Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

OR

For the transition period from __________ to __________

Commission File Number: 000-23593

VERISIGN, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 961-7500

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock $0.001 Par Value Per Share, and the Associated Stock Purchase Rights

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    YES þ    NO ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). YES þ    NO ¨

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2004, was approximately $4,248,895,367 based upon the last sale price reported for such date on the NASDAQ National Market. For purposes of this disclosure, shares of Common Stock held by persons known to the Registrant (based on information provided by such persons and/or the most recent schedule 13G’s filed by such persons) to beneficially own more than 5% of the Registrant’s Common Stock and shares held by officers and directors of the Registrant have been excluded because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

Number of shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding as of the close of business on February 28, 2005: 254,409,722 shares.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement to be delivered to stockholders in connection with the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

Overview

VeriSign, Inc. is a leading provider of intelligent infrastructure services that enable people and businesses to find, connect, secure, and transact across complex global networks. Through our Internet Services Group and Communications Services Group, we offer a variety of internet and communications-related services, including internet security services, naming and directory services, network connectivity and interoperability services, intelligent database services, mobile content and application services, clearing and settlement services, and billing and payment services. We market our products and services through our direct sales force, telesales operations, member organizations in our global affiliate network, value-added resellers, service providers, and our Web sites.

We are currently organized into two service-based lines of business: the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group. The Internet Services Group consists of the Security Services business and the Naming and Directory Services business. The Security Services business provides products and services that enable enterprises and organizations to establish and deliver secure Internet-based services to customers and business partners, and the Naming and Directory Services business acts as the exclusive registry of domain names in the .com and .net generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, and certain country code top-level domains, or ccTLDs. The Communications Services Group provides network connectivity and interoperability services, Signaling System 7, or SS7, network services, intelligent database services, mobile content and application services, and clearing and settlement services to telecommunications carriers and other users.

VeriSign was incorporated in Delaware on April 12, 1995. Our principal executive offices are located at 487 E. Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California 94043. Our telephone number at that address is (650) 961-7500 and our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the ticker symbol VRSN. VeriSign’s primary Web site is www.verisign.com. The information on our Web sites is not a part of this annual report. VeriSign, the VeriSign logo, Jamba!, Jamster!, Thawte and certain other product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of VeriSign, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. Other names used in this report may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are available, free of charge, through our Web site at www.verisign.com as soon as reasonably practicable after filing such reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Internet Services Group

The Internet Services Group consists of the Security Services business and Naming and Directory Services business. The Security Services business provides products and services to enterprises and organizations that want to establish and deliver secure Internet-based services for their customers and business partners. The following types of services are included in the Security Services business: network security services, including our managed security and global security consulting services, authentication services, including our public key infrastructure (“PKI”) and unified authentication services, commerce security services, including our commerce site, and secure payments services, and digital brand management services. The Naming and Directory Services business provides registry services as the exclusive registry of domain names in the .com and .net gTLDs and certain ccTLDs, as well as providing other value added services, including services for radio frequency identification (“RFID”).

Security Services

Network Security Services

Our network security services include managed security services and global security consulting services for enterprises.

3

Table of Contents

Managed Security Services (“MSS”).    Our MSS services enable enterprises to effectively monitor and manage their network security infrastructure on a 24x7 basis while reducing the associated time, expense, and personnel commitments by relying on VeriSign’s security platform and experienced security staff. Our MSS services include:

Global Security Consulting Services.    Our Global Security Consulting Services help enterprises assess, design, and deploy cost-effective and scalable network security solutions. Our consulting services are also available to help enterprises integrate our PKI services with existing applications and databases and advise on policies and procedures related to the management and deployment of digital certificates.

Authentication Services.    Our Authentication Services include our Managed PKI Services, Managed PKI Fast Track Services and Unified Authentication that can be tailored to meet the specific needs of enterprises that wish to issue digital certificates to employees, customers or trading partners.

4

Table of Contents

VeriSign Affiliates typically enter into a multi-year technology licensing agreement with us whereby we receive up-front licensing fees for the Service Center or Processing Center technology, as well as ongoing royalties from each digital certificate or the Managed PKI Service sold by the VeriSign Affiliate.

Commerce Security Services

Our commerce security services include our commerce site services and secure payments services.

Commerce Site Services.    Commerce site services include our server digital certificate services and content signing digital certificate services. Server certificate services enable Internet merchants to implement and operate secure Web sites that utilize SSL protocol. These services provide Internet merchants with the means to identify themselves to consumers and to encrypt communications between consumers and their Web site. Our content signing digital certificate services provide software developers the means to identify themselves and the validity of their software to the consumers and relying software applications.

We currently offer the following Web server digital certificate services and content signing digital certificate services. Each is differentiated by the target application of the server that hosts the digital certificate.

Secure Payments Services.    Using our payment gateway, Internet merchants are able to securely authorize and settle a variety of payment types, including credit, debit and purchase cards, electronic checks, and automated clearing house transactions over the Internet.

5

Table of Contents

Digital Brand Management Services

We offer a range of services that we refer to as Digital Brand Management Services to help legal professionals, information technology professionals and brand marketers monitor, protect and build digital brand equity. These services include domain name registration services for both gTLDs such as .com and ccTLDs, such as .de and .jp, and our brand monitoring services.

Naming and Directory Services

VeriSign’s Naming and Directory Services business includes our domain name registry services for the .com and .net gTLDs and certain ccTLDs, managed domain name services and services for RFIDs.

Domain Name Registry Services.    We are the exclusive registry of domain names within the .com and .net gTLDs under agreements with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, and the Department of Commerce, or DOC. As a registry, we maintain the master directory of all second-level domain names in these top-level domains. We own and maintain the shared registration system that allows all registrars to enter new second-level domain names into the master directory and to submit modifications, transfers, re-registrations and deletions for existing second-level domain names.

We are also the exclusive registry for domain names within the .tv and .cc ccTLDs. These top-level domains are supported by our global name server constellation and shared registration system. In addition, we have made .bz domain name registration services available through our outsourced hosting environment, which enables domain name registrars and resellers to simultaneously access .bz registries. We also provide internationalized domain name, or IDN, services that enable Internet users to access Web sites in their local language characters. Currently, IDNs are available in more than 350 languages such as Chinese, Greek, Korean and Russian.

RFID Services.    An electronic product code (“EPC”) is a unique number that corresponds with an individual product (or container of products). RFID tags are small chips with antennas that contain an EPC. The EPCglobal Network is a concept that if proven will enable users to find and share information about products in the supply chain using the Internet infrastructure. For example, by using an EPC in conjunction with the EPCglobal Network, a manufacturer or retailer would be able to look up detailed information about a product or package, such as its manufacture date, location and expiration date. We have been selected by EPCglobal, a not-for-profit joint-venture formed by The Uniform Code Council, Inc. and EAN International to operate the authoritative root directory for the EPCglobal Network, i.e., the authoritative directory of information sources that are available to describe products assigned EPCs. Additionally, we offer managed services that are designed to work in conjunction with RFID technology and the EPC root directory to facilitate the secure sharing of product data across diverse supply chains.

Communications Services Group

The Communications Services Group provides managed communications services to fixed line, broadband, mobile operators and enterprise customers. Our managed communications service offerings include network connectivity and interoperability services, intelligent database services, mobile content and application services, clearing and settlement services, and billing and payment services.

Network Connectivity and Interoperability Services

Through our network connectivity and interoperability services, we provide connections and services that signal and route information within and between telecommunication carrier networks.

SS7 Connectivity and Signaling Services.    Our Signaling System 7, or SS7, network, is an industry-standard system of protocols and procedures that is used to control telephone communications and provide routing information in association with vertical calling features, such as calling card validation, local number

6

Table of Contents

portability, toll-free number database access and caller identification. Our SS7 trunk signaling service reduces post-dial delay, allowing call connection almost as soon as dialing is completed which enables telecommunications carriers to deploy a full range of intelligent database services more quickly and cost effectively. By using our trunk-signaling service, carriers simplify SS7 link provisioning, and reach local exchange carriers and wireless carriers’ networks through our direct access to hundreds of carriers.

Wireless Roaming Services.    We offer wireless carriers seamless roaming services using the ANSI-41 and GSM signaling protocol that allow carriers to provide support for roamers visiting their service area, and for their customers when they roam outside their service area. This service also allows number validation inside and outside carriers’ service areas by accessing our SS7 network. Our Interstandard Roaming service manages signaling conversion across protocols to provide activation processing, international customer care, end-user billing, and fraud protection, while our Wireless Data Roaming service enables carriers to offer wireless data roaming to their subscribers over Wi-Fi, CDMA2000 and GSM/GPRS networks.

Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Services.    Our Wireless IP Connect service is a managed service that allows wireless operators to provide full VoIP-to-wireless roaming to their subscribers, while our IP Connect Suite allows VoIP providers, cable operators and MSOs to extend VoIP services across multiple access methods to enterprise customers. VeriSign SIP-7 Service integrates SIP (Session Initiation Protocol)-based VoIP platforms with the existing SS7 network, allowing seamless interconnection between IP networks and the Public Switch Telephone Network (“PSTN”).

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”).    Our NetDiscovery services enable telecommunications carriers to meet the requirements of CALEA through provisioning, access and delivery of call information from carriers to law enforcement agencies.

Intelligent Database Services

We enable carriers to find and interact with network databases and conduct database queries that are essential for many advanced services, including the following:

Mobile Content and Application Services

Our Mobile Content services enable wireless carriers and service providers to deliver new services such as ringtones, graphics, games, applications and other digital content, to their customers. Our application services enable providers to deliver content through customized, branded content acquisition portals. We manage content aggregation, formatting, mediation, digital rights management and delivery through these services. In June 2004, VeriSign acquired Jamba!, the leading European mobile content mediation company. We have a library of over

7

Table of Contents

200,000 items, including ringtones, graphics, games and applications that we offer in the U.S., U.K., and Australia under our Jamster! brand, in the U.K. under our Ringtoneking brand, and in Europe under our Jamba! brand.

Our Inter-Carrier Messaging services allow wireless subscribers to send text and multi-media messages between different service providers and devices. Multi-Media Messaging service allows subscribers to send pictures, audio and video between different service providers and devices and is provided on a service bureau basis that connects to wireless service providers’ multimedia messaging centers and routes multimedia messaging service (“MMS”) messages between service providers. Through our Metcalf^TM Global Messaging services, we enable wireless carriers to offer messaging services between carrier systems and devices, and across disparate networks and technologies so that customers can exchange messages outside the carrier’s network.

Clearing and Settlement Services

Wireline Clearinghouse Services.    Through our toll clearinghouse services, we serve as a distribution and collection point for billing information and payment collection for services provided by one carrier to customers billed by another.

Wireless Clearinghouse Services.    Our settlement and exchange services enable wireless carriers to settle telephone traffic charges with their roaming partners in North America and portions of Latin and South America. We also provide wireless carriers with fraud management, SS7 monitoring, and other services.

Billing and Payment Services

The Communications Services Group also offers advanced billing, payment and customer care services to fixed line and mobile operators carriers. Through our speedSUITE^TM and SmartPay services, we provide wireless carriers with an end-to-end customer relationship management system that supports advance pay, prepaid and post-paid wireless services. Carriers have access to a real-time account management platform, administered via a Web interface, designed to make prepaid wireless plans flexible and convenient.

Operations Infrastructure

Our operations infrastructure consists of secure data centers in Mountain View, California; Dulles, Virginia; Lacey, Washington; Providence, Rhode Island; Overland Park, Kansas; Melbourne, Australia; and Kawasaki, Japan. Most of these secure data centers operate on a 24-hour a day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year basis, supporting our business units and services. Key features of our operations infrastructure include:

As part of our operations infrastructure for our domain name registry services, we operate all thirteen domain name servers that answer domain name lookups for the .com and .net zones. We also operate two of the thirteen root zone servers, including the “A” root, which is considered to be the authoritative root zone server of

8

Table of Contents

the Internet’s domain name system (“DNS”). The domain name servers provide the associated name server and IP address for every .com and .net domain name on the Internet and a large number of other top-level domain queries, resulting in an average of over 12 billion responses per day during 2004. These name servers are located around the world, providing local domain name service throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. Each server facility is a controlled and monitored environment, incorporating security and system maintenance features. This network of name servers is one of the cornerstones of the Internet’s DNS infrastructure.

To provide our communications services, we operate a SS7 network composed of specialized switches, computers and databases strategically located across the United States. These elements interconnect our customers and U.S. telecommunications carriers through leased lines. Our network currently consists of 15 mated pairs of SS7 signal transfer points that are specialized switches that manage SS7 signaling, and into which our customers connect. We own ten pairs and lease capacity on six pairs of SS7 signal transfer points from regional providers. Our SS7 network control, located in Overland Park, Kansas, is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year. As part of our operations infrastructure for network services, we also have several SS7 network signal transfer point sites. These sites are maintained at 14 locations throughout the United States.

Call Centers and Help Desk.    We provide customer support services through our phone-based call centers, email help desks and Web-based self-help systems. Our California call center is staffed from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. Pacific Time and employs an automated call directory system to support our Security Services business. Our Virginia call center is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year to support our Naming and Directory Services. All call centers have a staff of trained customer support agents and provide Web-based support services that are available on a 24-hour a day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year basis, utilizing customized automatic response systems to provide self-help recommendations.

Operations Support and Monitoring.    We have an extensive monitoring capability that enables us to track the status and performance of our critical database systems at sixty-second intervals, and our global resolution systems at four-second intervals. Our distributed Network Operations Centers are staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days a year.

