Skip to content

The $67 Million Risk: Hidden Costs of Manual Certificate Management

Certificate-related outages cost enterprises an average of $11.1 million per incident,1 yet 77% of organizations experienced at least two such outages in the past year2—and the vast majority were preventable. Manual certificate management creates a cascade of hidden costs extending far beyond direct labor: from opportunity costs consuming 20% of engineering capacity3 to compliance failures averaging $14.4 million, shadow IT proliferation affecting 65% of applications,4 and technical debt that compounds exponentially as certificate lifespans shrink to 47 days by 2029.5 With enterprises now managing an average of 256,000 certificates2 and 62% admitting they don't even know their total certificate count,2 the question isn't whether to automate—it's how quickly organizations can implement automation before the next inevitable outage strikes.

The scale and severity of the problem

Modern enterprises face a certificate management crisis that most organizations don't fully recognize until catastrophe strikes. The average enterprise now manages 256,000 internally trusted certificates, up 11% from 231,063 just two years earlier, according to Keyfactor's 2023 State of Machine Identity Management Report surveying 1,280 organizations across North America and EMEA.2 More alarming: 62% of organizations don't actually know how many certificates they have,2 creating massive blind spots in their security infrastructure. Organizations typically deploy an average of 9 different PKI and certificate authority solutions, with 37% using more than 10 different systems,2 creating fragmentation that makes centralized management nearly impossible.

The operational burden is staggering. Manual certificate renewal and deployment takes 2 hours per certificate for a single server, or up to 10 calendar days to one month for the complete lifecycle including request, approval, renewal, provisioning, installation, and testing. At scale, mid-sized deployments consume 120 hours annually just on manual certificate tasks. When incidents occur, recovery demands 3.79 hours on average with 11 team members directly involved2—totaling approximately 42 person-hours per incident. Organizations managing certificates manually report 20-30 hours per year of certificate-related downtime, while automated systems reduce this to under 2 hours.

The visibility problem extends beyond simple inventory gaps. According to Ponemon Institute's 2022 study of 1,600 organizations, 64% are unaware of their exact certificate count due to lack of centralized inventory, 41% still track certificates manually using spreadsheets, and 52% lack the ability to monitor and flag anomalous behavior indicating certificate compromise.6 This creates what security experts call "time bombs"—unknown certificates waiting to expire and cause catastrophic outages.

The crushing financial impact of certificate outages

Certificate expiration incidents carry devastating financial consequences that most business leaders dramatically underestimate. Ponemon Institute's 2019 study of 596 IT and security practitioners found that certificate expiration outages cost enterprises an average of $11.1 million per incident, with $3 million in immediate revenue loss.1 Organizations face a 30% likelihood of experiencing such incidents over any two-year period.1 For Global 5,000 companies, Venafi research puts the average even higher at $15 million per outage, broken down into $4.2 million in brand image damage, $4.1 million in lost revenues, $3.4 million in lost productivity, and $3.4 million in remediation expenses.7

The per-minute and per-hour costs paint an even grimmer picture. Industry data from 2024 shows $5,600 to $9,000 per minute of downtime for critical infrastructure,89 translating to $336,000 to $540,000 per hour. The most recent figures show this climbing to $9,000 per minute industry average,9 up from $5,600 in earlier years.8 For severe outages affecting large networks, costs reach $300,000 to $500,000 per hour. Uptime Institute's 2024 Global Data Center Survey found that 54% of respondents report serious outages costing more than $100,000, while 20% experience outages exceeding $1 million in impact.10

The frequency makes these figures even more troubling. Keyfactor's 2023 report found 77% of organizations experienced at least two significant certificate-related outages in the past 24 months, with the average organization suffering 3 outages over 24 months.2 Earlier Ponemon data showed organizations averaging 4 certificate-related outages over two years.1 Critically, 74% of organizations report that digital certificates have caused and continue to cause unanticipated downtime.1 The recovery time is also increasing rather than decreasing: average recovery time rose from 3.3 hours in 2022 to 3.79 hours in 20232—a 15% increase suggesting the problem is worsening despite growing awareness.

