WQI.web​qualityindex
Method v1.2.0 86 live / 86 total factors methodology

methodology / Security / #97

Issuer reputation tier

#97 · Recommended · Web Quality · weighted · Security · impl todo · source Leaf certificate's Issuer DN (Distinguished Name) — Common Name and Organization fields parsed from ASN.1, matched against a maintained pattern list of well-known CAs.

Web Quality factor

This factor is part of Web Quality — the weighted 0..100 score that sits above Web Standards. Its weight depends on what kind of site is being measured. Web Standards items take priority; this factor only enters the score once Web Standards passes.

No matrix row defined yet — this factor falls back to a neutral weight of 1.0 across every site type until the methodology is tuned.

Same factor, two depths.

What we measure

Cert quality correlates with issuer competence. Mainstream public CAs (Let's Encrypt, DigiCert, Sectigo, Google Trust, GlobalSign, Amazon, Cloudflare, Buypass, ZeroSSL, IdenTrust, Microsoft, Entrust) have rigorous CA/Browser Forum baseline-requirement audits and modern issuance practices. "Other" issuers are heterogeneous — some fine, some have been distrusted by browsers later (Symantec/RapidSSL 2018, WoSign 2016). This factor is a positive signal for being on a known-well-managed CA, not a punishment for everyone else.

How to improve your score

If your issuer doesn't appear in the well-known list and you're not on a private/internal CA on purpose, switch issuers. ACME issuers (Let's Encrypt, ZeroSSL, Google Trust Services, Buypass) are free and well-audited. DigiCert and Sectigo are paid but cover EV / OV certs and broader compatibility profiles. The migration is usually one ACME renewal away — your existing private key and CSR don't have to change.

Facts

Ticket
WEBQ-97
Category
Security
Status
proposed
Weight
Data source
Leaf certificate's Issuer DN (Distinguished Name) — Common Name and Organization fields parsed from ASN.1, matched against a maintained pattern list of well-known CAs.
Service cost
Free — runs in our infrastructure.
Scoring impl
todo
Method version

Implementation notes

pass=100: issuer matches a well-known mainstream CA family. warn=60: issuer is a regional or enterprise CA we don't recognize (could be fine, just not a default-trust signal). fail=0: reserved for future explicit distrust-list match.

Scoring

Scoring formulas are versioned with the methodology. The current method maps raw measurements to pass, warn, fail. Factor weights determine how much each contributes to the composite — see the methodology index for the full table.

Version history

Version Change Date
v0.1 Factor introduced. Status: proposed. Scoring impl: todo. 2026-04-25

← back to methodology