Disaster Recovery Plans.    We have disaster recovery and business continuity capabilities that are designed to deal with the loss of entire data centers and other facilities. Our Naming and Directory Services business maintains dual mirrored data centers that allow rapid failover with no data loss and no loss of function or capacity. Our PKI and payment services businesses are similarly protected by having service capabilities that exist in both of our East and West Coast data center facilities. Our critical data services (including digital certificates, domain name registration, telecommunications services and global resolution) use advanced storage systems that provide data protection through techniques such as mirroring and replication.

Marketing, Sales and Distribution

We market our services worldwide through multiple distribution channels, including the Internet, direct sales, telesales, direct marketing through all media, mass merchandisers, value-added resellers, systems integrators and VeriSign Affiliates. We intend to increase our direct sales force in the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group both in the United States and abroad, and to expand our other distribution channels in both businesses.

Our direct sales and marketing organization at December 31, 2004 consisted of 708 individuals, including managers, sales representatives, marketing, technical and customer support personnel. We have field sales offices throughout the world.

Research and Development

As of December 31, 2004, we had 430 employees dedicated to research and development. Research and development expenses were $67.3 million in 2004, $55.8 million in 2003, and $48.4 million in 2002. We believe

9

Table of Contents

that timely development of new and enhanced Internet security, e-commerce, naming and directory, and communications services and technologies are necessary to remain competitive in the marketplace. Accordingly, we intend to continue recruiting and hiring experienced research and development personnel and to make additional investments in research and development.

Our future success will depend in large part on our ability to continue to maintain and enhance our current technologies and services. In the past, we have developed our services both independently and through efforts with leading application developers and major customers. We have also, in certain circumstances, acquired or licensed technology from third parties. Although we will continue to work closely with developers and major customers in our development efforts, we expect that most of the future enhancements to existing services and new services will be developed internally or acquired through business acquisitions.

The markets for our services are dynamic, characterized by rapid technological developments, frequent new product introductions and evolving industry standards. The constantly changing nature of these markets and their rapid evolution will require us to continually improve the performance, features and reliability of our services, particularly in response to competitive offerings, and to introduce both new and enhanced services as quickly as possible and prior to our competitors.

Competition

Competition in Security Services.    Our security services are targeted at the rapidly evolving market for Internet security services, including network security, authentication, validation and secure payment services, which enable secure electronic commerce and communications over wireline and wireless IP networks. The market for security services is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product and service introductions and other market activities of industry participants.

Principal competitors generally fall within one of the following categories: (1) companies such as RSA Security and Entrust Technologies, which offer software applications and related digital certificate products that customers operate themselves; (2) companies such as Geo Trust and Digital Signature Trust Company (a subsidiary of Identrus) that primarily offer digital certificate and certification authority, or CA, related services; and (3) companies focused on providing a bundled offering of products and services such as BeTrusted. We also experience competition from a number of smaller companies, and we believe that our primary long-term competitors may not yet have entered the market. Furthermore, Netscape and Microsoft have introduced software products that enable the issuance and management of digital certificates, and we believe that other companies could introduce similar products.

In addition, browser companies that embed our interface technologies or otherwise feature them as a provider of digital certificate products and services in their Web browsers or on their Web sites could also promote our competitors or charge us substantial fees for promotions in the future.

We face competition in our payment services business from companies such as CyberSource, Authorize.Net (a division of Lightbridge) and First Data Corporation, among others.

Competition in Managed Security Services.    Consulting companies or professional services groups of other companies with Internet expertise are current or potential competitors to our managed security services. These companies include large systems integrators and consulting firms, such as Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, IBM Global Services and Lucent NetCare. We also compete with security product companies that offer managed security services in addition to other security services, such as Symantec and ISS, as well as a number of providers such as Ubizen and RedSiren that offer managed security services exclusively. Telecommunications providers, such as MCI which recently acquired NetSec, a provider of managed security services, are also potential competitors. In addition, we compete with some companies that have developed products that automate the management of IP addresses and name maps throughout enterprise-wide intranets, and with companies with internally developed systems integration efforts.

10

Table of Contents

Competition in Communications Services.    The market for communications services is extremely competitive and subject to significant pricing pressure. Competition in this area arises from two primary sources. Incumbent carriers provide competing services in their regions. In addition, we face direct competition on a nationwide basis from unregulated companies, including Syniverse Technologies and other carriers such as Southern New England Telephone Diversified Group, a unit of SBC Communications. Our wireless billing and payment services also are subject to competition from providers such as Boston Communications Group, Amdocs, and Convergys Corporation. We are also aware of major Internet service providers, software developers and smaller entrepreneurial companies that are or may in the future be focusing significant resources on developing and marketing products and services that may compete directly with ours. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third party providers such as VeriSign and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

Competition in Mobile Content Services.    The market for mobile content services is extremely competitive. Competitors include developers of content and entertainment products and services in a variety of domestic and international markets, such as Infospace, Itouch, Wisdom Entertainment, Arvato mobile, Monstermob and Buongiorno/Vitaminic. This business also faces competition from mobile network operators such as Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, Vodafone, O₂, Orange, E-Plus and Telefónica, as well as Internet portal operators such as Yahoo!, AOL, T-Online and Google. Additional competitors are handset manufacturers such as Nokia and software providers such as Microsoft. As the market for wireless entertainment and information products matures, mobile phone companies, broadcasters, music publishers, other content providers or others may begin to develop competing products or services.

Competition in Registry Services.    There are several registry service providers for new gTLDs that directly compete with the services we provide for the .com and .net gTLDs, as well as with the ccTLDs offered by us. The gTLDs .biz and .info were launched in 2001 and the gTLDs .name, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop were launched in 2002 and 2003. Domain names registrations and other services within these gTLDs are available through ICANN accredited registrars. In addition, we currently face competition from the over 240 ccTLD registry operators who compete directly for the business of entities and individuals that are seeking to establish a Web presence.

We also face competition from service providers that offer outsourced domain name registration, resolutions and other DNS services to organizations that require a reliable and scalable infrastructure. Among the competitors are UltraDNS, NeuLevel, Affilias, Register.com and Tucows.com.

Competition in Digital Brand Management Services.    We face competition from companies providing services similar to some of our Digital Brand Management Services. In the monitoring services, registration and domain name asset management area of our business, our competition comes primarily from ICANN accredited registrars and various smaller companies providing similar services.

Several of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do and therefore may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards and customer requirements. Many of these competitors also have broader and more established distribution channels that may be used to deliver competing products or services directly to customers through bundling or other means. If such competitors were to bundle competing products or services for their customers, the demand for our products and services might be substantially reduced and the ability to distribute our products successfully and the utilization of our services would be substantially diminished. New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase the competitive pressure.

New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase competitive pressure. We cannot assure that competing technologies developed by others or the emergence of new industry standards will not

11

Table of Contents

adversely affect our competitive position or render our security services or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our markets are characterized by announcements of collaborative relationships involving our competitors. The existence or announcement of any such relationships could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, we may not be able to compete effectively with current or future competitors, and competitive pressures that we face could materially harm our business.

Industry Regulation

Naming and Directory Services.    Within the U.S. Government, leadership for the continued privatization of Internet administration is currently provided by the Department of Commerce.

On November 10, 1999, we entered into a series of wide-ranging agreements. These agreements included the following:

Our registry agreement with ICANN was replaced by three new agreements on May 25, 2001, one for .com, one for .net and one for .org. The term of the .com registry agreement extends until November 10, 2007 with a 4-year renewal option. The term of the .net registry agreement extends until June 30, 2005. Currently, the .net registry services are in a competitive bidding process by ICANN. We submitted a bid along with four other bidders. The selection of the next .net registry operator is scheduled to be made in late March 2005. The .org registry agreement terminated on December 31, 2002, and the .org registry services were transitioned to a new registry operator selected by ICANN during 2003.

The descriptions of these agreements are qualified in their entirety by the text of the complete agreements that are filed as exhibits to the periodic reports indicated in the index to the exhibits contained in Part IV of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Security Services.    Some of our security services utilize and incorporate encryption technology. Exports of software products utilizing encryption technology are generally restricted by the United States and various non-United States governments. We have obtained approval to export many of the security services we provide to customers globally under applicable United States export law, including our server digital certificate services. As the list of products and countries for which export approval is expanded or changed, government restrictions on the export of software products utilizing encryption technology may grow and become an impediment to our growth in international markets. If we do not obtain required approvals, we may not be able to sell some of our security services in international markets.

There are currently no federal laws or regulations that specifically control certification authorities, but a limited number of states have enacted legislation or regulations with respect to certification authorities. If we do not comply with these state laws and regulations, we will lose the statutory benefits and protections that would be otherwise afforded to us. Moreover, if our market for digital certificates grows, the United States federal, state, or foreign governments may choose to enact further regulations governing certification authorities or other providers of digital certificate products and related services. These regulations or the costs of complying with these regulations could have a material, adverse impact on our business.

12

Table of Contents

Communications Services.    One service provided by the Communications Services Group is currently subject to Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulation. This service allows wireless users who are “roaming” in areas where their home carrier has not made arrangements for automatic roaming service to complete calls to domestic and international destinations. The Communications Services Group has been authorized by the FCC to provide this service. Further, our communications customers are subject to FCC regulation, which indirectly affects our communications services business. We cannot predict when, or upon what terms and conditions, further regulation or deregulation might occur or the effect of regulation or deregulation on our business. Several services that we offer may be indirectly affected by regulations imposed upon potential users of those services, which may increase our costs of operations. In addition, future services we may provide could be subject to direct government regulation.

Intellectual Property

We rely primarily on a combination of copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents, restrictions on disclosure and other methods to protect our intellectual property. We also enter into confidentiality and/or invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants and current and potential affiliates, customers and business partners. We also generally control access to and distribution of proprietary documentation and other confidential information.

We have been issued numerous patents in the United States and abroad, covering a wide range of our technology. Additionally, we have filed numerous patent applications with respect to certain of our technology in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and foreign patent offices. The national or international patent offices may not award any patents with respect to these applications and even if such patents are awarded, they may not provide us with sufficient protection of our intellectual property.

We have obtained U.S. and foreign trademark registrations for various VeriSign marks. We have also filed numerous applications to register VeriSign trademarks and claims, and have common law rights in many other proprietary names. We take steps to enforce and police VeriSign’s marks.

With regard to our Security Services business, we also rely on certain licensed third-party technology, such as public key cryptography technology licensed from RSA and other technology that is used in our security services to perform key functions. RSA has granted us a perpetual, royalty-free, nonexclusive, worldwide license to use RSA’s products relating to certificate issuing, management and processing functionality. We develop services that contain or incorporate the RSA BSAFE products and that relate to digital certificate-issuing software, software for the management of private keys and for digitally signing computer files on behalf of others, software for customers to preview and forward digital certificate requests to them. RSA’s BSAFE product is a software tool kit that allows for the integration of encryption and authentication features into software applications.

With regard to our secure payments business, we rely on proprietary software and technology covering many aspects of e-commerce transactions such as electronic funds transfers and multi-currency transactions. In addition, we have strategic relationships with third parties involved in e-commerce transactions, such as issuing banks and financial processors, and those agreements provide us with intellectual property rights with respect to performing those services.

With regard to our Naming and Directory Services business, our principal intellectual property consists of, and our success is dependent upon, proprietary software used in our registry service business and certain methodologies and technical expertise we use in both the design and implementation of our current and future registry services and Internet-based products and services businesses, including the conversion of internationalized domain names. We own our proprietary shared registration system through which competing registrars submit .com and .net second-level domain name registrations. Some of the software and protocols used in our registry services are in the public domain or are otherwise available to our competitors.

13

Table of Contents

With regard to our Communications Services Group, we offer a wide variety of services, including network connectivity and interoperability, intelligent database, mobile content and applications, and clearing and settlement services, each of which are protected by trade secret, patents and/or patent applications. We have also entered into agreements with third-party providers and licensors, including third party providers of content such as music, games and logos.

Employees

The following table shows a comparison of our employee headcount by function:

We have never had a work stoppage, and no U.S.-based employees are represented under collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. Our ability to achieve our financial and operational objectives depends in large part upon our continued ability to attract, integrate, train, retain and motivate highly qualified sales, technical and managerial personnel, and upon the continued service of our senior management and key sales and technical personnel, none of whom is bound by an employment agreement. Competition for qualified personnel in our industry and in some of our geographical locations is intense, particularly for software development personnel.

Segment Information

During 2004, we operated our business in two reportable segments: the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group. During 2003, we operated our business in three reportable segments: the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group, both of which are described above, and the Network Solutions business segment, through which we provided domain name registration, and value added services such as business email, websites, hosting and other web presence services. Effective November 25, 2003, when we completed the sale of our Network Solutions business to Pivotal Private Equity, we realigned our operations into two service-based business segments consisting of the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group. Prior to 2003, we operated our business in two reportable segments: the Enterprise and Service Provider Division and the Mass Markets Division. Segment information based on our current organizational structures is set forth in Note 16 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements referred to in Item 8 below.

Factors That May Affect Future Results of Operations

In addition to other information in this Form 10-K, the following risk factors should be carefully considered in evaluating us and our business because these factors currently have a significant impact or may have a significant impact on our business, operating results or financial condition. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K as a result of the risk factors discussed below and elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Our operating results may fluctuate and our future revenues and profitability are uncertain.

