Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:29 pm
TL;DR: Digital identity is described as electronically verifiable data for a person, object, or service, but the article argues that trust still depends on third-party proof, not just authentication, according to GlobalSign. For IAM and verification teams, that distinction is central to preventing account impersonation, weak assurance, and fragmented identity governance.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by GlobalSign: ¿Qué es la identidad digital? Una identidad digital puede describirse como cualquier forma de dato electrónico utilizado para reconocer algo, incluida una persona, un objeto o un servicio
By the numbers:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 92% of organisations expose NHIs to third parties, raising concerns about supply chain security.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams distinguish authentication from identity verification in practice?
A: Authentication proves a credential was accepted.
Q: Why do centralised identity systems create governance risk?
A: Centralised identity systems simplify policy enforcement, but they also concentrate assurance, revocation, and recovery decisions in one place.
Q: How can security teams decide what evidence is enough to verify an identity?
A: Start by classifying the identity type, the risk of the decision, and the consequences of impersonation.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate authentication from identity assurance Map every login, certificate, and verification flow to the proof that actually establishes identity, then document where authentication alone is insufficient for access decisions.
- Define assurance levels by identity type Set different evidence requirements for people, services, devices, and third-party credentials so that high-risk decisions use stronger proof than low-risk interactions.
- Harden issuer and revocation governance Review who can issue, renew, suspend, and revoke identity proof, and test whether those controls work quickly enough to prevent stale trust from being reused.
What's in the full article
GlobalSign's full article covers the conceptual detail this post intentionally leaves at a governance level:
- The article breaks down how digital identity differs from authentication in practical terms for online services and verification workflows.
- It explains the trade-off between centralised and decentralised identity models, including why blockchain is being considered as an alternative.
- The piece discusses how eIDAS 2.0 and user expectations may shape future identity verification models.
- It gives examples of the kinds of evidence used to establish trust, including certificates, government IDs, and verified email addresses.
👉 Read GlobalSign's perspective on the future of digital identity verification →
Digital identity verification: where trust breaks down for teams?
Explore further
11/07/2026 8:58 pm
Verification trust gap: The article describes a problem that identity teams face in many forms, not just consumer identity. When authentication is separated from strong proof, organisations end up trusting a signal rather than an identity. That is why assurance governance matters across human identity, service accounts, and digitally signed trust objects. Practitioners should treat the trust source, not the login event, as the real security boundary.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own revocation when identity trust changes?
A: The organisation that accepts the identity should define who can revoke it, how fast revocation takes effect, and how relying systems learn about the change. That ownership is critical because stale trust is often more dangerous than weak initial verification. Clear accountability prevents trusted identities from remaining valid after the assurance basis has changed.
👉 Read our full editorial: Digital identity verification still depends on trust and proof
