans shrink. Certificate lifecycles will drop to 200 days in March 2026, 100 days in March 2027, and just 47 days by 2029. Without automation, keeping pace with this cycle will be nearly impossible.

Scalability strains on growing infrastructure

High certificate volumes are sparked, in part, by rapid digital scaling, with more devices, platforms, and integrations continually added. T&L organizations that opt for manual certificate management may struggle to scale their digital footprint because they encounter stubborn bottlenecks, or when they do attempt to scale up, they may suffer higher amounts of costly outages.

Without an automated CLM solution, already limited resources may grow strained, leaving organizations unable to fully take advantage of growth opportunities. 

Decentralized and complex environments

Sprawling T&L operations involve vast digital ecosystems that encompass a myriad of servers, platforms, and data centers. These environments may feature dramatically different security policies, which can be difficult to maintain.

Add differing certificate authorities or renewal strategies to the mix, and blind spots become much more likely. This lack of centralized visibility can leave organizations vulnerable to misconfigurations and other issues that may lead to unacceptable outages.

Budget pressures and competing priorities

The overhead attached to manual certificate management can be considerable; lengthy certificate deployment, renewal, and revocation processes require hands-on IT resources and may prevent team members from addressing other critical concerns. Lapses can prove even more costly, however, with downtime potentially prompting millions in losses.

In a sector defined by tight margins, there is little room for waste or errors that lead to outages. With competing priorities, certificate management often takes a backseat to other security concerns, compounding existing challenges and weakening the overall security posture of T&L organizations.

Leadership buy-in and awareness gaps

Leaders recognize the importance of digital certificates but may struggle to see the urgency of adopting automation. As certificate lifecycles shorten and threats increase, manual management quickly becomes unsustainable.

Some executives also underestimate the financial impact of downtime or the long-term labor associated with manual certificate management. Their buy-in is critical to implementing automated CLM solutions, especially in the context of upcoming concerns surrounding crypto agility and the quantum threat.

Why are 47-day certificates a breaking point?

Shorter certificate lifespans, aimed at addressing future threats including quantum computing, mark one of the most significant changes in digital trust management in decades. For transport and logistics organizations already dealing with high volumes, complex networks, and limited resources, this shift will only magnify existing challenges.

Organizations that are just barely managing under 398-day validity periods will be severely tested as the window closes to 47 days by 2029. Manual strategies will no longer be a viable option and could ultimately prove a huge liability; the sheer volume of certificates and frequency of renewals will make it nearly impossible to keep up with slow manual processes, thereby making outages more likely for those who fail to adopt automated certificate lifecycle management.

From fleet telematics to cargo tracking platforms and even booking engines, many critical systems could be disabled if certificates are not properly renewed. Ensuing losses could be magnified if these failures occur during peak logistics seasons. After all, attackers have been known to strike during times of high demand.

Shorter lifespans may provide the push needed to take steps towards achieving truly robust cybersecurity in a rapidly changing digital ecosystem. With automated solutions in place, 47-day validity periods will no longer feel like a liability, but rather, will become a security advantage.

How automation strengthens transport & logistics organization security

Automated certificate management strengthens overall T&L security by addressing both present inefficiencies and anticipated challenges. This is a proactive solution designed to keep pace with evolving security requirements.

With certificates centrally managed and automatically discovered, deployed, and renewed, organizations can remain confident that critical technologies will remain online. Meanwhile, reporting tools, like those available within the SCM platform, will strengthen compliance, producing an audit trail that will satisfy regulators and insurers. In the long run, this supports zero-trust security strategies.

Secure your transport and logistics operations with Sectigo

As certificate lifespans shrink, T&L leaders must adopt a proactive approach to digital certificate management, complete with automation. This is only the first step, however. Leaders must also be mindful of looming quantum threats, which requires advanced crypto agility within organizations. Automated CLM offers one of the most accessible steps towards achieving crypto agility, as this makes it easier to update cryptographic standards without disrupting crucial operations.