Our operating results have varied and may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are outside our control. These factors include the following:

14

Table of Contents

Our operating expenses may increase. If an increase in our expenses is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in our revenues, our operating results will suffer, particularly as revenues from some of our services are recognized ratably over the term of the service, rather than immediately when the customer pays for them, unlike our sales and marketing expenditures, which are expensed in full when incurred.

Due to all of the above factors, our revenues and operating results are difficult to forecast. Therefore, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our operating results will not necessarily be meaningful, and you should not rely upon them as an indication of future performance. Also, operating results may fall below our expectations and the expectations of securities analysts or investors in one or more future periods. If this were to occur, the market price of our common stock would likely decline.

Our operating results may be adversely affected by the uncertain geopolitical environment and unfavorable economic and market conditions.

Adverse economic conditions worldwide have contributed to downturns in the telecommunications and technology industries in the past and could impact our business in the future, resulting in:

Recent political turmoil in many parts of the world, including terrorist and military actions, may continue to put pressure on global economic conditions. If the economic and market conditions in the United States and globally do not continue to improve, or if they deteriorate, we may experience material adverse impacts on our business, operating results, and financial condition as a consequence of the above factors or otherwise.

15

Table of Contents

Our limited operating history under our current business structure may result in significant fluctuations of our financial results.

We completed several acquisitions between 2000 and 2003, including our acquisitions of Network Solutions, Illuminet Holdings and H.O. Systems. In February 2004 and June 2004, respectively, we completed our acquisitions of Guardent, Inc. and Jamba!. In November 2003, we sold our Network Solutions domain name registrar business. Network Solutions, Illuminet Holdings, H.O. Systems and Jamba! operated in different businesses from our then-current business. Therefore, we have only a limited operating history on which to base an evaluation of our consolidated business and prospects. Our success will depend on many factors, many of which are not entirely under our control, including, but not limited to, the following:

To address these risks we must, among other things:

We have faced difficulties assimilating, and may incur costs associated with, acquisitions.

We made several acquisitions in the last five years and may pursue additional acquisitions in the future. We have experienced difficulty in, and in the future may face difficulties, integrating the personnel, products,

16

Table of Contents

technologies or operations of companies we acquire. Assimilating acquired businesses involves a number of other risks, including, but not limited to:

If we are unable to successfully address any of these risks for future acquisitions, our business could be harmed.

Additionally, there is risk that we may incur additional expenses associated with an impairment of a portion of goodwill and other intangible assets due to changes in market conditions for acquisitions. Under generally accepted accounting principles, we are required to evaluate goodwill for impairment on an annual basis and to evaluate other intangible assets as events or circumstances indicate that such assets may be impaired. These evaluations could result in further impairments of goodwill or other intangible assets.

The expansion of our international operations subjects our business to additional economic risks that could have an adverse impact on our revenues and business.

International revenues accounted for approximately 28% of our total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2004. As a result of our acquisition of Jamba!, we expect that international revenues will increase in absolute monetary terms and as a percentage of revenues. We intend to expand our international operations and international sales and marketing activities. For example, we expect to expand our operations and marketing activities throughout Asia, Europe, India, Latin America and South America. With our Jamba! acquisition, we have facilities and nearly 500 employees in Germany. Expansion into these international markets has required and will continue to require significant management attention and resources. We may also need to tailor some of our other services for a particular market and to enter into international distribution and operating relationships. We have limited experience in localizing our services and in developing international distribution or operating relationships. We may not succeed in expanding our services into international markets. Failure to do so could

17

Table of Contents

harm our business. In addition, there are risks inherent in doing business on an international basis, including, among others:

Our failure to manage past and future growth in our business could harm our business.

Between December 31, 1995 and December 31, 2004, we grew from 26 to approximately 3,200 employees. This was achieved through internal growth, as well as acquisitions. During this time period, we opened new sales offices and significantly expanded our U.S. and non-U.S. operations. To successfully manage past growth and any future growth, we will need to continue to implement additional management information systems, continue the development of our operating, administrative, financial and accounting systems and controls and maintain close coordination among our executive, engineering, accounting, finance, marketing, sales and operations organizations. Any failure to manage growth effectively could harm our business.

The business environment is highly competitive and, if we do not compete effectively, we may suffer price reductions, reduced gross margins and loss of market share.

Competition in Security Services.    Our security services are targeted at the rapidly evolving market for Internet security services, including network security, authentication, validation and secure payment services, which enable secure electronic commerce and communications over wireline and wireless IP networks. The market for security services is intensely competitive, subject to rapid change and significantly affected by new product and service introductions and other market activities of industry participants.

18

Table of Contents

Principal competitors generally fall within one of the following categories: (1) companies such as RSA Security, Inc. (“RSA”) and Entrust Technologies, which offer software applications and related digital certificate products that customers operate themselves; (2) companies such as Geo Trust and Digital Signature Trust Company (a subsidiary of Identrus) that primarily offer digital certificate and certification authority, or CA, related services; and (3) companies focused on providing a bundled offering of products and services such as BeTrusted. We also experience competition from a number of smaller companies, and we believe that our primary long-term competitors may not yet have entered the market. Furthermore, Netscape and Microsoft have introduced software products that enable the issuance and management of digital certificates, and we believe that other companies could introduce similar products.

In addition, browser companies that embed our interface technologies or otherwise feature them as a provider of digital certificate products and services in their Web browsers or on their Web sites could also promote our competitors or charge us substantial fees for promotions in the future.

We face competition in our payment services business from companies such as CyberSource, Authorize.Net (a division of Lightbridge) and First Data Corporation among others.

Competition in Managed Security Services.    Consulting companies or professional services groups of other companies with Internet expertise are current or potential competitors to our managed security services. These companies include large systems integrators and consulting firms, such as Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, IBM Global Services and Lucent NetCare. We also compete with security product companies that offer managed security services in addition to other security services, such as Symantec and ISS, as well as a number of providers such as Ubizen and RedSiren that offer managed security services exclusively. Telecommunications providers, such as MCI which recently acquired NetSec, a provider of managed security services, are also potential competitors. In addition, we compete with some companies that have developed products that automate the management of IP addresses and name maps throughout enterprise-wide intranets, and with companies with internally developed systems integration efforts.

Competition in Communications Services.    The market for communications services is extremely competitive and subject to significant pricing pressure. Competition in this area arises from two primary sources. Incumbent carriers provide competing services in their regions. In addition, we face direct competition on a nationwide basis from unregulated companies, including Syniverse Technologies and other carriers such as Southern New England Telephone Diversified Group, a unit of SBC Communications. Our wireless billing and payment services also are subject to competition from providers such as Boston Communications Group, Amdocs, and Convergys Corporation. We are also aware of major Internet service providers, software developers and smaller entrepreneurial companies that are or may in the future be focusing significant resources on developing and marketing products and services that may compete directly with ours. Furthermore, customers are increasingly likely to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services which may reduce the demand for technologies and services from third party providers such as VeriSign and further increase competitive pricing pressures.

Competition in Mobile Content Services.    The market for mobile content services is extremely competitive. Competitors include developers of content and entertainment products and services in a variety of domestic and international markets, such as Infospace, Itouch, Wisdom Entertainment, Arvato mobile, Monstermob and Buongiorno/Vitaminic. This business also faces competition from mobile network operators such as Cingular, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, Vodafone, O₂, Orange, E-Plus and Telefónica, as well as Internet portal operators such as Yahoo!, AOL, T-Online and Google. Additional competitors are handset manufacturers such as Nokia and software providers such as Microsoft. As the market for wireless entertainment and information products matures, mobile phone companies, broadcasters, music publishers, other content providers or others may begin to develop competing products or services.

Competition in Registry Services.    ICANN has introduced several registry service providers for new gTLDs that directly compete with the services we provide for the .com and .net gTLDs, as well as with the

19

Table of Contents

ccTLDs offered by us. The gTLDs .biz and .info were launched in 2001 and the gTLDs .name, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop were launched in 2002 and 2003. Domain names registrations and other services within these gTLDs are available through ICANN accredited registrars. In addition, we currently face competition from the over 240 ccTLD registry operators who compete directly for the business of entities and individuals that are seeking to establish a Web presence.

We also face competition from service providers that offer outsourced domain name registration, resolutions and other DNS services to organizations that require a reliable and scalable infrastructure. Among the competitors are UltraDNS, NeuLevel, Affilias, Register.com and Tucows.com.

Competition in Digital Brand Management Services.    We face competition from companies providing services similar to some of our Digital Brand Management Services. In the monitoring services, registration and domain name asset management area of our business, our competition comes primarily from ICANN accredited registrars and various smaller companies providing similar services.

Several of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories and significantly greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources than we do and therefore may be able to respond more quickly than we can to new or changing opportunities, technologies, standards and customer requirements. Many of these competitors also have broader and more established distribution channels that may be used to deliver competing products or services directly to customers through bundling or other means. If such competitors were to bundle competing products or services for their customers, the demand for our products and services might be substantially reduced and the ability to distribute our products successfully and the utilization of our services would be substantially diminished. New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase the competitive pressure.

New technologies and the expansion of existing technologies may increase competitive pressure. We cannot assure that competing technologies developed by others or the emergence of new industry standards will not adversely affect our competitive position or render our security services or technologies noncompetitive or obsolete. In addition, our markets are characterized by announcements of collaborative relationships involving our competitors. The existence or announcement of any such relationships could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers. As a result of the foregoing and other factors, we may not be able to compete effectively with current or future competitors, and competitive pressures that we face could materially harm our business.

Our communications services business depends on the acceptance of our SS7 network and the telecommunications market’s continuing use of SS7 technology.

Our future growth in our communications services business depends, in part, on the commercial success and reliability of our SS7 network. Our SS7 network is a vital component of our intelligent network services, which had been a significant source of revenues for our Communications Services Group. Our communications services business will suffer if our target customers do not use our SS7 network. Our future financial performance will also depend on the successful development, introduction and customer acceptance of new and enhanced SS7-based services. We are not certain that our target customers will choose our particular SS7 network solution or continue to use our SS7 network. In the future, we may not be successful in marketing our SS7 network or any new or enhanced services.

The inability of our customers to successfully implement our signaling and network services with their existing systems could adversely affect our business.

Significant technical challenges exist in our signaling and network services business because many of our customers:

20

Table of Contents

Customer implementation currently requires participation by our order management and our engineering and operations groups, each of which has limited resources. Some customers may also require us to develop costly customized features or capabilities, which increase our costs and consume a disproportionate share of our limited customer service and support resources. Also, we typically charge one-time flat rate fees for initially connecting a customer to our SS7 network and a monthly recurring flat rate fee after the connection is established. If new or existing customers have difficulty deploying our products or require significant amounts of our engineering service support, we may experience reduced operating margins. Our customers’ ability to deploy our network services to their own customers and integrate them successfully within their systems depends on our customers’ capabilities and the complexity involved. Difficulty in deploying those services could reduce our operating margins due to increased customer support and could cause potential delays in recognizing revenues until the services are implemented.

Our failure to achieve or sustain market acceptance of our communications services at desired pricing levels and industry consolidation could adversely impact our revenues and cash flow.

The telecommunications industry is characterized by significant price competition. Competition and industry consolidation in our communications services could result in significant pricing pressure and an erosion in our market share. Pricing pressure from competition could cause large reductions in the selling price of our services. For example, our competitors may provide customers with reduced communications costs for Internet access or private network services, reducing the overall cost of services and significantly increasing pricing pressures on us. We would need to offset the effects of any price reductions by increasing the number of our customers, generating higher revenues from enhanced services or reducing our costs, and we may not be able to do so successfully. We believe that the business of providing network connectivity and related network services will see increased consolidation in the future. Consolidation could decrease selling prices and increase competition in these industries, which could erode our market share, revenues and operating margins in our Communications Services Group. Consolidation in the telecommunications industry has led to the merging of many companies, including Price Communications, a customer of our Communications Services Group, and there have been recent announcements of proposed mergers involving other of our customers, including AT&T Wireless, MCI and Nextel. Our business could be harmed if these mergers result in the loss of customers by our Communications Services Group. Furthermore, customers may choose to deploy internally developed communications technologies and services thereby reducing the demand for technologies and services we offer which could harm our business.

Our mobile content services business depends on agreements with many different third parties, including wireless carriers, and content providers. If these agreements are terminated or not renewed, this business could be harmed.

Our mobile content services business depends on our ability to enter into and maintain agreements with many different third parties including:

These agreements are typically for a short term, or are otherwise terminable upon short notice, and in the case of agreements with carriers, other mobile phone service providers and content developers, are non-exclusive. If these third parties reduce their commitment to us, terminate their agreements with us or enter into

21

Table of Contents

similar agreements with our competitors, the results of operations of our Communications Services Group could be materially harmed. For example, because we depend on wireless carriers to bill customers for our services, a loss of any of these relationships could prevent us from billing and receiving revenues from customers. This business could also be harmed if we are unable to enter into additional agreements with third parties on commercially reasonable terms.

Our mobile content services business is dependent on third parties offering attractive content and technology on acceptable terms.

Only some of our mobile content services are developed internally. We also receive content, such as ring tones, games and logos from third parties. If the market for mobile entertainment and information continues to develop positively, content providers might try to raise their prices. Some providers insist on charging fixed fees for their content regardless of revenues, so if we fail to achieve anticipated revenues, we would achieve lower margins for our mobile content services. There is no assurance that we will be able to timely purchase content having the requisite quality in the future and on commercially reasonable terms. Should we be unable to acquire attractive content from third parties and on acceptable terms, this could adversely affect our mobile content services business.

Our customer subscription agreements for our mobile content services are typically cancelable and our business could be harmed if significant numbers of customers cancel or fail to renew.

