Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
08/06/2026 4:12 pm
TL;DR: Certificate-based authentication shifts login risk away from passwords and phishing-prone credentials toward cryptographic certificates that verify users, devices, and machines, according to Axiad. The control helps, but it also changes how IAM teams manage issuance, revocation, and authorization boundaries across human and non-human identities.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Axiad: Why is CBA Hot Right Now?
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams implement certificate-based authentication without weakening access governance?
A: Security teams should use certificate-based authentication as a stronger proofing layer, then bind it to explicit authorization and lifecycle controls.
Q: Why do certificates improve authentication but not replace IAM controls?
A: Certificates improve authentication because they prove possession of a trusted private key rather than a memorised secret.
Q: Where does certificate-based authentication fail in practice?
A: It fails when the certificate is treated as permanent access rather than a managed credential.
Practitioner guidance
- Map certificate issuance to an explicit identity owner Assign ownership for every certificate class, including user, device, server, and service credentials.
- Separate human and machine certificate policies Use different issuance, renewal, and offboarding rules for employee logins and workload identities.
- Review authorization after CBA rollout Audit the roles and permissions that become reachable once certificate-based login succeeds.
What's in the full article
Axiad's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Examples of how certificate-based authentication is deployed across desktops, email, cloud services, and servers
- The vendor's explanation of how public and private keys are matched during authentication
- Use cases for strong authenticators such as YubiKeys and SmartCards
- The source article's discussion of Microsoft Azure AD support for certificates
👉 Read Axiad's blog post on why certificate-based authentication is hot right now →
Certificate-based authentication for IAM teams: what changes now?
Explore further
08/06/2026 5:42 pm
Certificate-based authentication is an authentication control, not an identity governance programme. It answers the question of whether a subject can prove possession of a trusted credential, but it does not solve who should have that credential, how long it should live, or what happens when the subject changes. The implication is that certificate controls only reduce one slice of identity risk unless lifecycle and privilege governance are built around them.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations do when certificates are used for both users and machines?
A: Organisations should create separate lifecycle policies for people and machines. Human certificates need recovery and help-desk workflows, while machine certificates need asset binding, automated renewal, and deterministic revocation. Using one policy for both tends to blur accountability and leaves service identities exposed after changes in ownership or infrastructure.
👉 Read our full editorial: Certificate-based authentication is reshaping user identity risk