Sectigo helps organizations transition to automated certificate management with a platform built for complex, large-scale environments. Sectigo Certificate Manager (SCM) provides the visibility and control needed to manage certificates across today’s vast transport and logistics networks. SCM adapts to existing infrastructures with broad integration options and CA-agnostic capabilities.

Learn more about T&L use cases or take the next step by scheduling a demo.

Related posts:

What is an SSL certificate & how does it work

The hidden multi-million-dollar cost of certificate outages and why it’s about to get worse

What is the purpose of post-quantum cryptography?

Electronic signatures, commonly referred to as e-signatures, are a broad set of solutions that use an electronic process for accepting a document or transaction with a signature. As documents and communication are increasingly paperless, businesses and consumers worldwide have embraced the speed and convenience of these types of signatures. But there are many different types of electronic signatures, each allowing users to sign documents digitally and offering some degree of identity authentication.

Digital signatures are one of those electronic signature technologies and are the most secure type available. Digital signatures use PKI certificates from a Certificate Authority (CA), a type of Trust Service Provider, to ensure identity authentication and document integrity by encrypted binding of the signature to the document. Other, less secure e-signature types may use common electronic authentication methods to verify the signer’s identity, such as an email address, a corporate username/ID, or a phone number/PIN.

As a result of different technical and security requirements, electronic signatures vary in industry, geographic, and legal acceptance. Digital signatures comply with the most demanding regulatory requirements, including the United States Federal ESIGN Act and other applicable international laws.

How do digital signatures work?

Digital signatures use public key infrastructure (PKI), which is considered the gold standard for digital identity authentication and encryption. PKI relies upon the use of two related keys, a public key and a private key, that together create a key pair to encrypt and decrypt a message using strong public key cryptography algorithms. Using both public and private keys that are generated using a mathematical algorithm to provide the signer with their own digital identity, a digital signature is generated and encrypted using that signer’s private key, and also a timestamp of when the document was signed using the key. These keys are normally stored safely thanks to the help of a trusted CA.

Both public and private keys are generated using a mathematical algorithm; they provide the signer with their own digital identity and then a digital signature is generated and encrypted using that signer’s corresponding private key. A timestamp of when the document was signed using the key is also generated. These keys are normally stored safely thanks to the help of a trusted CA.

Here is how sending a digital signature works:

1. The sender selects the file to be digitally signed in the document platform or application.
2. The sender’s computer calculates the unique hash value of the file content.
3. This hash value is encrypted with the sender’s private key to create the digital signature.
4. The original file along with its digital signature is sent to the receiver.
5. The receiver uses the associated document application, which identifies that the file has been digitally signed.
6. The receiver’s computer then decrypts the digital signature using the sender’s public key.

The receiver’s computer then calculates the hash of the original file and compares the hash it has computed with the now decrypted hash of the sender’s file.

The process to create a digital signature is easy and straightforward for the average user and for enterprises to adopt. You first need a digital signing certificate, which can be acquired through a trusted Certificate Authority like Sectigo. After downloading and installing the certificate, you simply use the digital signing function of the appropriate document platform or application. For example, most email applications provide a “Digitally Sign” button to digitally sign your emails.

When sending out a document signed using a private key, the receiving party obtains the signer’s public key which will allow one to decrypt the document. Once the document is decrypted, the receiving party can view the unaltered document as the user intended.

If the receiving party cannot decrypt the document using the public key, then it signifies that the document has been altered, or even that the signature doesn’t even belong to the original signer.

Digital signature technology requires all involved parties to trust that the individual creating the signature has been able to keep their own private key secret. If someone else has access to the signer's private key, that party could create fraudulent digital signatures in the name of the private key holder.

What happens if either the sender or receiver change the file after it has been digitally signed? As the hash value for the file is unique, any change to the file creates a different hash value. As a result, when the receiver’s computer compares the hash to validate the integrity of the data, the difference in the hash values would reveal the file had been altered. Thus, the digital signature would be shown as invalid.

What does a digital signature look like?