Perhaps most damning: approximately 80% of certificate-related outages are preventable with better management, processes, and automation, according to Uptime Institute's 2023 Annual Outage Analysis.11 The root causes trace overwhelmingly to human error—85% of human error-related outages stem from staff failing to follow procedures or flaws in processes themselves.11 Industry analysis shows two-thirds to four-fifths of all downtime can be attributed directly or indirectly to human error,11 making manual certificate management an unacceptable risk.

Major incidents that shaped the industry

Real-world certificate failures at major technology companies demonstrate that no organization is immune—and the business impacts extend far beyond immediate downtime costs.

Microsoft Teams: pandemic disruption at the worst moment

On February 3, 2020, Microsoft Teams suffered a three-hour outage affecting 20 million daily active users when an authentication certificate expired.1213 The incident struck at 8:30 AM Eastern Time as remote workers logged in, with the certificate expiration going unnoticed despite Microsoft using System Center Operations Manager for certificate monitoring.13 Users couldn't access essential collaboration tools with HTTPS connection errors precisely when the COVID-19 pandemic was accelerating remote work adoption. Microsoft confirmed the issue on Twitter shortly after 9:00 AM, initiated certificate renewal at 11:20 AM, and restored service for most users by noon, with complete deployment by 4:27 PM.1213 The incident triggered customer threats to switch to competitor Slack and raised serious questions about why a company of Microsoft's caliber lacked automated certificate lifecycle management. While Microsoft never disclosed the financial impact, the service disruption during critical business hours combined with mandatory service credits and severe reputational damage made this one of the most high-profile certificate failures.

LinkedIn: when professionals can't network

On May 21, 2019, LinkedIn experienced a global outage when the TLS certificate for its URL shortener service (lnkd.in) expired.1415 Users worldwide encountered browser security warnings when attempting to access LinkedIn links, effectively blocking access to shared content across the platform. This marked LinkedIn's second major certificate-related incident, with an earlier failure occurring in 2017.14 The certificate had actually been renewed on May 10, 2019, but was never properly deployed to production systems—a classic example of process failure in manual certificate management.14 LinkedIn acknowledged the incident as "a brief delay in our SSL certificate update" and assured users that member data was not affected,14 but the reputational damage was significant. For a professional networking platform where trust and reliability are paramount, a certificate expiration visible to millions of users worldwide represented a major brand credibility issue that could have been entirely prevented through automated certificate lifecycle management with proper deployment verification.

Ericsson's global network collapse

Perhaps the most dramatic certificate failure occurred on December 6, 2018, when an expired software certificate in Ericsson's SGSN-MME (Serving GPRS Support Node – Mobility Management Entity) equipment triggered a cascading failure affecting 32 million O2 customers across the United Kingdom and 11 countries globally.1617 The outage lasted nearly 24 hours, with 4G services beginning to fail around 4:00-5:00 AM, 3G service restored around 9:30 PM, and full 4G restoration not achieved until approximately 3:30 AM on December 7.16 The incident affected not just O2's direct customers but also mobile virtual network operators using O2's infrastructure, including GiffGaff, Sky Mobile, Lyca Mobile, and Tesco Mobile.1617 Beyond individual mobile users, the outage disrupted Transport for London's real-time timetable systems and NHS trusts' patient reporting mechanisms.17

The global scope extended to SoftBank in Japan, affecting approximately 40 million additional customers.16 Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm issued a formal apology, acknowledging that "the faulty software that has caused these issues is being decommissioned" and apologizing "not only to our customers but also to their customers."16 Ericsson's initial root cause analysis confirmed the issue stemmed from "an expired certificate in the software versions installed with these customers."16 The incident demonstrated how a single certificate failure in network infrastructure software could cascade across multiple countries and affect tens of millions of users, causing widespread economic disruption and raising serious questions about certificate management practices in critical telecommunications infrastructure.

