Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/07/2026 1:55 pm
TL;DR: Digital credentials and passkeys solve different identity problems: passkeys replace passwords for authentication, while verifiable credentials prove attributes such as age, qualifications, or identity in a cryptographically signed form, according to Authsignal. The practical shift is to treat them as complementary controls, not competing standards, because modern identity programmes must separate login assurance from attestation assurance.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Authsignal: Digital credentials explained, how they complement passkeys in modern authentication
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams use passkeys and digital credentials together?
A: Use passkeys for routine authentication and digital credentials for proving verified attributes.
Q: Why do digital credentials matter if passkeys already improve authentication?
A: Passkeys solve phishing-resistant login, but they do not prove claims about the person behind the device.
Q: What breaks when organisations try to use one control for both login and proofing?
A: Identity assurance becomes blurry and brittle.
Practitioner guidance
- Map authentication and attestation separately Document which journeys need login assurance, which need proof of an attribute, and which need both.
- Define selective-disclosure requirements up front List the minimum claim set for each use case, then design around those claims instead of full identity documents.
- Reserve digital credentials for high-assurance steps Use digital credentials for onboarding, age checks, regulated access, and account recovery where issuer-backed proof matters.
What's in the full article
Authsignal's full guide covers the implementation detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step examples of how passkeys and digital credentials fit into the same identity journey.
- Standards comparison between W3C Verifiable Credentials and ISO mdocs for different deployment models.
- Practical examples of selective disclosure in age checks, KYC flows, and high-risk account recovery.
- Developer-oriented guidance on integrating wallet-based verification into existing authentication stacks.
👉 Read Authsignal's guide on how digital credentials complement passkeys →
Digital credentials vs passkeys: what identity teams need to plan for?
Explore further
11/07/2026 2:05 pm
Passkeys and digital credentials solve different trust problems, so treating them as substitutes creates avoidable identity design debt. Passkeys establish user authentication through possession of a cryptographic key, while digital credentials establish attested facts from a trusted issuer. Conflating those layers pushes organisations toward brittle flows where a single control is expected to prove identity, entitlement, and eligibility at once. The practical conclusion is that architecture teams should design for layered assurance, not control collapse.
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 confidence gap that still shapes identity architecture priorities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should decide when a digital credential is required instead of a passkey?
A: Identity, risk, and application owners should decide together based on the assurance level the workflow needs. The rule is simple: if the action depends on a verified attribute, use a digital credential; if it depends on proving the user is present and legitimate, use a passkey. For some journeys, both are appropriate.
👉 Read our full editorial: Digital credentials and passkeys are complementary identity layers