Since the heart of a digital signature is the PKI certificate, which is software code, the digital signature itself is not inherently visible. However, document platforms may provide easily recognizable proof that a document has been digitally signed. This representation and the certificate details shown varies by document type and processing platform. For example, an Adobe PDF that has been digitally signed displays a seal icon and blue ribbon and across the top of the document that shows the document signer’s name and the certificate issuer.

Additionally, it can appear on a document in the same way as signatures are applied on a physical document and can include an image of your physical signature, date, location, and official seal.

Digital signatures can also be invisible, though the digital certificate remains valid. Invisible signatures are useful when the type of document typically does not display the image of a physical signature, like a photograph. The document’s properties may disclose the information about the digital certificate, the issuing CA, and an indication of the document’s authenticity and integrity.

If a digital signature is invalid for any reason, documents display a warning that it is not to be trusted.

Why are they important?

As more business is conducted online, agreements and transactions that were once signed on paper and delivered physically are now being replaced with fully digital documents and workflows. However, whenever valuable or sensitive data is shared, malicious actors who want to steal or manipulate that information for their own gain are ever-present. Businesses must be able to verify and authenticate that these critical business documents, data, and communications are trusted and delivered securely to reduce the risk of document tampering by malicious parties.

In addition to protecting valuable online information, digital signatures do not disrupt the efficiency of online document workflows; in fact they typically help improve document management compared to paper processes. Once digital signatures have been implemented, the act of signing a document is easy and can be done on any computing or mobile device.

In addition, the signature is portable as it is incorporated in the file itself, wherever it is transmitted and on whatever device. Digitally signed documents are also easy to control and keep track of by providing the status of all documents, identifying whether or not they’ve been signed, and viewing an audit trail.

And of course, it is vital these digitally signed agreements are recognized from a legal standpoint. Digital signatures are compliant with important standards like the United States Federal ESIGN Act, GLBA, HIPAA/HITECH, PCI DSS, and US-EU Safe Harbor.

Common uses & examples

Today, digital signatures are commonly used for a variety of different online documents in order to improve the efficiency and security of critical business transactions that are now paperless, including:

• Contracts and legal documents: Digital signatures are legally binding. Thus, they are ideal for any legal document requiring an authenticated signature by one or more parties and assurance that the document has not been modified.
• Sales agreements: By digitally signing contracts and sales agreements, both the seller and the buyer identities are authenticated, and both parties have peace of mind that the signatures are legally binding and that the terms and conditions of the agreement have not been altered.
• Financial documents: Financial departments digitally sign invoices so that customers trust the payment request is coming from the proper seller, not a bad actor trying to scam the buyer into sending payment to a fraudulent account.
• Healthcare data: In the healthcare industry, data privacy is paramount for both patient records and research data. Digital signatures ensure that this sensitive information has not been altered when shared between consenting parties.
• Government forms: Government agencies at the federal, state, and local level have stricter guidelines and regulations compared to many private sector businesses. From approving permits to clocking in on a timesheet, the signatures can streamline productivity by ensuring that the right employee is involved for the appropriate approvals.
• Shipping documents: For manufacturers, ensuring cargo manifests or bills of lading are always accurate helps reduce costly shipping errors. Yet, physical paperwork is cumbersome, isn’t always easily accessed in transit, and can be lost. By digitally signing shipping documents, shippers and receivers can access a file quickly, verify that the signature is up to date, and confirm that no tampering has occurred.

It’s important to choose a trusted CA, like Sectigo, for your digital signing and certificate needs. Learn about our document signing certificates today.

Many sophisticated attacks now leave even seemingly well-protected websites and organizations at risk. Among the most worrisome? The harvest now, decrypt later (HNDL) strategy. Also referred to as harvest and decrypt, this is the purview of patient cybercriminals, who are willing to wait as long as it takes for quantum computing to shake up the cryptography scene.