Our mobile content services are typically sold as fixed monthly subscriptions. Our customers for these services may cancel their subscriptions for our service at the end of each monthly service period and in fact, many customers each month elect to do so. We have limited historical data with respect to rates of customer subscription renewals, so we cannot accurately predict customer renewal rates. Our customers’ renewal rates may decline or fluctuate as a result of a number of factors, including their dissatisfaction with the service, pricing pressure, changes in preferences and trends, competitive services or other reasons. If our customers cancel or fail to renew their subscriptions for this service, our revenue could decline and our mobile content services business will suffer.

Our business depends on the continued growth of the Internet and adoption and continued use of IP networks.

Our future success depends, in part, on continued growth in the use of the Internet and IP networks. If the use of and interest in the Internet and IP networks does not grow, our business would be harmed. To date, many businesses and consumers have been deterred from utilizing the Internet and IP networks for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:

22

Table of Contents

The widespread acceptance of the Internet and IP networks will require a broad acceptance of new methods of conducting business and exchanging information. Organizations that already have invested substantial resources in other methods of conducting business may be reluctant to adopt new methods. Also, individuals with established patterns of purchasing goods and services and effecting payments may be reluctant to change.

A number of states, as well as the U.S. Congress, have been considering various initiatives that could permit sales and use taxes on Internet sales. If any of these initiatives are adopted, it could substantially impair the growth of electronic commerce and therefore hinder the growth in the use of the Internet and IP networks, which could harm our business.

Many of our target markets are evolving, and if these markets fail to develop or if our products and services are not widely accepted in these markets, our business could suffer.

We target our security services at the market for trusted and secure electronic commerce and communications over IP and other networks. As a result of our acquisition of Jamba!, our Communications Services Group is also targeting the consumer market for mobile content services. Our Naming and Directory Services business unit is developing managed services designed to work with the EPCglobal Network and radio frequency identification, or RFID, technology. These are rapidly evolving markets that may not continue to grow. Even if these markets grow, our services may not be widely accepted. Accordingly, the demand for our services is very uncertain. The factors that may affect the level of market acceptance and, consequently, our services include the following:

If the market for electronic commerce and communications over IP and other networks does not grow or these services are not widely accepted in the market, our business would be materially harmed.

Our inability to react to changes in our industry and successfully introduce new products and services could harm our business.

The emerging nature of the Internet, mobile content, digital certificate, domain name registration and payment services markets, and their rapid evolution, require us continually to improve the performance, features and reliability of our services, particularly in response to competitive offerings. In particular, the market for entertainment and information is characterized by changing technology, developing industry standards, changing customer preferences and trends (which also vary from country to country), and the constant introduction of new products and services. In order to remain competitive, we must continually improve our access technology and software, support the latest transmission technologies, and adapt our products and services to changing market conditions and customer preferences. When entertainment products are placed on the market, it is difficult to predict whether they will become popular.

The communications network services industry is also characterized by rapid technological change and frequent new product and service announcements. Significant technological changes could make our technologies obsolete and other changes in our markets, particularly mobile content, could result in some of our other products and services losing market share. Accordingly, we must continually improve the responsiveness, reliability and features of our services and develop new features, services and applications to meet changing

23

Table of Contents

customer needs in our target markets. For example, we sell our SS7 network services primarily to traditional telecommunications companies that rely on traditional voice networks. Many emerging companies are providing convergent Internet protocol-based network services. Our future success could also depend upon our ability to provide products and services to these Internet protocol-based telephony providers, particularly if IP-based telephony becomes widely accepted. We cannot assure that we will be able to adapt to these challenges or respond successfully or in a cost-effective way to adequately meet them. Our failure to do so would adversely affect our ability to compete and retain customers or market share.

New products and services developed or introduced by us may not result in any significant revenues.

We must commit significant resources to develop new products and services before knowing whether our investments will result in products and services the market will accept. The success of new products and services depends on several factors, including proper new definition and timely completion, introduction and market acceptance. For example, our selection in January 2004 by EPCglobal, a not-for-profit standards organization, to operate the Object Naming Service as the root directory for the EPCglobal Network, may not increase our revenues in the foreseeable future. There can be no assurance that we will successfully identify new product and service opportunities, develop and bring new products and services to market in a timely manner, or achieve market acceptance of our products and services, or that products, services and technologies developed by others will not render our products, services or technologies obsolete or noncompetitive. Our inability to successfully market new products and services may harm our business.

Issues arising from our agreements with ICANN and the Department of Commerce could harm our registry business.

The Department of Commerce, or DOC, has adopted a plan for a phased transition of the DOC’s responsibilities for the domain name system to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. As part of this transition, our registry agreement with ICANN was replaced by three new agreements on May 25, 2001, one for .com, one for .net and one for .org. The term of the .com registry agreement extends until November 10, 2007 with a 4-year renewal option. The term of the .net registry agreement extends until June 30, 2005. Currently the .net registry services are in a competitive bidding process by ICANN. We submitted a bid along with four other bidders. The selection of the next .net registry operator is scheduled to be made in March 2005. The .org registry agreement terminated on December 31, 2002, and the .org registry services were transitioned to a new registry operator selected by ICANN during 2003. We face risks from this transition to ICANN, which include the following:

24

Table of Contents

On August 27, 2004, we filed a lawsuit against ICANN in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges that ICANN overstepped its contractual authority and improperly attempted to regulate our business in violation of ICANN’s charter and its agreements with us. We cannot predict the affect this lawsuit will have on our relationship with ICANN.

Challenges to ongoing privatization of Internet administration could harm our domain name registry business.

Risks we face from challenges by third parties, including other domestic and foreign governmental authorities, to our role in the ongoing privatization of the Internet include:

As a result of these challenges, it may be difficult for us to introduce new services in our domain name registry business and we could also be subject to additional restrictions on how this business is conducted.

If we encounter system interruptions, we could be exposed to liability and our reputation and business could suffer.

We depend on the uninterrupted operation of our various systems, secure data centers and other computer and communication networks. Our systems and operations are vulnerable to damage or interruption from:

Most of our systems are located at, and most of our customer information is stored in, our facilities in Mountain View, California and Kawasaki, Japan, both of which are susceptible to earthquakes, Providence, Rhode Island; Dulles, Virginia; Lacey, Washington; Overland Park, Kansas, Melbourne, Australia and Berlin, Hamburg and Verl, Germany. Any damage or failure that causes interruptions in any of these facilities or our other computer and communications systems could materially harm our business.

In addition, our ability to issue digital certificates, our domain name registry services and other of our services depend on the efficient operation of the Internet connections from customers to our secure data centers and from our customers to the shared registration system. These connections depend upon the efficient operation of Internet service providers and Internet backbone service providers, all of which have had periodic operational problems or experienced outages in the past.

25

Table of Contents

A failure in the operation of our domain name zone servers, the domain name root servers, or other events could result in the deletion of one or more domain names from the Internet for a period of time. A failure in the operation of our shared registration system could result in the inability of one or more other registrars to register and maintain domain names for a period of time. A failure in the operation or update of the master database that we maintain could result in the deletion of one or more top-level domains from the Internet and the discontinuation of second-level domain names in those top-level domains for a period of time. Any of these problems or outages could decrease customer satisfaction, which could harm our business.

If we experience security breaches, we could be exposed to liability and our reputation and business could suffer.

We retain certain confidential customer information in our secure data centers and various registration systems. It is critical to our business strategy that our facilities and infrastructure remain secure and are perceived by the marketplace to be secure. Our domain name registry operations also depend on our ability to maintain our computer and telecommunications equipment in effective working order and to reasonably protect our systems against interruption, and potentially depend on protection by other registrars in the shared registration system. The root zone servers and top-level domain name zone servers that we operate are critical hardware to our registry services operations. Therefore, we may have to expend significant time and money to maintain or increase the security of our facilities and infrastructure.

Despite our security measures, our infrastructure may be vulnerable to physical break-ins, computer viruses, and attacks by hackers or similar disruptive problems. It is possible that we may have to expend additional financial and other resources to address such problems. Any physical or electronic break-in or other security breach or compromise of the information stored at our secure data centers and domain name registration systems may jeopardize the security of information stored on our premises or in the computer systems and networks of our customers. In such an event, we could face significant liability and customers could be reluctant to use our services. Such an occurrence could also result in adverse publicity and therefore, adversely affect the market’s perception of the security of electronic commerce and communications over IP networks as well as of the security or reliability of our services.

The reliance of our network connectivity and interoperability services and mobile content services on third-party communications infrastructure, hardware and software exposes us to a variety of risks we cannot control.

The success of our network connectivity and interoperability services and mobile content services depends on our network infrastructure, including the capacity leased from telecommunications suppliers. In particular, we rely on AT&T, MCI, Sprint and other telecommunications providers for leased long-haul and local loop transmission capacity. These companies provide the dedicated links that connect our network components to each other and to our customers. Our business also depends upon the capacity, reliability and security of the infrastructure owned by third parties that is used to connect telephone calls. Specifically, we currently lease capacity from regional providers on six of the 16 mated pairs of SS7 signal transfer points that comprise our network.

We have no control over the operation, quality or maintenance of a significant portion of that infrastructure or whether or not those third parties will upgrade or improve their equipment. We depend on these companies to maintain the operational integrity of our connections. If one or more of these companies is unable or unwilling to supply or expand its levels of service to us in the future, our operations could be severely interrupted. In addition, rapid changes in the telecommunications industry have led to the merging of many companies. These mergers may cause the availability, pricing and quality of the services we use to vary and could cause the length of time it takes to deliver the services that we use to increase significantly.

Our signaling and SS7 services rely on links, equipment and software provided to us from our vendors, the most important of which are gateway equipment and software from Tekelec and Agilent Technologies, Inc. We

26

Table of Contents

cannot assure you that we will be able to continue to purchase equipment from these vendors on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to maintain current purchasing terms or ensure product availability with these vendors, we may lose customers and experience an increase in costs in seeking alternative suppliers of products and services.

Capacity limits on our technology and network hardware and software may be difficult to project and we may not be able to expand and upgrade our systems to meet increased use.

If traffic from our telecommunication and mobile content customers through our network increases, we will need to expand and upgrade our technology and network hardware and software. We may not be able to expand and upgrade, in a timely manner, our systems and network hardware and software capabilities to accommodate increased traffic on our network. If we do not appropriately expand and upgrade our systems and network hardware and software, we may lose customers and revenues.

We rely on third parties who maintain and control root zone servers and route Internet communications.

We currently administer and operate only two of the 13 root zone servers. The others are administered and operated by independent operators on a volunteer basis. Because of the importance to the functioning of the Internet of these root zone servers, our registry services business could be harmed if these volunteer operators fail to maintain these servers properly or abandon these servers, which would place additional capacity demands on the two root zone servers we operate.

Further, our registry services business could be harmed if any of these volunteer operators fail to include or provide accessibility to the data that it maintains in the root zone servers that it controls. In the event and to the extent that ICANN is authorized to set policy with regard to an authoritative root server system, as provided in our registry agreement with ICANN, it is required to ensure that the authoritative root will point to the top-level domain zone servers designated by us. If ICANN does not do this, our business could be harmed.

Undetected or unknown defects in our services could harm our business and future operating results.

Services as complex as those we offer or develop frequently contain undetected defects or errors. Despite testing, defects or errors may occur in our existing or new services, which could result in loss of or delay in revenues, loss of market share, failure to achieve market acceptance, diversion of development resources, injury to our reputation, tort or warranty claims, increased insurance costs or increased service and warranty costs, any of which could harm our business. The performance of our services could have unforeseen or unknown adverse effects on the networks over which they are delivered as well as on third-party applications and services that utilize our services, which could result in legal claims against us, harming our business. Furthermore, we often provide implementation, customization, consulting and other technical services in connection with the implementation and ongoing maintenance of our services, which typically involves working with sophisticated software, computing and communications systems. Our failure or inability to meet customer expectations in a timely manner could also result in loss of or delay in revenues, loss of market share, failure to achieve market acceptance, injury to our reputation and increased costs.

Services offered by our Internet Services Group rely on public key cryptography technology that may compromise our system’s security.

Services offered by our Internet Services Group depend on public key cryptography technology. With public key cryptography technology, a user is given a public key and a private key, both of which are required to perform encryption and decryption operations. The security afforded by this technology depends on the integrity of a user’s private key and that it is not lost, stolen or otherwise compromised. The integrity of private keys also depends in part on the application of specific mathematical principles known as “factoring.” This integrity is predicated on the assumption that the factoring of large numbers into their prime number components is difficult.

27

Table of Contents

Should an easy factoring method be developed, the security of encryption products utilizing public key cryptography technology would be reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, any significant advance in techniques for attacking cryptographic systems could also render some or all of our existing PKI services obsolete or unmarketable. If improved techniques for attacking cryptographic systems were ever developed, we would likely have to reissue digital certificates to some or all of our customers, which could damage our reputation and brand or otherwise harm our business. In the past there have been public announcements of the successful attack upon cryptographic keys of certain kinds and lengths and of the potential misappropriation of private keys and other activation data. This type of publicity could also hurt the public perception as to the safety of the public key cryptography technology included in our digital certificates. This negative public perception could harm our business.

Some of our security services have lengthy sales and implementation cycles.