The hidden cost multipliers

Beyond direct outage costs and recovery expenses, manual certificate management creates cascading financial impacts that accumulate across multiple dimensions simultaneously.

Opportunity cost: engineering capacity consumed by manual work

The most insidious cost is invisible on balance sheets: the massive opportunity cost of skilled engineering time diverted from innovation to certificate firefighting. Organizations managing certificates manually dedicate substantial engineering resources to repetitive, low-value tasks that automation could handle. Certificate renewals, discovery, tracking, incident response, and coordination consume engineering capacity that could otherwise drive competitive advantage through product development, security improvements, or infrastructure optimization.

ActiveState's 2025 research quantifies this burden: 20% of team capacity gets consumed by unplanned security work including manual certificate management.3 For a team of 10 engineers with an average loaded cost of $150,000 annually, this represents $300,000 in opportunity cost—and that's before counting actual outages. Forrester TEI studies consistently show that automated certificate management delivers 312% ROI over three years with payback periods under six months,18 driven primarily by labor savings from eliminating manual renewal processes, reducing incident response time, and freeing engineering teams for strategic initiatives.

The hidden multiplication occurs because skilled security engineers represent a scarce, expensive resource. Every hour spent manually tracking spreadsheets, coordinating renewals across teams, or responding to certificate expiration alerts represents an hour not spent on threat modeling, architecture improvements, or automation initiatives that could prevent future incidents. Organizations with manual processes report that certificate management consumes 2-5 full-time equivalent positions depending on scale,18 representing $300,000 to $750,000 annually in fully-loaded costs for work that modern automation handles automatically.

Compliance failures: when certificates become audit findings

Certificate management failures create significant compliance risks across multiple regulatory frameworks. Modern compliance regimes—including SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA, and GDPR—all require demonstrable controls over cryptographic materials and secure communications. Certificate expiration incidents often surface during audits as evidence of inadequate controls, triggering findings that can delay certifications, block customer contracts, or result in regulatory penalties.

The average cost of a compliance failure is $14.4 million,19 encompassing direct fines, remediation costs, delayed revenue from blocked deals, increased insurance premiums, and reputational damage affecting customer confidence. PCI DSS specifically requires maintaining an inventory of all cryptographic keys and certificates (Requirement 3.6), regular key rotation, and secure key lifecycle management.20 GDPR mandates appropriate technical measures to ensure security of personal data processing, with specific requirements for encryption and certificate management for any organization handling EU citizen data.21 SOC 2 Type 2 audits examine operational effectiveness of controls over sustained periods, making certificate expiration incidents particularly problematic as they demonstrate control failures over time rather than just point-in-time compliance.22

Beyond direct regulatory requirements, certificate management failures create audit findings that cascade through multiple compliance frameworks simultaneously. A single expired certificate affecting customer data could trigger findings in SOC 2, ISO 27001, and GDPR audits concurrently, with each framework requiring separate remediation evidence, control enhancements, and management responses. Organizations typically spend 12-18 months and $500,000 to $2 million addressing major compliance findings,19 including consulting fees, additional audit cycles, enhanced monitoring tools, process documentation, and ongoing evidence collection.

The reputational impact extends beyond immediate penalties. Many enterprise procurement processes require valid compliance certifications before contract approval. A SOC 2 certification delay of even 90 days can block millions in pipeline revenue, particularly for SaaS providers where compliance certifications serve as table stakes for enterprise sales. Insurance underwriters increasingly scrutinize certificate management practices when pricing cyber insurance policies, with manual processes often triggering higher premiums or coverage limitations. The multiplication effect occurs because compliance failures create compounding costs across regulatory frameworks, insurance premiums, delayed revenue, remediation projects, and enhanced audit scrutiny in subsequent cycles.