Quantum computing will prove current encryption methods ineffective, and with the timeline of the quantum threat getting closer (as soon as 2030), this type of attack is a huge concern. Businesses must start their journey on the path towards achieving crypto agility—the ability to shift algorithms or encryption strategies without significantly disrupting key processes—now to better position themselves to combat threats like these that may not yet be fully understood.

Given the inherent urgency of the harvest now, decrypt later type of attack, it is crucial to get equipped with the proper post-quantum cryptography solutions. Sectigo’s post-quantum blueprint offers a viable path through the hazards of the quantum apocalypse, including the justifiable fears surrounding harvest now, decrypt later attacks.

What is the harvest now, decrypt later attack?

Also referred to as "retrospective decryption" or "store now, decrypt later," HNDL involves a unique approach to cybercrime: threat actors seek currently encrypted data, even if they are unable to access it yet.

From there, sophisticated cybercriminals can bide their time until quantum computing tactics become readily available. This is the ultimate form of playing the long game, and attackers anticipate that it will pay off.

Once quantum computing enters the picture, previously effective encryption algorithms will no longer keep the stored data these cybercriminals collected safe. Unfortunately, quantum computers will have the power to break widely used encryption algorithms like Rivest–Shamir–Adleman (RSA) and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC).

How the harvest now, decrypt later attack works

The central strategy of harvest now, decrypt later is simple: gather as much data as possible and prepare to decrypt it in the future. This is a purpose-driven strategy, and cybercriminals are far from haphazard in their efforts; they go to great lengths to ensure that they can access information that will be easiest to leverage and that will cause the most damage once decrypted.

Data harvest stage

It’s widely accepted that we are already in the midst of the data harvest stage, as many sophisticated attackers are well aware of the upcoming availability of quantum computing and eager to leverage enhanced computing power as soon as possible. Threat actors are preparing right now, and potential victims should be as well. Critical components of data harvesting include:

• Identifying targets. This strategy begins with the careful selection of targets. Typically, threat actors focus on data that will remain relevant over time. This could include anything from personal data (such as financial information) to intellectual property. A lot depends on how the cybercriminals intend to use that information once decrypted. Adversaries may also examine encryption strength, targeting data if it's thought likely to become vulnerable in the next few years. Cybercriminals tend to seek out vast quantities of data, with the assumption that at least some of it will prove useful later on.

• Capturing encrypted data. Once targets have been identified and thoroughly researched, the next step involves obtaining the desired data. Yes, it may be encrypted at this point, but that will not stop threat actors from seeking access. Through numerous attack mechanisms, cybercriminals can pinpoint vulnerabilities, breach servers or databases, and capture data without initially decrypting it.

• Monitoring. The 'harvest' portion of HNDL attacks may not necessarily represent a one-time pursuit. If vulnerabilities are detected, threat actors may monitor these over time and continue to capture data as it becomes available. Those targeted may never realize that they are being monitored and their data is being harvested.

Data storage and management

After obtaining encrypted data, cybercriminals enter an uncertain stage that could potentially last several years: storing and managing a wealth of illicitly obtained information. Many rely on cloud storage and fraudulent accounts, although some may look to physical storage solutions for enhanced security and obfuscation.

Techniques such as fragmentation or misnaming of files may make it more difficult to detect bad actors. Over time, these cybercriminals will continue to verify that harvested data remains accessible (only to them, of course) and that it is properly concealed. They may also take steps to limit the risk of data loss or obsolescence.

Future decryption with quantum computers

While quantum computing is not yet available, all signs indicate that this will soon change. When this unmatched computing power is unleashed, bad actors—who have patiently waited for years—will have the ability to decrypt previously protected data. At this point, they will be able to break algorithms such as RSA and ECC.

This devastating final stage will begin with gaining access to quantum computing resources and then centralizing data, which may have been stored in numerous locations through the years. From there, the strongest quantum algorithms (capable of breaking the most powerful encryption schemes) can be applied.

Key discovery will play heavily into this stage and could leave targeted organizations at risk. Following successful decryption, cybercriminals may have access to passwords, financial information, and other sensitive data that can be used for malicious purposes.