We market many of our security services directly to large companies and government agencies and we market our communications services to large telecommunication carriers. The sale and implementation of our services to these entities typically involves a lengthy education process and a significant technical evaluation and commitment of capital and other resources. This process is also subject to the risk of delays associated with customers’ internal budgeting and other procedures for approving large capital expenditures, deploying new technologies within their networks and testing and accepting new technologies that affect key operations. As a result, the sales and implementation cycles associated with certain of our services can be lengthy, potentially lasting from three to nine months. Our quarterly and annual operating results could be materially harmed if orders forecasted for a specific customer for a particular quarter are not realized.

Failure of VeriSign Affiliates to follow our security and trust practices or to maintain the privacy or security of confidential customer information could have an adverse impact on our revenues and business.

We have licensed to VeriSign Affiliates our Processing Center platform, which is designed to replicate our own secure data centers and allows the affiliate to offer back-end processing of PKI services for enterprises. The VeriSign Processing Center platform provides a VeriSign Affiliate with the knowledge and technology to offer PKI services similar to those offered by us. It is critical to our business strategy that the facilities and infrastructure used in issuing and marketing digital certificates remain secure and we are perceived by the marketplace to be secure. Although we provide the VeriSign Affiliate with training in security and trust practices, network management and customer service and support, these practices are performed by the affiliate and are outside of our control. Any failure of a VeriSign Affiliate to maintain the privacy or security of confidential customer information could result in negative publicity and therefore, adversely affect the market’s perception of the security of our services as well as the security of electronic commerce and communication over IP networks generally.

We rely on our intellectual property, and any failure by us to protect, or any misappropriation of, our intellectual property could harm our business.

Our success depends on our internally developed technologies, patents and other intellectual property. Despite our precautions, it may be possible for a third party to copy or otherwise obtain and use our trade secrets or other forms of our intellectual property without authorization. Furthermore, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our proprietary rights in those countries to the same extent U.S. law protects these rights in the United States. In addition, it is possible that others may independently develop substantially equivalent intellectual property. If we do not effectively protect our intellectual property, our business could suffer. In the future, we may have to resort to litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights, to protect our trade secrets or to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others. This type of litigation, regardless of its outcome, could result in substantial costs and diversion of management and technical resources.

We also license third-party technology that is used in our products and services, to perform key functions. These third-party technology licenses may not continue to be available to us on commercially reasonable terms

28

Table of Contents

or at all. Our business could suffer if we lost the rights to use these technologies. A third-party could claim that the licensed software infringes a patent or other proprietary right. Litigation between the licensor and a third-party or between us and a third-party could lead to royalty obligations for which we are not indemnified or for which indemnification is insufficient, or we may not be able to obtain any additional license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The loss of, or our inability to obtain or maintain, any of these technology licenses could delay the introduction of our Internet infrastructure services until equivalent technology, if available, is identified, licensed and integrated. This could harm our business.

We could become subject to claims of infringement of intellectual property of others, which could be costly to defend and which could harm our business.

Claims relating to infringement of intellectual property of others or other similar claims have been made against us in the past and could be made against us in the future. In addition, we use content such as music, games and logos, as part of our mobile content services. It is possible that we could become subject to additional claims for infringement of the intellectual property of third parties. Any claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation and diversion of technical and management personnel, cause delays or require us to develop non-infringing technology or enter into royalty or licensing agreements. Royalty or licensing agreements, if required, may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. If a successful claim of infringement were made against us, we could be required to pay damages or have portions of our business enjoined. If we could not develop non-infringing technology or license the infringed or similar technology on a timely and cost-effective basis, our business could be harmed.

In addition, legal standards relating to the validity, enforceability, and scope of protection of intellectual property rights in Internet-related businesses are uncertain and still evolving. Because of the growth of the Internet and Internet-related businesses, patent applications are continuously and simultaneously being filed in connection with Internet-related technology. There are a significant number of U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications in our areas of interest, and we believe that there has been, and is likely to continue to be, significant litigation in the industry regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. For example, we had complaints filed against us in February 2001, September 2001 and June 2003 alleging patent infringement.

We must establish and maintain strategic and other relationships.

One of our significant business strategies has been to enter into strategic or other similar collaborative relationships in order to reach a larger customer base than we could reach through our direct sales and marketing efforts. We may need to enter into additional relationships to execute our business plan. We may not be able to enter into additional, or maintain our existing, strategic relationships on commercially reasonable terms. If we fail to enter into additional relationships, we would have to devote substantially more resources to the distribution, sale and marketing of our security services and communications services than we would otherwise.

Our success in obtaining results from these relationships will depend both on the ultimate success of the other parties to these relationships and on the ability of these parties to market our services successfully.

Furthermore, our ability to achieve future growth will also depend on our ability to continue to establish direct seller channels and to develop multiple distribution channels. Failure of one or more of our strategic relationships to result in the development and maintenance of a market for our services could harm our business. If we are unable to maintain our relationships or to enter into additional relationships, this could harm our business.

Principal and interest on the Network Solutions note may never be repaid.

As consideration for our sale of our Network Solutions domain name registrar business on November 25, 2003, we received a $40 million senior subordinated note from Network Solutions that matures over five years

29

Table of Contents

from the date of the closing of the sale. The note is subordinated to a term loan made by the senior lender to the Network Solutions business in the principal amount of $40 million as of the closing date. In addition to the promissory note, we also hold a 15% interest in the Network Solutions business. We may never be repaid for the amount owed under the promissory note and we may never realize any value from our membership interest.

Compliance with new rules and regulations concerning corporate governance is costly and could harm our business.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was signed into law in July 2002, mandates, among other things, that companies adopt new corporate governance measures and imposes comprehensive reporting and disclosure requirements, sets stricter independence and financial expertise standards for audit committee members and imposes increased civil and criminal penalties for companies, their chief executive officers and chief financial officers and directors for securities law violations. For example, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires companies to do a comprehensive and costly evaluation of their internal controls. In addition, the Nasdaq Stock Market has adopted additional comprehensive rules and regulations relating to corporate governance. These laws, rules and regulations have increased the scope, complexity and cost of our corporate governance, reporting and disclosure practices, and our compliance efforts have required significant management attention. It has become more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we have been required to accept reduced coverage and incur substantially higher costs to obtain the reduced level of coverage. Further, our board members, chief executive officer and chief financial officer could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with the performance of their duties. As a result, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified board members and executive officers, which could harm our business.

We depend on key personnel to manage our business effectively and may not be successful in attracting and retaining such personnel.

We depend on the performance of our senior management team and other key employees. Our success also depends on our ability to attract, integrate, train, retain and motivate these individuals and additional highly skilled technical and sales and marketing personnel, both in the U.S. and abroad. In addition, our stringent hiring practices for some of our key personnel, which consist of background checks into prospective employees’ criminal and financial histories, further limit the number of qualified persons for these positions.

We have no employment agreements with any of our key executives that prevent them from leaving VeriSign at any time. In addition, we do not maintain key person life insurance for any of our officers or key employees. The loss of the services of any of our senior management team or other key employees or failure to attract, integrate, train, retain and motivate additional key employees could harm our business.

New and proposed regulations related to equity compensation will adversely affect our operating results and negatively impact our ability to attract and retain key personnel.

Since our inception, we have used stock options and other long-term equity incentives as a fundamental component of our employee compensation packages. We believe that stock options and other long-term equity incentives directly motivate our employees to maximize long-term stockholder value and, through the use of vesting, encourage employees to remain with VeriSign. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) recently issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment,” which supercedes SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” that will require us to record a charge to earnings for employee stock option grants beginning in the third quarter of 2005. This change will have a material, negative impact on our reported earnings. Recording a charge for employee stock options and the employee stock purchase plan under SFAS No. 123 would have increased after tax charges by approximately $136.8 million, $215.9 million and $221.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. In addition, new regulations adopted by the Nasdaq Stock Market requiring stockholder approval for stock option plans could make it more difficult for us to grant options to employees in the future. To the

30

Table of Contents

extent that new policies or regulations make it more difficult or expensive to grant options to employees, we may incur increased cash compensation costs or find it difficult to attract, retain and motivate employees, either of which could materially harm our business.

We have anti-takeover protections that may delay or prevent a change in control that could benefit our stockholders.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that could make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire us without the consent of our board of directors. These provisions include:

VeriSign has also adopted a stockholder rights plan that may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control and make any future unsolicited acquisition attempt more difficult. Under the rights plan:

VeriSign’s principal administrative, sales, marketing, research and development and operations facilities are located in Mountain View, California, Overland Park, Kansas, Providence, Rhode Island, Dulles, Virginia, Lacey, Washington, Berlin, Germany, Tokyo, Japan and Geneva, Switzerland. We own our headquarters complex in Mountain View, California. This complex includes five buildings with a combined area of approximately 395,000 square feet. We also own our communications services facility in Lacey, Washington. The remainder of our significant facilities are leased under agreements that expire at various dates through 2014.

VeriSign also leases other space for sales and support, and training offices in various locations throughout the United States. Internationally, we lease space in a number of locations, including Buenos Aires, Argentina; Woluwe-St. Pierre, Belgium; Sao Paulo, Brazil; Bangalore, India; Kawasaki, Japan; Oslo, Norway; Durbanville, South Africa; and Malmo, Sweden.

31

Table of Contents

We believe that our current facilities are sufficient for our needs for the foreseeable future.

As of February 28, 2005, VeriSign and NS Holding, Inc. (formerly Network Solutions, Inc.), were defendants in two active lawsuits involving customer contractual disputes over domain name registrations and related services. VeriSign completed the sale of its Network Solutions registrar business to Pivotal Private Equity on November 25, 2003. VeriSign retained liabilities, if any, associated with the lawsuits referenced above.

On February 2, 2001, Leon Stambler filed a complaint against VeriSign in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Mr. Stambler alleged that VeriSign, and RSA Security, Inc., infringed various claims of his patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,793,302, 5,974,148 and 5,936,541. Mr. Stambler sought a judgment declaring that the defendants had infringed the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit, an injunction, damages for the alleged infringement, treble damages for alleged willful infringement, and attorney fees and costs. One defendant, Omnisky, Inc., subsequently declared bankruptcy and Mr. Stambler settled the case against three other defendants: Openwave Systems, Inc., Certicom Corp. and First Data Corporation before trial. The trial began on February 24 and concluded with a jury verdict on March 7, 2003. On March 7, 2003, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for RSA Security Inc. and VeriSign and against Mr. Stambler on the four remaining patent claims in suit. The court had ruled earlier in the case on two other claims, also finding in favor of VeriSign and RSA Security, Inc. On April 17, 2003, the Court entered final judgment for defendants VeriSign and RSA Security and against Mr. Stambler on all of his claims of patent infringement. On May 16, 2003, Mr. Stambler

32

Table of Contents

filed alternative motions with the trial court, seeking to overturn the judgment and obtain either judgment in his favor or a new trial. The District Court denied Mr. Stambler’s motions. Mr. Stambler appealed the trial court’s final judgment against him as to claim 34 of U.S. patent 5,793,302 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was denied on February 11, 2005.

On September 7, 2001, NetMoneyIN, an Arizona corporation, filed a complaint styled as a First Amended Complaint alleging patent infringement against VeriSign and several other previously-named defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona asserting infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 5,822,737 and 5,963,917. NetMoneyIN filed a second amended complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging infringement by VeriSign and several other defendants of a third U. S. patent (No. 6,381,584) in addition to the two patents previously asserted. The second amended complaint dropped some of the originally-named defendants and added others. On August 27, 2003, NetMoneyIN filed a third amended complaint alleging direct infringement of the same three patents by VeriSign and several other previously-named defendants. In this complaint, NetMoneyIN dropped its claim of active inducement of infringement by VeriSign. Some of the other current defendants include IBM, BA Merchant Services, Wells Fargo Bank, Cardservice International, InfoSpace, E-Commerce Exchange and Paymentech. VeriSign filed an answer denying any infringement and asserting that the three asserted patents are invalid and later filed an amended answer asserting, in addition, that the asserted patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The complaint alleges that VeriSign’s Payflow payment products and services directly infringe certain claims of NetMoneyIN’s three patents and requests the Court to enter judgment in favor of NetMoneyIN, a permanent injunction against the defendants’ alleged infringing activities, an order requiring defendants to provide an accounting for NetMoneyIN’s damages, to pay NetMoneyIN such damages and three times that amount for any willful infringers, and an order awarding NetMoneyIN attorney fees and costs. NetMoneyIN has recently dropped its allegations of infringement of the ‘584 patent. Also, the original lead counsel for NetMoneyIN has withdrawn from the case, and NetMoneyIN has hired new counsel. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, we believe that the allegations are without merit.

On June 30, 2003, IDN Technologies, LLC filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against VeriSign in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting infringement of U.S. patent no. 6,182,148 B1. IDN Technologies filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging infringement of the same patent but adding an additional VeriSign service. VeriSign responded by filing a counterclaim for declaratory relief and an answer denying any infringement and asserting that the patent is invalid. On September 24, 2004, the court ruled in favor of VeriSign on all Markman issues. On January 18, 2005, the court granted VeriSign’s motion for summary judgment. Entry of judgment in favor of VeriSign on all claims is expected to occur in the near future. Plaintiff has stated its intention to appeal such judgment.

Beginning in May of 2002, several class action complaints were filed against VeriSign and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These actions were consolidated under the heading In re VeriSign, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW(HRL), on July 26, 2002. The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased VeriSign stock from January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on November 8, 2002. On April 14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint. On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that is substantially identical to the amended consolidated complaint except that it purports to add a claim under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a subclass of persons who acquired shares of VeriSign pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed October 10, 2001 and amended October 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet Holdings, Inc. by VeriSign.

