Close Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Subscribe
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
Home - Security - Crypto Agility Under Pressure: Enterprises Lag on Certificates and Quantum Prep
Security Data Protection Encryption Network Security News & Analysis Regulations and Compliance Study & Research

Crypto Agility Under Pressure: Enterprises Lag on Certificates and Quantum Prep

Josh Breaker RolfeBy Josh Breaker RolfeAugust 21, 2025Updated:August 22, 20256 Mins Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Copy Link Email
Enterprises Lag on Certificates
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link
Quick AI Summary
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiGrokPerplexityDeepSeekCopilot

A new report from Sectigo and Omdia reveals that enterprises are dangerously underprepared for two converging megatrends shaking the foundations of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI): the radical shortening of SSL/TLS certificate lifespans and the looming transition to post-quantum cryptography (PQC). 

The State of Crypto Agility 2025 study, based on a survey of 272 IT decision-makers worldwide, found a striking gap between awareness and execution. While nearly all organizations recognize the risks, most lack the automation, roadmaps, and internal alignment to meet the scale of the coming transformation. 

Certificate Deadlines are Coming Fast 

Following the CA/Browser Forum’s vote in April 2025, certificate validity periods will fall over the next few years, culminating in a 47-day maximum by March 2029. That means that by the end of the decade, enterprises will need to renew certificates roughly eight times as often as today. 

  • March 15, 2026: Maximum validity falls to 200 days (two renewals a year) 
  • March 15, 2027: Cut again to 100 days (four renewals a year) 
  • March 15, 2029: Final reduction of 47 days (seven to eight renewals a year) 

For large enterprises, the math is daunting. A global retailer managing 50,000 active certificated today will need to process nearly 400,000 renewals annually by 2029. Each missed renewal risks outages that could disable websites, payment systems, or internal apps.  

According to the survey, 96% of organizations are concerned about the change, but just 19% feel prepared to handle monthly renewals. Even more worrying, only 28% maintain a full certificate inventory, and just 13% are confident they track all certificates, including rogue ones that may be deployed outside official processes.  

“Expired or revoked certificates break the trust between clients and the underlying services,” warned Tim Mackey, Head of Software Supply Chain Risk Strategy at Black Duck. “Shortening expiration windows helps reduce the potential impact of key misuse while promoting automated management. But organizations that fail to adapt will face very visible downtime.” 

Manual Management is a Ticking Time Bomb 

Despite looming challenges, 95% of enterprises remain at least partially reliant on manual certificate processes, and only 5% have fully automated certificate lifecycle management (CLM).  

Many organizations are trying to automate, but in fragments. About 67% use Certificate Lifecycle Management (CLM) platforms for central oversight, and 58% use the ACME protocol – the same technology behind Let’s Encrypt – for automated renewals. Yet only one-third automate deployment, leaving most certificates still installed manually.  

This piecemeal approach means that even if a certificated is renewed on time, it may not be applied everywhere it’s needed. At a 47-day renewal cycle, such gaps could easily trigger widespread outages.  

Rik Turner, Chief Analyst for Cybersecurity at Omdia, puts it:  

“TLS certs have been absorbed into the ‘plumbing’ that just makes IT work. That’s why so many organizations seem unaware of the 47-day issue barreling down the pike. Manual methods simply won’t scale.” 

Quantum Threats Push the Timeline Further 

While certificate deadlines dominate the near-term agenda, quantum computing is the long-term threat. Some experts predict that by 2029, quantum machines may break RSA and ECC – the algorithms that currently protect most digital transactions. That said, this timeline is hotly debated.  

Either way, NIST has already finalized new PQC standards, including ML-KEM (formerly CRYSTALS-Kyber) and ML-DSA (formerly CRYSTALS-Dilithium), and plans to formally deprecate RSA and ECC by 2040. But enterprises remain at the starting line.  

The survey found: 

  • Only 14% have conducted a full assessment of quantum-vulnerable systems. 
  • Just 15% feel extremely confident they can integrate PQC without major disruption. 
  • 98% expect to face challenges with PQC migration, from system complexity to lack of expertise. 

