Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 10:32 pm
TL;DR: Digital identity wallets are emerging as a secure authentication pattern, but integration across wallet ecosystems and standards remains complex, according to OneSpan. The practical issue is not wallet support alone, but whether existing IAM and authentication architectures can absorb multi-wallet issuance and verification without creating new friction or governance gaps.
NHIMG editorial — what this means for NHI practitioners
Questions worth separating out
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 digital identity wallets complicate authentication governance?
A: They complicate governance because the trust chain becomes more variable.
Q: What breaks when one integration layer supports multiple wallet ecosystems?
A: What breaks first is visibility into control boundaries.
Practitioner guidance
- Map wallet ecosystems to assurance levels Document which wallet standards, issuers, and verification methods each business process will accept, and tie them to explicit assurance thresholds for enrolment and authentication.
- Separate issuance controls from verification policy Assign ownership for proofing, credential issuance, and runtime verification to different control points so that policy changes do not silently alter trust decisions.
- Review dependency concentration in the integration layer Assess whether a single connector creates a control plane dependency that needs resilience, monitoring, and recovery planning comparable to an identity broker.
What's in the full announcement
OneSpan's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Specific enrollment and authentication workflow support across multiple digital wallet ecosystems.
- Implementation-oriented details on how the connector fits existing IAM and authentication infrastructure.
- Practical setup considerations for expanding digital identity adoption without additional integration complexity.
- Product-focused context on early access to digital identity credential capabilities.
👉 Read OneSpan's article on digital identity wallet integration and early access →
Digital identity wallets: what the integration gap means for IAM?
Explore further
25/06/2026 11:06 pm
Digital identity wallet integration is an interoperability problem before it is an adoption problem. The article’s central claim is that one integration can support multiple wallet ecosystems, but that only shifts the work into policy mapping, issuer trust, and verification consistency. IAM teams should read this as a governance signal: adoption scales only when the trust model scales with it.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 88.5% of organisations acknowledge that their non-human IAM practices lag behind or are merely on par with their human identity and access management efforts, according to The 2024 Non-Human Identity Security Report.
- Only 19.6% of security professionals express strong confidence in their organisation's ability to securely manage non-human workload identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own wallet credential lifecycle decisions?
A: Ownership should sit with the same IAM and identity governance functions that manage other high-assurance authentication changes. Wallet credentials still need defined rules for enrolment, suspension, revocation, and exception approval. If lifecycle decisions are left implicit, the organisation creates a new authentication path that is hard to audit and harder to retire.
👉 Read our full editorial: Digital identity wallet integration is reshaping authentication access