Parallel derivative actions have also been filed against certain of VeriSign’s current and former officers and directors in state courts in California and Delaware. VeriSign is named as a nominal defendant in these actions.

33

Table of Contents

Several of these derivative actions were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court of California, and these actions have since been consolidated under the heading In re VeriSign, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. CV 807719.

The consolidated derivative action seeks unspecified damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the California Corporations Code. Defendants’ demurrer to these claims was granted with leave to amend on February 4, 2003. Plaintiffs have indicated their intention to file an amended complaint. Another derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery New Castle County, Delaware, Case No. 19700-NC, alleging similar breaches of fiduciary duty. Defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims was granted by the Court of Chancery with prejudice on September 30, 2003.

VeriSign and the individual defendants dispute all of these claims.

VeriSign was named as a defendant in four lawsuits filed since September 18, 2003, relating to VeriSign’s Site Finder service. Two of these lawsuits were brought by alleged competitors of VeriSign. The remaining suits, one class action suit and one representative suit, were filed on behalf of consumers and commercial Internet users. VeriSign filed motions to dismiss both of the alleged competitor lawsuits. In one of those competitor lawsuits, the plaintiff did not oppose VeriSign’s motion to dismiss the original complaint and subsequently filed an amended complaint, which VeriSign also moved to dismiss. The courts have ruled on VeriSign’s motions in these two competitor cases by granting the motions in part and denying them in part. In both competitor lawsuits, after VeriSign responded to the complaint and before substantive discovery was exchanged, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their cases without prejudice in return for confidentiality agreements and no monetary payment. VeriSign also moved to dismiss the amended complaints filed in the class action and the representative action. In response to VeriSign’s motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the class action and representative action without prejudice to refiling. Dismissals have been entered by the courts in both cases.

On August 27, 2004, we filed a lawsuit against ICANN in the Superior Court of the State of California Los Angeles County. The lawsuit alleges that ICANN breached its .com Registry Agreement with VeriSign, including, without limitation, by overstepping its contractual authority and improperly attempting to regulate our business. The complaint seeks, among other things, specific performance of the .com Registry Agreement, an injunction prohibiting ICANN from improperly regulating VeriSign, and monetary damages. On November 12, 2004, ICANN filed an answer denying VeriSign’s claims and a cross-complaint against VeriSign for declaratory relief and breach of the .com Registry Agreement, alleging that VeriSign’s introduction of new services breached the .com Agreement. ICANN seeks a declaration from the court that it has acted in compliance with the parties’ contractual obligations with regard to the .com registry; that VeriSign has breached the parties’ agreement through VeriSign’s actions with respect to, among other things, SiteFinder; and that ICANN has the right to terminate the .com registry agreement if VeriSign offers “Registry Services” without ICANN’s approval, including among others SiteFinder. On December 28, 2004, VeriSign filed an answer denying the claims in ICANN’s cross-complaint and a cross-complaint against ICANN for breach of contract, violation of the unfair competition laws, and declaratory relief, alleging, among other things, that ICANN’s accreditation of “thread” registrars is improper and causes direct injury to VeriSign. On February 14, 2005, ICANN filed an answer to VeriSign’s cross-complaint denying VeriSign’s allegations. We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the affect it will have on our relationship with ICANN.

On or about November 12, 2004, ICANN filed a Request for Arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (the “ICC”) alleging that VeriSign violated its .net Registry Agreement with ICANN when, among other things, VeriSign operated the SiteFinder service without ICANN approval. ICANN seeks a declaration from the ICC that it has acted in compliance with the parties’ contractual obligations with regard to the .net registry; that VeriSign has breached the parties’ agreement through VeriSign’s actions with respect to, among other things, SiteFinder; and that ICANN has the right to terminate the .net registry agreement if VeriSign offers “Registry Services” without ICANN’s approval, including among others SiteFinder. ICANN also seeks a declaration that, in evaluating VeriSign’s bid to become the “successor” registry

34

Table of Contents

operator for the .net top level domain after the term of the current agreement expires on or about June 30, 2005, ICANN is entitled to consider VeriSign’s alleged breaches of the existing .net agreement. We cannot predict the outcome of this action or the affect this lawsuit will have on our relationship with ICANN.

On January 18, 2005, we filed a request for arbitration before the ICC against ICANN regarding the currently-pending process by which ICANN is soliciting and reviewing bids from companies, including VeriSign, to become the “successor” registry operator for the .net top level domain after the current registry agreement expires on or about June 30, 2005. VeriSign alleges that the “request for proposal” (“RFP”) process constitutes a breach of the current .net registry agreement because, among other things, the RFP process fails to constitute an open and transparent process by which ICANN can reasonably select the best qualified successor to operate the .net registry and does not constitute a valid “consensus policy” as defined in the current .net agreement. ICANN has not yet responded to our arbitration request. We cannot predict the outcome of this action or the affect this action will have on our relationship with ICANN.

VeriSign is involved in various other investigations, claims and lawsuits arising in the normal conduct of its business, none of which, in our opinion will harm its business. VeriSign cannot assure that it will prevail in any litigation. Regardless of the outcome, any litigation may require VeriSign to incur significant litigation expense and may result in significant diversion of management attention.

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the quarter ended December 31, 2004.

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the executive officers of VeriSign as of February 28, 2005:

Stratton D. Sclavos has served as President and Chief Executive Officer and as a director of VeriSign since he joined VeriSign in July 1995. In December 2001, he was named Chairman of the Board of Directors. From October 1993 to June 1995, he was Vice President, Worldwide Marketing and Sales of Taligent, Inc., a software development company that was a joint venture among Apple Computer, Inc., IBM and Hewlett-Packard. From May 1992 to September 1993, Mr. Sclavos was Vice President of Worldwide Sales and Business Development of GO Corporation, a pen-based computer company. Prior to that time, he served in various sales and marketing capacities for MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. and Megatest Corporation. Mr. Sclavos serves as a director of Juniper Networks, Inc., Intuit, Inc. and Salesforce.com, Inc. Mr. Sclavos holds a B.S. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of California at Davis.

Dana L. Evan has served as Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer since January 1, 2001. From June 1996 until December 31, 2000 she served as Vice President of Finance

35

Table of Contents

and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of VeriSign. From 1988 to June 1996, Ms. Evan worked as a financial consultant in the capacity of chief financial officer, vice president of finance or corporate controller for various public and private companies and partnerships, including VeriSign from November 1995 to June 1996. Prior to 1988, she was employed by KPMG LLP, most recently as a senior manager. Ms. Evan is a certified public accountant and holds a B.S. degree in Commerce with a concentration in Accounting and Finance from Santa Clara University.

Quentin P. Gallivan has served as Executive Vice President, Worldwide Sales and Services since April 1999. From October 1997 to April 1999, he served as Vice President of Worldwide Sales of VeriSign. From April 1996 to October 1997, he was Vice President for Asia Pacific and Latin America of Netscape, a software company. Prior to that time, from 1983 to March 1996, Mr. Gallivan was with General Electric Information Services, an electronic commerce services company, in several general management roles most recently as Vice President, Sales and Services for the Americas.

Vernon L. Irvin has served as Executive Vice President of Communications Services since June 2003. Prior to joining VeriSign, Mr. Irvin served as Executive Vice President of American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS), a business and IT consulting firm, since February 2002. From May 1999 until February 2002, Mr. Irvin served as a founding manager and president of BT Ignite, the broadband and Internet services business of British Telecommunications PLC. Mr. Irvin holds a B.S. degree in Information Systems from the University of Cincinnati in Ohio.

Robert J. Korzeniewski has served as Executive Vice President, Corporate and Business Development since joining VeriSign upon its acquisition of Network Solutions in June 2000. He served as Chief Financial Officer of Network Solutions from March 1996 to June 2000. Prior to joining Network Solutions, Mr. Korzeniewski held various senior financial positions at Science Application International Company from 1987 to March 1996. Mr. Korzeniewski serves as a director of Talk America Holdings, Inc. and Kintera, Inc. Mr. Korzeniewski is a certified public accountant and holds a B.S. degree in Business Administration from Salem State College.

Judy Lin has served as Executive Vice President and General Manager, Security Services since January 2003. Since joining VeriSign in February 1996, Ms. Lin has served in a variety of management positions from Director of Core Technology to Vice President of Product Development. Prior to joining VeriSign, Ms. Lin served in a variety of software development and management roles at Taligent, Apple Computer and Hewlett-Packard. Ms. Lin holds dual B.A. degrees in Computer Science and European History from the University of California, Berkeley.

Aristotle Balogh has served as Senior Vice President, Operations and Infrastructure since May 2002. From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Balogh served as Vice President of Engineering at VeriSign and Network Solutions. Prior to that, he held a variety of positions at Network Solutions. Prior to joining Network Solutions in 1998, Mr. Balogh held a variety of senior engineer and management roles at SRA Corporation, UPS’s Roadnet Technologies, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Mr. Balogh holds a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and an M.S.E. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins University.

Mark McLaughlin has served as Senior Vice President and General Manager, Naming and Directory Services since January 2005. From November 2003 through December 2004, Mr. McLaughlin was Senior Vice President and Deputy General Manager of Naming and Directory Services. From 2002 to 2003, he served as Vice President, Corporate Business Development and from 2000 to 2001 he was Vice President, General Manager of VeriSign Payment Services. Prior to joining VeriSign, Mr. McLaughlin was the Vice President, Business Development of Signio, an internet payment company acquired by VeriSign in February 2000. Mr. McLaughlin holds a B.S. degree in Political Science from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a J.D. degree from the Seattle University School of Law.

36

Table of Contents

James M. Ulam has served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel since October 2001, and as Vice President and General Counsel since joining VeriSign upon its acquisition of Network Solutions in June 2000, and as Secretary of VeriSign since November 2000. From October 1996 to June 2000, he served in a variety of positions for Network Solutions, including Corporate Counsel and Assistant General Counsel. Prior to joining Network Solutions, he was a Contracts Attorney for Science Application International Company from April 1995 until October 1996. Prior to that he was in the private practice of law at Wells, Moore, Stubblefield and Neeld from March 1994 to March 1995 and at Ott & Purdy from March 1992 until March 1994. Mr. Ulam holds a B.S. degree in Business Administration from the University of Maryland and a J.D. degree from the Mississippi College School of Law.

37

Table of Contents

PART II

Price Range of Common Stock

VeriSign’s common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “VRSN.” The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share for our common stock as reported by the Nasdaq National Market:

On February 28, 2005, there were 997 holders of record of our common stock although we believe there are in excess of 100,000 beneficial owners since many brokers and other institutions hold our stock on behalf of stockholders. On February 28, 2005, the reported last sale price of our common stock was $27.42 per share as reported by the Nasdaq National Market. Information on our equity compensation plans may be found in the section captioned “Equity Compensation Plan Information” appearing in the definitive Proxy Statement to be delivered to stockholders in connection with the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders which information is incorporated herein by reference.

The market price of our common stock has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile and significantly affected by factors such as:

The market price of our common stock also has been and is likely to continue to be significantly affected by expectations of analysts and investors. Reports and statements of analysts do not necessarily reflect our views. The fact that we have in the past met or exceeded analyst or investor expectations does not necessarily mean that we will do so in the future.

In the past, securities class action lawsuits have often followed periods of volatility in the market price of a particular company’s securities. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.

38

Table of Contents

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock or other securities and we do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. We currently intend to retain our earnings, if any, for future growth.

Share Repurchases

ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

On April 26, 2001, VeriSign announced that the Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $350.0 million of the Company’s common stock for cash in open market, negotiated or block transactions.

39

Table of Contents

The following selected consolidated financial data are derived from our consolidated financial statements. This data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, and with Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. We have made several acquisitions over the last five years, each of which was accounted for as a purchase transaction. Accordingly, the results of the acquired companies’ operations are included in our consolidated financial statements from their respective dates of acquisition. We completed the sale of our Network Solutions domain name registrar business in November 2003. The results of Network Solutions’ operations are included in our consolidated financial statements through November 25, 2003, the closing date of sale.

40

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Except for historical information, this Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including, among other things, statements regarding our anticipated costs and expenses and revenue mix. Forward-looking statements include, among others, those statements including the words “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “believes” and similar language. Our actual results may differ significantly from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in Item 1 “Business—Factors That May Affect Future Results of Operations.” You should carefully review the risks described in other documents we file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q or Current Reports on Form 8-K that we file in 2005. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to publicly release any revisions to the forward-looking statements or reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document.

Overview

VeriSign, Inc. is a leading provider of intelligent infrastructure services that enable people and businesses to find, connect, secure, and transact across complex global networks. In 2004, our business consisted of two reportable segments: the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group. Prior to 2004, our business included an additional reportable segment, the Network Solutions domain name registrar business, which was sold in November 2003.

Improving economic conditions during 2004 in the U.S., Europe and Japan led to improved customer spending in each of our principal business segments leading to growth in revenues and deferred revenues. IT spending for security services and e-commerce activity in our principal geographic markets accelerated as the year progressed and we saw continued growth in domain name registrations and domain name renewals, with active domain names ending in .com and .net increasing by 26% during 2004. Spending for our services by telecommunications customers in the United States also increased during the year, and Jamba!, our European-based provider of mobile content services to telecommunications carriers and customers that was acquired in June 2004, contributed approximately $180.8 million of revenues during 2004. In the U.S., the Communications Services Group’s results were adversely affected as the pace of consolidations in the domestic telecommunications sector quickened during the year.