Shadow IT: certificates you don't know about

Shadow IT represents one of the most dangerous aspects of manual certificate management—certificates issued outside centralized control that create invisible security and operational risks. BetterCloud's 2023 State of SaaSOps research found that 65% of SaaS applications are unsanctioned,4 used by employees or teams without IT approval or visibility. Each unsanctioned application potentially includes certificates for HTTPS endpoints, API authentication, or internal services—all outside the organization's certificate inventory and renewal processes.

The certificate discovery problem is severe: 71% believe their organization doesn't know how many keys and certificates they have,1 64% are unaware of exact certificate count due to lack of centralized inventory,6 41% track certificates manually using error-prone spreadsheets,6 and 52% lack ability to monitor and flag anomalous behavior indicating certificate compromise.6 Shadow certificates created outside central management create "time bombs" waiting to expire—untracked certificates in forgotten subdomains and systems, multiple PKIs and CAs adopted without governance (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, DigiCert, Entrust, Let's Encrypt), and certificate transparency logs that reveal forgotten subdomains attackers systematically probe. Research found 31% of malicious requests in 2022 aimed at shadow APIs discovered through such reconnaissance.23

The cost implications multiply: each shadow certificate represents potential outage risk with the same $11.1 million average impact,1 discovery and remediation of shadow certificates is extraordinarily labor-intensive, decentralized certificate procurement creates redundancy and sprawl, siloed teams issue certificates without documentation, and certificate lifecycle management fragments across departments. Cloud and multi-cloud deployments dramatically increase complexity—each cloud provider offers its own certificate authority, organizations may simultaneously use Microsoft AD CS for internal PKI plus multiple public CAs, DevOps teams create cloud workloads using personal credentials to avoid approval delays, and IoT device proliferation creates exponential certificate volume growth.

The SaaS sprawl drivers make this worse: remote work and BYOD policies, ease of SaaS adoption with free trials requiring no IT approval, organizational silos where departments choose their own tools, speed prioritized over governance, and technology evolution outpacing processes. This creates application sprawl with overlapping tools, data siloing across departments, redundant security certificates for similar services, lack of centralized certificate inventory, and no unified view of certificate expirations. Organizations discover the full extent only during incidents—when it's too late.

Technical debt compounds exponentially as validity periods shrink

Technical debt from manual processes creates a compounding crisis that worsens over time. Technical debt in certificate management represents the gap between ideal security-assured implementation and operational reality, accumulating through refresh cycles, application changes, and software upgrades. It compounds over time, becoming harder and more expensive to address, while legacy systems and manual processes create "brittle systems" vulnerable to catastrophic failure.

The quantified remediation costs are substantial: 12 engineering hours average per critical vulnerability remediation,3 with 65% of manual remediation attempts requiring updates to 5+ transitive dependencies creating cascading complexity.3 This dependency conundrum means fixing one problem creates multiple new issues, consuming 20% of team capacity on unplanned security work3 including manual certificate management. Organizations using spreadsheets for certificate management (85% in older studies) face manual tracking prone to human error, no automated alerts for upcoming expirations, purely reactive management, documentation gaps, and knowledge loss when employees depart.

System brittleness from manual certificate management manifests as homegrown tools and spreadsheets as primary tracking mechanisms, ticket-based renewal processes creating bottlenecks, manual coordination between security, IT, and engineering teams, ad-hoc responses to certificate questions, and one-off negotiations based on individual tech stacks. The consequences are severe: systems vulnerable to single points of failure, knowledge concentrated in specific individuals creating attrition risk, inconsistent policies across departments, no standardized requirements or patterns, and extreme difficulty maintaining and scaling processes.

The maintenance burden grows continuously: 53% don't have enough staff to deploy and maintain PKI,2 77% experienced 2+ significant certificate-related outages in 12 months,2 IT and security teams are constantly pulled from primary duties for certificate firefighting, this exacerbates burnout and increases costly turnover, and distracts from strategic security initiatives. Forrester TEI found the composite organization spent $1.1 million migrating from manual to automated certificate management18—a one-time project cost—while manual tracking represented a perpetual and growing burden.

