Topic starter
11/07/2026 8:37 pm
TL;DR: Passage’s shutdown on January 16, 2026 makes migration planning a passkey governance issue, not just an implementation task, because Authsignal’s guide shows how verified email, phone, and passkey public keys map into a new authentication layer without re-enrollment, according to Authsignal. The hard part is preserving identity continuity, auditability, and authenticator state across systems, not simply moving users.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Authsignal: “How to migrate from Passage to Authsignal”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams migrate passkeys without forcing users to re-enrol?
A: Keep the public key, credential ID, device metadata, and verified state intact across the migration.
Q: Why do verified email and phone details matter in an authentication migration?
A: Verified email and phone values are not just contact details when they are used as authenticators.
Q: What breaks when authentication state is mixed with profile data?
A: Migrations become harder to govern because the destination system cannot clearly distinguish identity attributes from authentication facts.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the source of truth for each identity field Separate profile data, verified contact points, and authenticator state before migration begins.
- Preserve passkey credential bindings during export Confirm that passkey public keys, credential identifiers, device names, and verification timestamps are exported in a format the target system can import without forcing re-registration.
- Map verified email and phone as enrolled authenticators Translate verified email and phone records into explicit enrollment states in the destination system rather than treating them as plain contact fields.
Bottom line: Passkey migration is really an identity continuity problem, because users only keep seamless access when verified attributes and authenticator state survive the platform change.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/07/2026 9:06 pm
Identity continuity, not user transfer, is the real migration requirement. The article shows that passkey migration succeeds only when verified attributes, credential bindings, and user IDs remain coherent across systems. That is an identity governance problem, not a product integration problem. Practitioners should treat the migration as a continuity control over authentication state, not as a one-time data movement exercise.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should IAM teams keep social login in the identity provider during a passkey migration?
A: Yes, if the migration is meant to add passkey capability rather than replace the whole identity stack. Social connections usually remain with the primary identity provider, while the authentication layer handles passkeys and MFA. Keeping those responsibilities separate reduces the chance of breaking existing login flows during platform change.
👉 Read our full editorial: Passage migration shows why passkey identity mapping matters