We derive the majority of our revenues and cash flows from a relatively small number of products and services sold primarily in the United States, Europe and Japan. In the Internet Services Group, more than 83% of the revenues during 2004 were derived from the sale of web certificates, payment services, managed authentication and security services and registry services. In the Communications Services Group, 82% of the revenues were derived from the sale of calling name services, billing services, SS7 connectivity, signaling services, and mobile content services during the same period.

For the Communications Services Group, we expect growth in mobile content services revenues, particularly in new markets such as the U.S., offset somewhat by a decline in connectivity, clearing and settlement, and billing-related revenues in the first quarter with a return to moderate growth in such revenues expected in the second quarter. Consolidations in the telecommunications sector and pricing pressures have the potential to adversely impact the Communications Services Group’s results. For the Internet Services Group, we expect continued growth in the levels of IT spending for security services by our customers in the U.S., Europe and Japan and growth in global e-commerce activity that we believe will result in revenue and deferred revenue growth for 2005.

41

Table of Contents

Network Solutions Sale

On November 25, 2003, we completed the sale of our Network Solutions domain name registrar business to Pivotal Private Equity, although we retained a 15% interest in the business. We will not recognize any revenue from the Network Solutions business in the future, other than revenues that may be recognized in connection with registry or other services we may provide to Network Solutions as a customer.

VeriSign Japan K.K.

On November 22, 2004, we sold 18,000 ordinary shares of our Tokyo-based, majority owned consolidated subsidiary, VeriSign Japan K.K. (“VeriSign Japan”), representing approximately 7% of our ownership interest, for approximately $78 million. After giving effect to the sale, we continue to own a majority stake in VeriSign Japan equal to approximately 54% of VeriSign Japan’s total shares outstanding. In the fourth quarter of 2003, VeriSign Japan, completed an initial public offering of its common stock. Approximately $37.4 million was raised by VeriSign Japan from the initial public offering and through subsequent stock option exercises during the fourth quarter of 2003. VeriSign Japan’s shares began trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE”) on November 19, 2003 under the company code 3722.

Acquisitions

In October 2004, we acquired the 49% minority interest in Jamba! Switzerland for approximately $0.8 million in cash. Jamba! Switzerland is now a wholly-owned subsidiary.

In June 2004, we completed our acquisition of Jamba!, a privately held provider of mobile content services. We paid approximately $266 million for all the outstanding shares of capital stock of Jamba!, of which approximately $178 million was in cash and the remainder in VeriSign common stock. Also in June 2004, we acquired the 49% minority interest in VeriSign Australia for approximately $4.6 million in VeriSign common stock. VeriSign Australia is now a wholly-owned subsidiary.

In April 2004, we completed our acquisition of the SSL certificate business from EuroTrust A/S, our Nordic region Affiliate program member, for approximately $8.5 million in cash.

In March 2004, we completed our acquisition of the assets of Unimobile, a provider of mobile messaging solutions for carriers and enterprises, for approximately $5 million in cash.

In February 2004, we completed our acquisition of Guardent, Inc., a privately held provider of managed security services. We paid approximately $135 million for all the outstanding shares of capital stock of Guardent, of which approximately $65 million was in cash and the remainder in VeriSign common stock.

In October 2003, we completed our acquisition of UNC-Embratel, the clearinghouse division of Embratel, for approximately $16 million. UNC-Embratel provides call record tracking, clearing and settlement services for a majority of the mobile and fixed telecommunications carriers in Brazil.

In February 2002, we completed our acquisition of H.O. Systems, Inc., a provider of billing and customer care solutions to wireless carriers. We paid approximately $350 million in cash for all of the outstanding stock of H.O. Systems.

We accounted for all of our acquisitions in 2004, 2003 and 2002 as purchase business combinations. Accordingly, the acquired companies’ revenues, costs and expenses have been included in our results of operations beginning with their dates of acquisition. Additionally, the results of operations of the Network Solutions domain name registrar business have been excluded from our consolidated results of operations since we finalized the sale of the business on November 25, 2003. As a result of our sale of the Network Solutions domain name registrar business in 2003 and our acquisitions during 2004, 2003 and 2002, comparisons of revenues, costs and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2004 to the years ended December 31, 2003, and 2002 may not be relevant, as the businesses represented in the consolidated financial statements were not equivalent.

42

Table of Contents

Subsequent events

On January 10, 2005, we announced that we had executed a definitive agreement to acquire LightSurf Technologies, Inc. (“LightSurf”). Under the terms of the agreement, we agreed to issue shares of our common stock having a value of approximately $270 million for all of the outstanding capital stock, warrants and vested options of LightSurf and to pay certain transaction-related expenses of LightSurf. In addition, we will assume all unvested stock options of LightSurf. LightSurf is a leading privately held provider of multimedia messaging and interoperability solutions for the wireless market. The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the issuance of a permit from the California Department of Corporations. The transaction is anticipated to close by the end of the first quarter of 2005.

In the first quarter of 2005, we completed a settlement of litigation with a telecommunications carrier, resolving disputes over certain tariff charges for SS7 traffic that we passed through to telecommunications carriers who purchased our SS7 services. Under the settlement, the carrier refunded and/or credited certain amounts to us and we refunded and/or credited certain amounts to our customers. As a result of the settlement, we will record a reduction in cost of revenues of approximately $5 million in the first quarter of 2005.

Critical accounting policies and significant management estimates

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates its estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, allowance for doubtful accounts, long-lived assets, restructuring, royalty liabilities, and deferred taxes. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and on various assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily available from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Revenue recognition

We recognize revenue in accordance with current generally accepted accounting principles. Revenue recognition requirements are complex rules which require us to make judgments and estimates. In applying our revenue recognition policy we must determine which portions of our revenue are recognized currently and which portions must be deferred. In order to determine current and deferred revenue, we make judgments and estimates with regard to the products and services to be provided. Our assumptions and judgments regarding products and services could differ from actual events.

Revenues from our consulting services are recognized using either the percentage-of-completion method or on a time-and-materials basis as work is performed. Percentage-of-completion is based upon the ratio of hours incurred to total hours estimated to be incurred for the project. We have a history of accurately estimating project status and the hours required to complete projects. If different conditions were to prevail such that accurate estimates could not be made, then the use of the completed contract method would be required and all revenue and costs would be deferred until the project was completed. Revenues from time-and-materials are recognized as services are performed.

Allowance for doubtful accounts

We maintain allowances for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability of our customers to make required payments. We regularly review the adequacy of our accounts receivable allowance after considering the size of the accounts receivable balance, each customer’s expected ability to pay and our collection history with each customer. We review significant invoices that are past due to determine if an

43

Table of Contents

allowance is appropriate based on the risk category using the factors described above. In addition, we maintain a general reserve for certain invoices by applying a percentage based on the age category. We also monitor our accounts receivable for concentration to any one customer, industry or geographic region. We require all acquired companies to adopt our credit policies. The allowance for doubtful accounts represents our best estimate, but changes in circumstances relating to accounts receivable may result in a requirement for additional allowances in the future. As of December 31, 2004, the allowance for doubtful accounts represented approximately 5% of total accounts receivable, or approximately $11.5 million. A change of 1% in our estimate would amount to approximately $2.1 million.

Valuation of long-lived intangible assets including goodwill

Our long-lived assets consist primarily of goodwill, other intangible assets and property and equipment. We review, at least annually, goodwill resulting from purchase business combinations for impairment in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.” We review long-lived assets, including certain identifiable intangibles, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that we will not be able to recover the asset’s carrying amount in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.” Such events or circumstances include, but are not limited to, a significant decrease in the fair value of the underlying business or asset, a significant decrease in the benefits realized from the acquired business, difficulty and delays in integrating the business or a significant change in the operations of the acquired business or use of an asset.

Recoverability of long-lived assets other than goodwill is measured by comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated future cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized by the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds its fair value.

Goodwill and other intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization, totaled approximately $969.2 million at December 31, 2004, which was comprised of $725.4 million of goodwill and $243.8 million of other intangible assets. Other intangible assets include customer relationships, technology in place, carrier relationships, non-compete agreements, trade names, and customer lists. Factors we consider important which could trigger an impairment review include, but are not limited to, significant under-performance relative to expected historical or projected future operating results, significant changes in the manner of our use of our acquired assets or the strategy for our overall business or significant negative economic trends. If this evaluation indicates that the value of an intangible asset may be impaired, an assessment of the recoverability of the net carrying value of the asset over its remaining useful life is made. If this assessment indicates that an intangible asset is not recoverable, based on the estimated undiscounted future cash flows or other comparable market valuations, of the entity or technology acquired over the remaining amortization period, the net carrying value of the related intangible asset will be reduced to fair value and the remaining amortization period may be adjusted. Any such impairment charge could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our reported financial statements. It is our policy to engage third party valuation consultants to assist us in the measurement of the fair value of our long-lived intangible assets including goodwill.

44

Table of Contents

Restructuring and Other Charges

In November 2003, we initiated a restructuring plan related to the sale of our Network Solutions business and the realignment of other business units. In April 2002, we initiated plans to restructure our operations to fully rationalize, integrate and align our resources. Both plans resulted in reductions in workforce, abandonment of excess facilities, disposal of property and equipment and other charges. We expect these restructuring plans to be completed in 2014 upon the expiration of our lease obligations for abandoned facilities. Restructuring charges take into account the fair value of lease obligations of the abandoned space, including the potential for sublease income. Estimating the amount of sublease income requires management to make estimates for the space that will be rented, the rate per square foot that might be received and the vacancy period of each property. These estimates could differ materially from actual amounts due to changes in the real estate markets in which the properties are located, such as the supply of office space and prevailing lease rates. Changing market conditions by location and considerable work with third-party leasing companies require us to periodically review each lease and change our estimates on a prospective basis, as necessary. During 2004, we recorded net restructuring reversals of approximately $1.3 million related to excess facilities as a result of reductions in lease obligations. Such estimates will likely be revised in the future. If sublease rates continue to change in these markets, or if it takes longer than expected to sublease these facilities, the actual lease expense could exceed this estimate by an additional $32.6 million over the next ten years relating to our restructuring plans.

Provision for royalty liabilities for intellectual property rights

Certain of our mobile content services utilize intellectual property owned or held under license by others. Where we have not yet entered into a license agreement with a holder, we record a provision for royalty payments that we estimate will be due once a license agreement is concluded. We estimate the royalty payments based on the prevailing royalty rate for the type of intellectual property being utilized. Our estimates could differ materially from the actual royalties to be paid under any definitive license agreements that may be reached due to changes in the market for such intellectual property, such as a change in demand for a particular type of content, in which case we would record a royalty expense materially different than our estimate.

Income Taxes

We account for income taxes under SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” which involves the evaluation of a number of factors concerning the realizability of our deferred tax assets. In concluding that a valuation allowance is required to be applied to certain deferred tax assets, we considered such factors as our history of operating losses, our uncertainty as to the projected long-term operating results, and the nature of our deferred tax assets. Although our operating plans assume taxable and operating income in future periods, our evaluation of all of the available evidence in assessing the realizability of the deferred tax assets indicated that such plans were not considered sufficient to overcome the available negative evidence. The possible future reversal of the valuation allowance will result in future income statement benefit to the extent the valuation allowance was applied to deferred tax assets generated through ongoing operations. To the extent the valuation allowance relates to deferred tax assets generated through stock compensation deductions, the possible future reversal of such valuation allowance will result in a credit to additional paid-in capital and will not result in future income statement benefit.

45

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

Revenues

In 2004, we had two reportable segments: the Internet Services Group and the Communications Services Group. In 2003, we had three reportable segments: the Internet Services Group, the Communications Services Group and Network Solutions. As a result of our sale of the Network Solutions domain name registrar business on November 25, 2003, we do not recognize revenues from this segment other than revenues that may be recognized in connection with registry or other services we may provide to Network Solutions as a customer. A comparison of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is presented below.

Total revenues increased approximately $111.7 million in 2004, as compared to 2003, due to revenue increases in both our Internet Services Group and Communications Services Group, partially offset by the loss of revenues as a result of the sale of our Network Solutions domain name registrar business in November 2003. Total revenues decreased approximately $166.9 million in 2003, as compared to 2002, due to decreases in both our Internet Services Group and Network Solutions, partially offset by an increase in revenues in our Communications Services Group.

Internet Services Group

Internet Services Group revenues increased approximately $127.9 million in 2004, as compared to 2003, primarily due to increases in Naming and Directory Services and Security Services revenues of approximately $65.1 million and $62.8 million, respectively. Naming and Directory Services revenues increased as a result of recognizing revenues from Network Solutions, that were previously eliminated prior to the sale of this business. In addition, we experienced an increase in the number of active domain names ending in .com and .net under management. The Security Services revenue increase was due to increases in managed security services and consulting services revenues of $18.5 million primarily attributable to the acquisition of Guardent in February 2004 and increases in Web site digital certificate revenue and secure payments services revenue of $22.3 million and $10.2 million, respectively.

Internet Services Group revenues decreased approximately $88.5 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to a decline in Security Services revenues of approximately $123.0 million resulting from the discontinuation of third party product sales and related consulting and support services and a decline in revenues from VeriSign Affiliates of $19.0 million. The decreases in revenues were partially offset by an increase in revenues of $10.1 million from our secure payments services, an increase in Web site digital certificate revenue of $23.5 million and an increase in Naming and Directory Services revenues of $20.8 million.

