Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:48 pm
TL;DR: Faster digital signature adoption, a renewed focus on identity authentication, and expanding data protection pressure are emerging as eIDAS 2.0, PSD3, and digital identity wallets reshape trust models across the EU and beyond, according to GlobalSign’s 2023 predictions. The shift is less about new tools than about governance, assurance, and policy alignment across identity programmes.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by GlobalSign: “7 predicciones y tendencias de ciberseguridad para 2023”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams govern digital identity wallets in an existing IAM programme?
A: Treat digital identity wallets as part of the human identity control stack, not as a separate pilot.
Q: Why do eIDAS 2.0 changes matter for access governance?
A: Because trust decisions are becoming more tightly linked to regulated identity evidence.
Q: Where do digital identity programmes usually fail when trust is shared across services?
A: They fail when the organisation assumes one verified identity event can support every downstream use case.
Practitioner guidance
- Map digital trust dependencies Inventory where signatures, certificates, wallets, and authentication events influence access, approvals, or legal evidence so those flows can be governed together.
- Define wallet acceptance rules Specify which externally issued claims, attributes, and assurance levels your organisation will accept before they are used for access or transaction approval.
- Review identity lifecycle controls Check that issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation processes can support changing eIDAS 2.0 and data protection expectations without creating stale trust decisions.
Bottom line: eIDAS 2.0 is turning digital trust into an identity governance issue, not just a legal or document-signing topic.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/07/2026 9:14 pm
eIDAS 2.0 is pushing identity assurance into the centre of trust architecture. The article is not really about signatures as a productivity feature. It is about the fact that legal recognition, authentication strength, and digital trust are converging into one governance problem, and identity teams cannot treat them as separate workstreams. Practitioners should align signature trust with identity assurance policy, not document workflow convenience.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations verify before relying on self-service identity features?
A: They should verify which identity attributes are authoritative, how updates are reviewed, and whether user-managed data can alter access without governance checks. Self-service can reduce operational overhead, but without clear attribute ownership it can also weaken policy enforcement and make access decisions harder to trust.
👉 Read our full editorial: eIDAS 2.0 and digital identity authentication are reshaping trust