Sectigo complaint about non-response to a court-related request for validation records
This case concerns a third-party complaint about Sectigo’s handling of a request for validation evidence related to a DV TLS certificate for www.TradingExpertView.com issued on 2024-03-07. The reporter said a formal demand was sent on 2025-09-10 and later argued that Sectigo and WebPros failed to respond to a lawful court request. Sectigo replied that it had not initially found any record of the request, said the certificate’s issuance and DCV were performed by Sectigo, and stated that detailed validation records are only provided to limited external parties. After the reporter provided proof of delivery, Sectigo said it located a delivery scanned into its system on 2025-09-22, but concluded the document was a Request for Production addressed to WebPros International and that no action by Sectigo was required because Sectigo was not a party to the lawsuit. Mozilla stated that the Baseline Requirements require retention of DCV records and availability to auditors and other authorized parties, but do not require disclosure to any requesting relying party, and said the available information did not establish an actionable violation. The bug was resolved INVALID.
- Sectigo issued a DV TLS certificate for www.TradingExpertView.com.
- A formal demand was sent requesting the validation evidence used for DCV of the certificate.
- Sectigo later said it scanned a delivery addressed to WebPros International into its system.
- Community commenter — The reporter opened a preliminary incident report alleging refusal to produce DCV validation evidence and cited BR §§5.4.1 and 5.4.3.
- Sectigo — Sectigo disputed the claims, said it was preparing a response, and said it believed the bug should be closed INVALID.
- Sectigo — Sectigo said it found no record of the request, stated that Sectigo performed issuance and DCV itself, and said specific validation details are only provided to limited external parties.
- Community commenter — The reporter added evidence attachments and said the formal demand was sent to Sectigo’s General Counsel and others.
- Mozilla representative — Mozilla said the BRs require retention and availability of validation records to auditors and other authorized parties, but not to any requesting relying party, and proposed closing the bug as INVALID.
- Community commenter — The reporter argued that Sectigo and WebPros failed to respond to a lawful court request and said proof of delivery was attached.
- Sectigo — Sectigo said it located a delivery scanned on 2025-09-22, concluded it was a Request for Production addressed to WebPros International, and said no action by Sectigo was required.