The future makes this untenable: certificate lifespans are dropping from 398 days to 47 days by 2029 per CA/Browser Forum mandates5—representing an 8X increase in renewal frequency. Manual processes that barely function with annual renewals become "nearly impossible" with monthly or bi-monthly renewals. Organizations experience 30% growth in certificate volumes, making each manual process multiplicatively more expensive at scale. Technical debt compounds as certificate volumes increase, and the upcoming transition to quantum-resistant cryptography requires crypto-agility that manual systems simply cannot provide. Organizations must prepare for post-quantum cryptography as quantum computing advances,24 requiring automated systems capable of rapidly migrating to new cryptographic algorithms—something manual certificate management cannot accomplish.

Additional hidden costs include vendor and tool sprawl (organizations deploy multiple overlapping certificate management tools, each requiring training, licenses, and integration), documentation and knowledge management challenges (poorly documented processes, tribal knowledge in few individuals, alert fatigue from manual monitoring with 40% false alarm rates, knowledge gaps when employees leave, difficulty onboarding new staff), and customer business impacts (24% of customers abandon purchases due to security concerns,7 outages impact customer-facing services in over half of organizations,2 reputational damage from publicized outages, lost revenue during downtime, and customer churn from reliability issues).

The imperative for immediate action

The convergence of five factors makes certificate automation no longer optional but existential: shrinking certificate lifespans (47 days by 2029),5 expanding certificate volumes (30% growth with average 256,000 per enterprise),2 shadow IT proliferation (65% unsanctioned applications),4 compliance complexity (multiple frameworks with severe penalties), and the preventable nature of outages (approximately 80% avoidable through automation).11 Organizations face a strategic choice: invest in automation now and achieve 312% ROI with six-month payback18 per Forrester, or continue accruing technical debt that compounds exponentially while consuming 20% of engineering capacity3 on reactive security work rather than innovation.

The cost of inaction is measured not just in the $11.1 million average per certificate outage1 or the $14.4 million per compliance failure,19 but in lost competitive advantage, diminished organizational agility, and inability to adapt to future requirements like post-quantum cryptography. With 77% of organizations experiencing at least two significant certificate-related outages2 in the past 12 months and recovery time increasing 15% year-over-year despite growing awareness,2 the trajectory is clear: manual certificate management represents an escalating crisis that will only worsen.

The ROI is proven through multiple independent Forrester TEI studies,18 the operational benefits are documented across hundreds of customer implementations, and the risk reduction is quantifiable through industry research from Ponemon Institute,16 Keyfactor,2 and Venafi.7 Organizations managing certificates manually are operating with preventable single points of failure in their critical infrastructure—time bombs waiting to detonate. The question is no longer whether to automate, but whether organizations can implement automation before the next inevitable outage strikes with its multi-million dollar consequences and reputational damage that can take years to repair.

Certificate automation has evolved from operational improvement to business imperative. The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that manual certificate management is financially indefensible, operationally unsustainable, and strategically obsolete. Organizations that delay face mounting technical debt, increasing regulatory risk, and the near-certainty of costly incidents that modern automation makes entirely preventable.

References

  1. Ponemon Institute. (2019, February). The impact of unsecured digital identities. Keyfactor. https://info.keyfactor.com/the-impact-of-unsecured-digital-identities-ponemon-report ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. Keyfactor & Ponemon Institute. (2023, March 21). 2023 State of Machine Identity Management Report. Keyfactor. https://www.keyfactor.com/state-of-machine-identity-management-2023/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  3. ActiveState. (2025, March 6). The 2025 State of Vulnerability Management & Remediation Report. https://www.activestate.com/resources/white-papers/the-2025-state-of-vulnerability-management-and-remediation-report/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  4. BetterCloud. (2022, November 16). 2023 State of SaaSOps [Research report]. https://www.bettercloud.com/stateofsaasops22/ ↩↩↩