Why harvest now, decrypt later attacks are a current and future threat

While we may not see the most obvious effects of this strategy for a few years, it already represents a significant threat—and hackers may already be starting to identify prospects and gather data.

Unfortunately, the vulnerabilities of current cryptographic methods influence this effort. These vary between algorithms but involve underlying assumptions related to prime numbers and elliptic curve properties. Originally, RSA and ECC algorithms made it far too difficult to derive private keys from their public counterparts in a reasonable amount of time, but quantum computing will pick up the pace and make it far easier to crack those codes.

The good news? Safeguards are within reach, especially as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has announced its winning quantum-resistant algorithms. If proactive strategies are put in place now, it may not be too late to implement data protection strategies to protect your organization from the worst of the quantum apocalypse.

The importance of addressing this type of threat now

The quantum age is closer than most people think; experts anticipate that by 2030 conventional asymmetric cryptography will no longer provide sufficient protection. This is only a few short years away, and already threat actors could potentially be gathering sensitive data to be used for ill purposes later on.

With threats such as HNDL coming to light, it is increasingly clear that quantum concerns need to be addressed as soon as possible. The term "quantum threat" describes the urgency that this situation requires—and underscores that, although quantum computing could present some unique opportunities, we cannot fully realize them unless we promptly address the accompanying security concerns.

Developing and implementing a strong post-quantum framework (including quantum-resistant algorithms) takes years, and although the field has made great progress in recent years, most organizations remain far from sufficiently protected.

Build your post-quantum cryptography blueprint today with Sectigo

Concerned about post-quantum threats? There is no avoiding the quantum revolution, but the right strategy can provide valuable protection. At Sectigo, we are committed to remaining at the front lines of quantum-safe cryptography and helping organizations prepare for these changes.

Start your post-quantum cryptography (PQC) journey and look to Sectigo for support every step of the way. Our Q.U.A.N.T. strategy provides excellent guidance through the process of achieving quantum security. Reach out today to learn more.

Related posts:

Root Causes 256: What Is Harvest and Decrypt?

What are the differences between RSA, DSA, and ECC encryption algorithms?

What is crypto-agility and how can organizations achieve it?

Federal bureaus and local agencies alike need open lines of communication, and often, they rely on curated websites. These accomplish a great deal, including keeping community members in the know about critical services, enabling document submissions, processing payments, and facilitating communication with government representatives. The problem? These websites can be vulnerable to interference from bad actors, who exploit security vulnerabilities to access sensitive data or even disrupt government services.

Digital certificates can ease such fears by enabling certificate-based authentication for the growing number of human and machine identities, while securing sensitive communications. However, growing certificate volumes and shrinking certificate lifespans have made manual certificate lifecycle management (CLM) unsustainable, especially in the face of increasing cyber threats and evolving regulatory requirements. Public sector organizations are now under greater pressure to manage certificates efficiently to maintain strong security and compliance.

The volume of digital certificates is only expected to increase, but agencies need not fear a never-ending game of catch-up; effective certificate management can provide hassle-free encryption and authentication, all while helping agencies focus on their core mission: serving the public.

Challenges in certificate management for public sector organizations

Public and private sector organizations share similar certificate management challenges: rapidly expanding and increasingly vulnerable digital infrastructure that can be difficult to understand and manage, especially in the midst of new security threats (including the looming quantum computing era) and evolving compliance expectations. These challenges are compounded by the upcoming 47-day SSL certificate renewal requirement, which will significantly increase operational pressure, and by the deprecation of client authentication certificates from public CAs in mid-2026.

With the public sector, however, these difficulties are exacerbated by a few core challenges: budget constraints and agency complexity, to name a few. Noteworthy concerns include:

Securing critical infrastructure from modern cyber threats

Public sector infrastructure, from traffic control systems and utility grids to healthcare records and law enforcement networks, is an increasingly attractive target for sophisticated cyber criminals. Without a strong CLM strategy in place, these systems can be left vulnerable to a wide range of attacks.

