If you have signed an electronic contract before, you most likely entered a verification code: six digits that reach your email or phone, which you type into the page to complete your signature. This code is called a one-time password, because it is used once and expires after a few minutes. It may seem like a simple step, even an annoying one at times, but it is actually one of the most important ways of tying a signature to a specific person. It is the difference between a signature image that anyone could paste, and a signature that can be attributed to the holder of a particular communication channel.
In this article we explain how the verification code works in e-signatures, the difference between verification by email and by WhatsApp, its value as evidence, when it is enough on its own and when you need something stronger, and how to protect yourself and your customers from its misuse. For each point we cover why it matters, how to apply it, the common mistake, and a practical example, followed by a checklist and frequently asked questions.
First: How Does the Verification Code Work?
Why it matters: Understanding the steps helps you know exactly what the code proves and what it does not.
- The request: When the signatory reaches the signing step, the platform sends a code to the channel registered in the contract.
- Generation: A random six-digit code is generated and stored in the system in a form that cannot be read back, with a short expiry time.
- Delivery: The code arrives by email or on WhatsApp at the registered number.
- Entry: The signatory types the code into the signing page.
- Matching: If the code matches and has not expired, the signature is accepted and the event is recorded.
- Invalidation: The code is no longer valid after it is used or expires, and it is not accepted after a limited number of wrong attempts.
What it proves: That whoever completed the signing controlled that particular channel at that moment. This meets an important part of the conditions for legal weight under Egyptian Law No. 15 of 2004, namely that the signature be linked to the signatory and that the signatory control the signing means.
Common mistake: Assuming that the code proves a person's identity. It proves control of the channel. That is strong circumstantial evidence of identity if the channel belongs to its owner, but it is not identity verification in the full sense.
Second: Email or WhatsApp?
Why it matters: The choice of channel affects the speed of signing and how strongly it ties to the person. Each channel has its advantages and limits.
| Criterion | Code by email | Code by WhatsApp |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | May be delayed or land in spam | Usually arrives instantly |
| Reach | Not all individuals use email regularly | Widespread in Egypt and the region |
| Link to the person | An email can be shared or created easily | A number is usually tied to a SIM registered in its owner's name |
| Suitable for | Companies and formal correspondence | Individuals, customers and field employees |
How to choose: For contracts with companies, it is best for the code to go to the authorized person's official email. For contracts with individuals, WhatsApp is often faster and closer to the person. The sender can specify one channel or both. In Wthaiq, the verification code can be sent by email or WhatsApp, as the sender chooses, and the evidence report records the channel the code was actually sent through.
Common mistake: Sending the code to a general company mailbox seen by several employees, which weakens the link to the authorized person.
Example: A staffing company used to send signing codes for field workers' contracts by email, and many of them never received them. When it moved to WhatsApp, most signed within minutes of receiving the link.
Third: The Value of the Verification Code as Evidence
Why it matters: In a dispute, a question will be asked: what proves that this person is the one who signed? The code gives an important answer if its evidence is well preserved.
| Evidence kept | What it adds |
|---|---|
| The channel the code was sent to | Linking the signature to an email or number that belongs to the party |
| Time of sending and time of entry | Proof that entry came right after sending |
| Device and network address | Additional context on where and on what device the signing took place |
| The timestamp | The time of signing from an independent authority |
| The document hash | That the signed text has not changed |
How to strengthen it: Make sure the channel registered in the contract really is the party's, for example that the number is the one in earlier contracts or the customer's records. The more closely a channel is tied to the person, the stronger the code is as evidence.
Common mistake: Writing the party's number as dictated verbally without checking, so it is a relative's or a colleague's number, and the evidence works against you rather than for you.
Example: A tenant denied his signature on a lease renewal. The evidence report showed that the code was sent to the number registered in the original contract two years earlier, entered forty seconds later, and that he paid the new rent afterwards. The denial did not hold up.
Fourth: When Is the Verification Code Enough on Its Own?
Why it matters: The code strikes a good balance between ease and security, which is why it is enough for most everyday contracts. But there are cases where a contract needs something stronger.
| The code is usually enough | A higher level is advisable |
|---|---|
| Service and subscription contracts | Financing and loan contracts |
| Employment contracts with known employees | Contracts with parties you do not know |
| Confidentiality agreements | High-value contracts |
| Acknowledgments of internal policies | Leasing of valuable assets |
| Recurring purchase orders | Transactions where a body requires an approved certificate |
Higher levels: Identity verification by matching the signatory's face to an official document through a specialized external provider, or signing with a token that carries a certificate from a licensed certification provider. Either can be added to the code rather than replace it.
Example: A heavy equipment rental company settles for the code on small tool rental contracts, and requires identity verification when renting large equipment, because the loss in the latter is large if it turns out the renter impersonated someone else.
Fifth: Risks You Should Know About
Why it matters: No method is without weaknesses. Knowing the weaknesses helps you close them or choose a higher level when the weakness is costly.
- Sharing the code: A person may give the code to someone else voluntarily or through deception. That is why the code message should say expressly that it must not be shared with anyone.
- Email compromise: If a party's email is hacked, the attacker can receive the code.
- SIM swapping: In rare cases, a fraudster may take over a phone number with a replacement SIM.
- Shared phone: The phone may be in the hands of a family member.