  5. CA/Browser Forum. (2025, April 11). Ballot SC-081v3: Introduce schedule of reducing validity and data reuse periods. https://cabforum.org/2025/04/11/ballot-sc081v3-introduce-schedule-of-reducing-validity-and-data-reuse-periods/ ↩↩↩

  6. Ponemon Institute. (2022, March). The state of certificate lifecycle management in global organizations. AppViewX. https://www.appviewx.com/2022-ponemon-report-the-state-of-certificate-lifecycle-management-in-global-organizations/ ↩↩↩↩↩

  7. Ponemon Institute & Venafi. (2015). 2015 Cost of Failed Trust Report: When Trust Online Breaks, Businesses Lose Customers. Venafi. https://venafi.com/news-center/press-release/new-ponemon-report-reveals-businesses-are-losing-customers-due-to/ ↩↩↩

  8. Lerner, A. (2014, July 16). The cost of downtime. Gartner Blog. https://blogs.gartner.com/andrew-lerner/2014/07/16/the-cost-of-downtime/ ↩↩

  9. Ponemon Institute. (2016). 2016 cost of data center outages. Ponemon Institute LLC. https://www.ponemon.org/research/ponemon-library/security/2016-cost-of-data-center-outages.html ↩↩

  10. Lawrence, A., Bizo, D., Judge, P., O'Brien, J., Davis, J., Smolaks, M., Williams-George, J., Weinschenk, R., & Donnellan, D. (2024, July). Uptime Institute Global Data Center Survey 2024 (Keynote Report 146M). Uptime Institute. https://uptimeinstitute.com/resources/research-and-reports/uptime-institute-global-data-center-survey-results-2024 ↩

  11. Lawrence, A., & Simon, L. (2023, March). Annual outages analysis 2023: The causes and impacts of IT and data center outages (Keynote Report 92M). Uptime Institute. https://uptimeinstitute.com/resources/research-and-reports/annual-outage-analysis-2023 ↩↩↩↩

  12. Lardinois, F. (2020, February 3). Microsoft Teams has been down this morning. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/microsoft-teams-has-been-down-this-morning/ ↩↩

  13. Redmond, T. (2020, February 10). Teams certificate outage causes Office 365 tenants concern. Petri IT Knowledgebase. https://petri.com/allabout-teams-outage-3feb/ ↩↩↩

  14. Infosecurity Magazine. (2019, May 22). LinkedIn admits a delay in renewing TLS cert. https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/linkedin-admits-a-delay-in-tls-cert-1/ ↩↩↩↩

  15. Computer Weekly. (2019, May 22). Lapse in LinkedIn security certificate update. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252463885/Lapse-in-LinkedIn-security-certificate-update ↩

  16. Sharwood, S. (2018, December 6). Why millions of Brits' mobile phones were knackered on Thursday: An expired Ericsson software certificate. The Register. https://www.theregister.com/2018/12/06/ericsson_o2_telefonica_uk_outage/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  17. Computer Weekly. (2018, December 7). O2 outage highlights importance of software certificate audits. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252454067/O2-outage-highlights-importance-of-software-certificate-audits ↩↩↩

  18. Forrester Consulting. (2024, August). The Total Economic Impact™ of Sectigo Certificate Manager. Commissioned by Sectigo. https://www.sectigo.com/forrester-tei-study ↩↩↩↩↩

  19. IBM Security. (2023). Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach ↩↩↩

  20. PCI Security Standards Council. (2022). Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) v4.0. https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/ ↩

  21. European Parliament and Council. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union. https://gdpr-info.eu/ ↩

  22. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2017). SOC 2® – SOC for Service Organizations: Trust Services Criteria. AICPA. https://us.aicpa.org/interestareas/frc/assuranceadvisoryservices/aicpasoc2report ↩

  23. Cequence Security. (2022, October 4). API protection report: Shadow APIs and API abuse explode [Research report]. https://www.cequence.ai/news/more-than-30-of-all-malicious-attacks-target-shadow-apis/ ↩

  24. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024, August 13). Post-quantum cryptography standards [FIPS 203, 204, 205]. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography ↩