A growingly concerning attack as quantum computing nears is the “harvest now, decrypt later” approach, where attackers intercept and store encrypted data today with the intention of decrypting it in the future using quantum computing or other advances. Poorly managed certificates also open the door to Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks, allowing criminals to impersonate systems or intercept sensitive communications without detection.

Managing a diverse and expanding certificate infrastructure

The public sector commands a rapidly expanding digital ecosystem that includes a dizzying array of assets and environments. This goes beyond the citizen-facing websites that so diligently serve the public to also include complex internal networks that support seamless coordination between various public sector teams and professionals. These assets may be dispersed across on-premise, hybrid, and cloud environments, each of which presents its own unique set of considerations. Agencies may also rely on multiple Certificate Authorities (CAs) to manage certificates across different systems and teams, further complicating oversight and control.

For example, a single government agency may operate multiple online portals for public records, tax payments, and licensing services, each requiring up-to-date digital certificates to maintain trust and avoid service interruptions. Guaranteeing that all certificates remain valid, consistent, and properly configured is a logistical challenge, especially when systems span both legacy infrastructure and modern cloud-based platforms.

Risks associated with certificate expiration and service disruptions

Diverse organizations across both the public and private sectors are understandably eager to avoid outages and disruptions, which harm users and can lead to serious reputational damage. Arguably, however, the stakes are even higher when the public sector is involved: dysfunctional websites or applications could have devastating consequences, potentially even jeopardizing public safety. This could ultimately spark major losses in citizen trust, which could have ripple effects that are difficult to predict.

Unfortunately, certificate expirations are a distinct possibility, as many public sector organizations continue to rely on manual methods for renewing them. Often understaffed and overburdened, these agencies struggle to keep up with the influx of certificates and, as a result, are more prone than ever to misconfigurations and expirations.  This challenge will only intensify as digital certificate lifecycles are shortened, leading to multiple renewals per year:

• March 15, 2026: Lifespan reduced to 200 days
• March 15, 2027: Lifespan reduced to 100 days
• March 15, 2029: Lifespan reduced to 47 days

With these deadlines in place, organizations will face 2x, 4x, and eventually 12x the number of renewals per certificate.

Navigating strict compliance and regulatory demands

Digital certificates play a key role in meeting strict regulatory requirements, especially as they relate to data protection and cybersecurity. These requirements are relevant across many fields but are particularly important in the public sector, as they provide much-needed accountability and transparency.

Especially relevant? The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), which aims to maintain the strict confidentiality, integrity, and availability of federal information systems. Depending on the agency and the scope of its services, many other compliance concerns could also come into play, including complications involving HIPAA or even the GDPR. Falling short of these requirements can carry serious consequences, such as legal penalties, reputational damage, and the exposure of citizen data.

The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 introduces the “Govern” function, detailing the importance of establishing and monitoring cybersecurity risk management strategies, expectations, and policies. This function provides outcomes to inform and prioritize the other five functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.

Adding to the pressure are recent industry changes, such as Google Chrome’s announced deprecation of client authentication in public certificates by mid-2026. This shift underscores how compliance is not only about meeting today’s mandates but also about adapting to evolving standards that directly impact how certificates are issued and used.

Implementing effective CLM solutions supports this “Govern” function by making sure digital certificates are properly managed throughout their lifecycle, from issuance to renewal and revocation. This management helps maintain authentication integrity and align with industry best practices.

Limited visibility and centralized control over certificates

Given the far-reaching nature of government-related digital infrastructure, it's easy to see how certificate visibility can feel limited. Partial visibility is a common concern, reflecting a "divide and conquer" approach that makes it difficult to share information or keep up with rapidly changing certificate management needs. Under these siloed strategies, rogue certificates, which are unauthorized or unmanaged digital certificates often created by IT teams using unsanctioned tools or services, are more likely to fall through the cracks and, in the worst-case scenario, could potentially become viable entry points for threat actors.