How to limit them: Keep the code's lifetime short, limit the number of attempts, warn in the message not to share it, and raise the level for sensitive contracts. And watch the log: if the contract is opened from an unfamiliar country or an unexpected device, contact the party before approving the signature.
Common mistake: A sales employee asking the customer to send him the code "so he can complete the signing for him." That makes the signature actually come from the employee and spoils the entire evidence.
Sixth: The Code Message Itself
Why it matters: The message that carries the code is the first thing the signatory sees, and its wording affects their trust and their protection from deception.
What it should include: The name of the sending party, the purpose of the code, its validity period, and a warning not to share it. It can read like this:
Your verification code for signing the contract is 482 913, valid for ten minutes. Do not share this code with anyone; nobody on our team will ask you for it.
Common mistake: A message carrying only a number with no context, so the signatory takes it for a scam or gives the code to someone who calls claiming to be from the company.
Seventh: The Signatory's Experience with the Code
Why it matters: If the signatory stumbles over entering the code, signing is delayed or never completed. Some small details make a big difference.
- Make the code fields accept pasting directly, and accept both Arabic and English digits.
- Show the signatory where the code was sent, with a partially masked number, so they know where to look.
- Allow resending after a short wait if it does not arrive.
- Make the code the last step, after reading, agreeing and filling in details, so that it does not expire while they are reading.
Example: A company noticed that many signatories asked for the code to be resent. It turned out that the code was sent at the top of the page, so it expired before they finished reading the contract. Once the code became the last step, the problem almost disappeared.
Eighth: The Code in Multi-Party Contracts
Why it matters: When several parties sign in a set order, each party must receive their own code at their own time, not before it. There is no point in a third party requesting a code before their turn comes.
How to apply it: Give each party a private link and a private code, and do not send the code to a party whose turn to sign has not yet come. That way each signature has its own independent evidence in the log, and messages are not wasted at the wrong time.
Ninth: Resending and Expiry
Why it matters: Not every code arrives on time, and not every code is entered before it expires. How these cases are handled affects two things at once: the signatory's experience, and the cost of messages, especially WhatsApp messages, which carry a cost for the sending party. If resending is open without limits, anyone could request dozens of codes in minutes, and if it is completely closed, an honest signatory who did not receive the first code is stuck.
How to apply it: Put a short wait between each resend request and the next, a maximum number of requests within a set period, and a limit on wrong attempts before the code is disabled. Show the signatory a clear message telling them how long remains before they can request a new code, and which channel the code was sent to, so that they look in the right place. If the code repeatedly does not arrive, the registered channel is most likely wrong, and the solution is for the signatory to contact the contract's sender to correct it and resend, rather than to keep requesting codes.
Common mistake: The signatory requests a new code and then enters the old code that arrived late, and it is rejected because the new code invalidated it. The right approach is for the page to remind them that only the most recent code they received is valid.
Example: A company noticed that some numbers were requesting many codes in a short time without completing any signature. It set a one-minute wait between requests and a cap on requests per half hour, and message costs fell noticeably without affecting genuine signatories, because most of them enter the first code within seconds of its arrival.
Tenth: The Verification Code and Two-Step Verification for the Account
Why it matters: Some people confuse the verification code requested when signing a contract with the two-step verification code requested when logging in to an account. The difference matters: the first ties a specific signature to the signatory's channel, and the second protects the account itself from unauthorized access.
How to benefit from both: If you send contracts from an account on a signing platform, enable two-step verification for your account and your team's accounts, because whoever gets into your account can send contracts in your company's name. Signatories, on the other hand, need only the verification code at signing, without needing an account at all. That way you protect the sending side and the signing side together.
Checklist for Using the Verification Code
- Does the channel registered in the contract really belong to the party?
- Have you chosen the right channel: email or WhatsApp?
- Is the code's lifetime short and the number of attempts limited?
- Does the message warn against sharing the code?
- Does the evidence report record the channel, and the time of sending and entry?
- Does the contract need a higher level than the code?
Frequently Asked Questions
Is signing with a verification code legally recognized?
It falls within the broad definition of an electronic signature in Law No. 15 of 2004, and its strength depends on the accompanying evidence.
Why didn't the code reach my email?
Check the spam folder, confirm the address is correct, then request a resend after the wait.
Can I sign if my phone number has changed?
Contact the contract's sender to correct the number and resend, since the code is sent only to the registered channel.
Is the code enough for a large contract?
For large contracts it is advisable to add identity verification or signing with a token.
Does anyone see the code I entered?
On good platforms the code is stored in a form that cannot be read back, and it is invalidated after use.
As a signatory, can I choose the channel myself?
In most cases the contract's sender sets the channel when sending, because he knows the party's approved channel from his records. If you prefer another channel, or the registered channel no longer belongs to you, contact the sender to amend it and resend, rather than trying to sign from a channel you do not control, since that weakens the evidence of your own signature.
Conclusion
The verification code is a small step with a big effect: it ties the signature to a communication channel that belongs to the signatory, gives important evidence if the signature is denied, and is enough for most everyday contracts. Choose the right channel, make sure the channel is correct, and raise the level when the risk rises. If you want verification codes to reach your contracts' parties by email or WhatsApp with a complete record, try Wthaiq on your next contract. A code that reaches the right person at the right time is the simplest and most widespread evidence, and none of its details should be taken lightly.
This article is for general awareness and does not constitute legal advice.