Meanwhile, cybercriminals are already preparing for a post-quantum future. More than 60% of organizations fear “harvest now, decrypt later” tactics, where attackers steal encrypted data today to decrypt once quantum tools are ready.  

“It seems to me there are two reasons not to wait for Q-Day,” Turner said. “One is that technology has the ability to surprise us – like the explosion in AI after ChatGPT. The other is that threat actors aren’t waiting. If nation-states get quantum first, your most sensitive data could be exposed overnight.” 

Migration: A Risk and An Opportunity 

Security leaders agree PQC migration will be one of the decade’s most complex transformations. Ben Volkow, CEO of QIZ Security, framed it as both a challenge and a modernization opportunity: 

“The urgency isn’t just about the quantum threat – it’s about untangling the cryptographic jungle built up over decades. PQC migration is falling behind the pace of threats, but it’s also a chance to rebuild cryptography management for today’s distributed, AI-driven world.” 

However, today, 43% of organizations admit they’re in a wait-and-see mode, holding off until vendors deliver mature solutions. Only 16% have launched pilot projects, leaving most at the information-gathering stage. 

Automation as the Path Forward 

Experts stress that automation is the only way to bridge the gap between certificate agility and quantum readiness. Trey Ford, Chief Strategy and Trust Officer at Bugcrowd, noted that automation is already the backbone of modern identity systems:  

“Effective certificate management is a root of trust for online systems. ACME integrations have powered much of the cloud-native movement, and they’ll be just as essential for managing shorter certificate lifetimes and PQC’s heavier cryptographic loads.” 

Ford added that PQC will introduce large certificates, heavier processing, and new libraries, requiring enterprises to test for increased compute demands and latency. Without automation, the operational burden could become too much for IT teams.  

Enterprises Must Act Fast  

Sectigo’s report makes one thing clear: enterprises must act now. Certificate renewals every six months begin in March 2026 – barely 18 months away. By 2029, the 47-day era will be in full force, while quantum computing threatens to upend all classic cryptography.  

 “Manual approaches to certificate management are no longer sustainable,” said Tim Callan, Chief Compliance Officer at Sectigo. “Deadlines are approaching fast, and the choices organizations make today will define their resilience in the quantum era.” 

Enterprises that invest now in automation, visibility, and cross-functional crypto agility will not only avoid risk but position themselves to survive the coming quantum storm.  Those that don’t, won’t.

Josh Breaker Rolfe

Josh is a Content writer at Bora. He graduated with a degree in Journalism in 2021 and has a background in cybersecurity PR. He's written on a wide range of topics, from AI to Zero Trust, and is particularly interested in the impacts of cybersecurity on the wider economy.

  • Josh Breaker Rolfe
    Thales Data Threat Report: AI and Cloud Complexity Fuel New Data Security Risks
  • Josh Breaker Rolfe
    50+ Organizations Breached Due to Missing MFA
  • Josh Breaker Rolfe
    What Happens after a Phishing Email Lands in Your Inbox?
  • Josh Breaker Rolfe
    Red Hat OpenShift AI Vulnerability Allows Attackers to Seize Infrastructure Control

The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.

Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

Related Posts

Building cyber resilience for mission-critical operations in 2026

May 27, 20267 Mins Read

Investigating the aftermath: understanding digital forensics after a cyber incident

May 7, 20265 Mins Read

Microsoft Edge Found Holding Saved Credentials in Plaintext Memory

May 6, 20263 Mins Read
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar

 
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar
Black ISB Logo

Information Security Buzz is an independent resource that provides the experts’ comments, analysis, and opinion on the latest Cybersecurity news and topics

X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook RSS

Working With Us

  • About Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Write For Us

  • How To Contribute

The Pages

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • AI Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Copyright Notice

Information Security Buzz and all its contents are copyright © 2014-2025. All rights reserved. All third-party trademarks are recognized.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}