Operational inefficiencies due to manual certificate management

Manual certificate issuance, deployment, revocation, and renewals are incredibly time-consuming and error-prone. The IT professionals tasked with handling these processes may struggle to keep up, and, worse, may sacrifice other IT priorities in favor of certificate-focused responsibilities that could easily be automated. Stretched thin, these otherwise reliable professionals may be prone to errors that could eventually prompt expirations and service disruptions.

An enlightening case study reveals the harm caused by an ongoing reliance on manual certificate management, along with the powerful possibilities that emerge when an automated approach is implemented. In the Netherlands, the public works and water management agency Rijkswaterstaat previously struggled to keep up with public demands due to an outdated system that included simple spreadsheets and a myriad of help desk requests.

By implementing an automated CLM solution through Sectigo Certificate Management (SCM), Rijkswaterstaat successfully streamlined certificate operations, automating more than 400 certificates and saying goodbye to cumbersome manual practices. New certificate cycle times dropped dramatically; it had previously taken several weeks to receive a new certificate following a request, but that gap spanned just two hours once SCM was in place.

Opportunities for public sector organizations to improve certificate lifecycle management

In spite of the many challenges highlighted above, public sector organizations have a clear path toward a more secure digital future. With the right approach, they can confidently deliver the services citizens rely on while protecting internal communications. This begins with a strategic approach to certificate lifecycle management, powered by automation to simplify issuance and ensure timely renewals.

Implementing automated certificate lifecycle management solutions

Manual certificate management is no longer sustainable in today’s fast-paced digital landscape, as shortening certificate lifecycles and the rapid growth of human and machine identities demand scalable, automated solutions. At this point, automation is not merely a helpful solution; it is absolutely imperative for keeping up with the quickly growing volume of digital certificates.

One of the key opportunities for improvement comes from automating certificate discovery across the entire certificate estate. By continuously scanning for and cataloging all certificates, organizations gain full visibility into their environment. This reduces the risk of unknown or “rogue” certificates causing unexpected outages or compliance failures.

Automated CLM manages all stages of the certificate lifecycle, including the discovery process. Transitioning to auotmation can be surprisingly straightforward; Sectigo offers helpful guidance to make the certificate lifecycle feel seamless.

Centralizing certificate management for better oversight

A centralized approach to certificate management can provide enhanced oversight, limiting the potential for data silos or rogue certificates. Unifying certificate management ensures consistent policy enforcement, all while making it easier to identify and mitigate risks that might be missed when maintaining a more siloed approach.

Single pane of glass management for both public and private certificates, like that offered by SCM, promises full visibility across vast and increasingly complex certificate environments. This can help overcome many persistent certificate management challenges while limiting certificate-related operational expenses.

Improving compliance through proactive certificate management strategies

With automation and centralization bringing greater reliability to certificate management, agencies can dramatically improve compliance with FISMA, HIPAA, and many other compliance frameworks. Compliance largely depends on consistent coverage and standardized enforcement of encryption policies — qualities that the right CLM can promote.

Automated reporting and documentation not only simplify auditing processes but also enhance audit-readiness and support stronger compliance with evolving regulations. Automated CLM solutions such as SCM can produce comprehensive and easily accessible reports that keep IT and management in the know about critical certificate processes while providing early insight into emerging concerns.

Simplify certificate management in the public sector with Sectigo

See how automated certificate management enables public sector organizations to deliver secure, reliable digital services. Offering a comprehensive, automated CLM platform, Sectigo Certificate Manager brings both improved efficiency and security to public sector agencies.

With centralized oversight and real-time visibility, SCM empowers agencies to manage certificates with confidence while supporting critical government services. As a highly trusted certificate authority with a strong track record that includes representation in the CA/Browser Forum and more than 1 billion certificates issued, Sectigo is an ideal partner for bringing integrity to public sector CLM. Book a demo to see SCM in action.

Related posts:

TLS client authentication changes 2026: Why public CAs won’t work & how to adapt

Certificate Lifecycle Automation for Enterprises: Benefits & Use Cases

Overcoming Certificate Lifecycle Management challenges & unlocking the full value of CLM platforms