The following table compares active domain names ending in .com and .net managed by our Naming and Directory Services business, the approximate installed base of Web site digital certificates in our commerce site services business and the approximate number of active online merchants in our secured payments services business as of the end of each year presented:

46

Table of Contents

We expect Internet Services Group revenues will continue to grow in 2005 as demand for our Naming and Directory Services and Security Services is expected to grow.

Communications Services Group

Communications Services Group revenues increased approximately $195.6 million in 2004, as compared to 2003, primarily due to an increase in mobile content revenues of $180.8 million attributable to our acquisition of Jamba! in June 2004. In addition, intelligent database services revenues increased approximately $15.0 million primarily due to increases in calling name (CNAM) and local and wireless number portability revenues. Applications services revenues increased $3.5 million due to increases in messaging services traffic. Billing and payment services revenues declined $8.8 million primarily due to pricing reductions for these services and loss of customers due to consolidation in the telecommunications industry. Clearing and settlement services increased $5.3 million primarily from increases in revenues from VeriSign Brazil reflecting the inclusion of a full year of revenues from this subsidiary that was acquired in October 2003.

Communications Services Group revenues increased approximately $21.0 million in 2003, as compared to 2002, as a result of an increase in clearing and settlement services revenues of $18.2 million and an increase in network connectivity and interoperability revenues of $1.0 million. These increases were partially offset by a decline in CNAM revenues of $2.2 million.

The following table compares the approximate number of annual database queries and communications services customers as of the end of each year presented:

We expect Communications Services Group revenues will increase in 2005 principally as a result of growth in mobile content and applications revenues.

Network Solutions

We completed the sale of our Network Solutions domain name registrar business on November 25, 2003 and recognized no revenues from this segment in 2004. We will not recognize any revenue from the Network Solutions business in the future, other than revenues that may be recognized in connection with registry or other services we may provide to Network Solutions as a customer. Network Solutions revenues declined $99.4 million in 2003 compared to 2002 principally due to weaker demand for new domain name registrations and a decline in total domain names under management. Active domain names under management were approximately 8.2 million names as of November 25, 2003, the date we sold Network Solutions, compared to 9.3 million at December 31, 2002. In addition, the revenue decline reflects the completion of the sale of the Network Solutions domain name registrar business on November 25, 2003 which resulted in 329 days of consolidated revenues for 2003 compared to a full year in 2002.

47

Table of Contents

Revenues by Geographic Region

Our revenues are broken out into three geographic regions consisting of the Americas, EMEA and APAC. The following table shows a comparison of our revenues by geographic region for each year presented:

Revenues decreased $91.7 million in the Americas region in 2004 as compared to 2003 primarily as a result of the sale of Network Solutions in November 2003. Revenues in our EMEA region increased $189.1 million in the same period primarily due to the acquisition of Jamba! in June 2004, which contributed approximately $180.8 million in 2004. In addition, increases in our web certificate and managed PKI sales in EMEA also contributed to the increase, partially offset by decreases in our VeriSign Affiliate revenue as we continued to move to a direct distribution model through international subsidiaries in certain larger European markets. The increase in APAC revenues of $14.2 million in 2004 as compared to 2003 was primarily related to increased enterprise security sales in both the Japan and Australian markets, partially offset by a decrease in VeriSign Affiliate revenue.

Revenues decreased $167.1 million in the Americas region in 2003 as compared to 2002 primarily as a result of the discontinuation of third party product sales and the related support services in the fourth quarter of 2002. The decrease in EMEA revenues of $6.1 million in 2003 compared to 2002 is primarily related to a decrease in VeriSign Affiliate revenue partially offset by increases in web certificate and managed PKI revenues. The increase in APAC revenues of $6.3 million in 2003 compared to 2002 is primarily related to an increase in enterprise security sales in both the Japan and Australian markets, partially offset by a decrease in VeriSign Affiliate revenue.

We expect international revenues will increase in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenues in 2005.

Costs and Expenses

Operating costs and expenses decreased by $248.3 million, or 19%, to $1,034.7 million during fiscal 2004 compared with the prior year. This was primarily due to a decrease in the charges we incurred for the amortization and impairment of other intangible assets related to our acquisitions. Amortization and impairment charges totaled approximately $79.4 million in 2004 compared to $335.5 million in 2003. Additionally, there were decreases in restructuring and other charges of $49.9 million, offset by increases of $58.2 million in sales and marketing expenses and $11.5 million in research and development expenses in 2004 compared to 2003.

We restructured our business in April of 2002 and again in November of 2003. As a result of these restructurings, and as a result of the sale of our Network Solutions business, we have experienced a significant reduction in overall costs in 2004 compared to 2003.

48

Table of Contents

The following table shows a comparison of our employee headcount by function as of the end of each year presented:

Excluding the effects of any future acquisitions or dispositions, we expect our employee headcount to increase in 2005 across all business units and corporate services. As a result of our acquisition of Guardent and Jamba! we added approximately 700 employees to our overall headcount, primarily in the cost of revenues function. The sale of our Network Solutions business in November 2003 resulted in a headcount reduction of 577 employees, primarily in the cost of revenues function.

Cost of revenues

Cost of revenues consists primarily of costs related to providing digital certificate enrollment and issuance services, payment services, operational costs for the domain name registration business, customer support and training, consulting and development services, operational costs related to the management and monitoring of our clients’ network security infrastructures, content licensing costs, carrier costs for our SS7 and IP-based networks and costs of facilities and computer equipment used in these activities.

A comparison of cost of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is presented below.

Cost of revenues decreased approximately $1.4 million in 2004, as compared to 2003, primarily due a decrease of $69.5 million as a result of the sale of the Network Solutions domain name registrar business, which was offset by increases attributable to the acquisitions of Jamba! and Guardent of $49.8 million and $15.3 million, respectively.

Cost of revenues decreased $125.2 million in 2003, as compared to 2002 primarily due to our transition out of the third-party product reseller and the third-party product training businesses. This transition accounted for a decrease of approximately $105.9 million. Also, compensation costs decreased approximately $9.6 million in 2003, as compared to 2002, due to a reduction in employee headcount related to our restructuring plans announced in 2002 and 2003, while contract and professional services fees declined approximately $12.0 million in 2003, as compared to 2002, due primarily to the discontinuation of certain outsourced customer service centers for our Network Solutions registrar business.

As a percentage of revenues, cost of revenues decreased during 2004 as compared to 2003 primarily due to the sale of the Network Solutions business, which was a business with higher costs of revenue as a percentage of revenue than our other two business segments.

We anticipate that our overall cost of revenues will increase in 2005, but that our overall cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues will stay flat or decrease modestly in 2005 primarily due to greater cost efficiencies from our current businesses and recently acquired businesses, particularly mobile content services.

49

Table of Contents

Sales and marketing

Sales and marketing expenses consist primarily of costs related to sales, marketing, and policy activities. These expenses include salaries, sales commissions, sales operations and other personnel-related expenses, travel and related expenses, trade shows, costs of lead generation, costs of computer and communications equipment and support services, facilities costs, consulting fees and costs of marketing programs, such as Internet, television, radio, print, and direct mail advertising costs.

A comparison of sales and marketing expenses for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is presented below.

Sales and marketing expenses increased approximately $58.2 million in 2004 as compared to 2003, primarily due to our acquisitions of Jamba! and Guardent, which had sales and marketing expenses of $80.5 million and $8.8 million, respectively, that were partially offset by a decrease of $38.3 million in sales and marketing expenses due to the sale of our Network Solutions domain name registrar business. Additionally, we experienced an increase of approximately $7.1 million in advertising and marketing costs during this period primarily as a result of increased corporate brand advertising.

Sales and marketing expenses decreased approximately $52.8 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to a reduction in advertising and marketing spending and a reduction in labor and benefit costs. Advertising and marketing expenses decreased approximately $22.5 million in 2003 due to a significant reduction in Network Solutions marketing campaigns during 2003. Labor and benefits costs decreased approximately $19.8 million in 2003 related to a reduction in employee headcount associated with our restructuring plans. Additionally, contract and professional services expenses decreased approximately $6.6 million due to an overall reduction in sales and marketing service contracts in 2003. Travel expenses decreased approximately $1.8 million in 2003 due to reduced employee headcount and an overall decrease in international travel as a result of safety concerns stemming from health and terrorism alerts.

As a percentage of revenues, sales and marketing expenses increased in 2004 compared to 2003 due to the increase in advertising and marketing spending in 2004 compared to 2003 as described above.

We expect increases in overall sales and marketing expenses in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenues as we continue to expand in our domestic and international markets for our mobile content services, along with our continuing efforts in marketing new products such as Unified Authentication and related services, and increases in our spending for corporate brand advertising.

Research and development

Research and development expenses consist primarily of costs related to research and development personnel, including salaries and other personnel-related expenses, consulting fees and the costs of facilities, computer and communications equipment and support services used in service and technology development.

A comparison of research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is presented below.

50

Table of Contents

Research and development expenses increased $11.5 million in 2004 as compared to 2003 primarily due to our acquisitions of Guardent and Jamba!. Research and development spending attributable to these acquired entities was $3.4 million and $3.5 million, respectively. The sale of our Network Solutions business had no material effect on our research and development expense. Additionally, we experienced an increase of approximately $4.1 million in increased costs associated with contract and professional services to support new and existing research and development efforts.

Research and development expenses increased slightly in 2003 compared to 2002. The increase of approximately $7.5 million was primarily a result of increased spending of approximately $3.6 million in the Communications Services Group. Additionally, our naming and directory services had increased equipment, software and depreciation expenses related to the development of new products and services of approximately $2.0 million.

As a percentage of revenues, research and development expenses increased due to the increase in overall spending in 2004 compared to 2003 as described above.

We believe that rapid development of new and enhanced services and technologies are necessary to maintain our leadership position in the marketplace. Accordingly, we intend to continue to recruit experienced research and development personnel and to make other investments in research and development. As a result, we expect research and development expenses to increase modestly in absolute dollars and decrease as a percentage of revenues in 2005.

General and administrative

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and other personnel-related expenses for our executive, administrative, legal, finance, information technology and human resources personnel, facilities, computer and communications equipment, management information systems, support services, professional services fees, certain tax and license fees and bad debt expense.

A comparison of general and administrative expenses for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is presented below.

General and administrative expenses decreased approximately $3.5 million in 2004 compared to 2003. Overall general and administrative expenses increased from the acquisition of Guardent, Inc. and Jamba! in the amounts of $4.2 million and $16.5 million, respectively, but was offset by a decrease of $9.8 million in overall expenses due to the sale of our Network Solutions business.

Excluding the effects of the acquisitions of Guardent and Jamba! and the sale of our Network Solutions business, the overall decrease in general and administrative costs in 2004 as compared to 2003 was $14.4 million. This was primarily due to a reduction in costs from prior restructuring efforts of approximately $20.8 million, along with other efficiencies from cost reduction efforts of $6.5 million and a decrease in our bad debt expense of approximately $5.4 million. These decreases were partially offset by increases in legal expenses of approximately $10.9 million as a result of costs associated with litigation, and increases in contract and professional services of approximately $7.4 million primarily due to expenses related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance.

General and administrative expenses decreased approximately $3.7 million in 2003 compared to 2002 due to a decrease in bad debt expense of approximately $36.7 million due to increased focus on collection activities,

51

Table of Contents

partially offset by increases in legal expenses of approximately $7.4 million as a result of defending various lawsuits, particularly lawsuits related to the Network Solutions business, and contract and professional services of approximately $6.1 million primarily due to the development of a companywide strategic planning methodology, tax services and increased expenses related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Additionally, depreciation increased $5.9 million as a result of capital expenditures to upgrade our business systems and labor and benefits increased approximately $5.8 million due to higher benefit costs. Also, we incurred increased occupancy expenses of approximately $2.1 million in 2003 due to the expansion of a facility in Virginia and increases in business insurance, licenses and property taxes of $3.7 million.

We anticipate that general and administrative expenses in 2005 will increase in absolute dollars but decrease as a percentage of overall revenues. We expect that costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance to decrease slightly during the year and we anticipate to further leverage our general and administrative costs as a result of higher overall revenues.

The following table shows a comparison of our bad debt expense and our days sales outstanding (“DSO”) for 2004, 2003 and 2002:

DSO increased in 2004 as compared to 2003 primarily as a result of our acquisition of Jamba! in June 2004. We expect that DSO will be in the range of 40 to 50 days throughout 2005.

Restructuring and Other Charges

Below is a comparison of the restructuring and other charges under the 2003 and 2002 restructuring plans for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002:

The changes in restructuring and other charges are primarily due to the timing of our restructuring initiatives.

2003 Restructuring Plan.    In 2003, we announced a restructuring initiative related to the sale of our Network Solutions business and the realignment of other business units and recorded restructuring and other charges of approximately $54.2 million. In 2004, property and equipment that was disposed of or abandoned in 2004, but not related to the sale of the Network Solutions business, resulted in a net charge of approximately $20.3 million and consisted primarily of obsolete telecommunications computer software and other equipment. We also recorded restructuring charges of $2.7 million related to non-cancelable lease costs for excess facilities, $1.1 million related to workforce reduction charges and $1.0 million for exit costs.

2002 Restructuring Plan.    In 2002, we announced plans to restructure our operations to rationalize, integrate and align resources and recorded approximately $88.6 million of restructuring and other charges. In 2003, we recorded other charges of $9.2 million related to the write-off of certain computer software. We also recorded restructuring charges of $8.7 million related to non-cancelable lease costs for excess facilities, $1.5 million related to workforce reduction charges and $1.0 million of exit costs.

52

Table of Contents

Amortization and impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets

Below is a comparison of our amortization and impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002: