No. Separate programmes usually create duplicated policy, inconsistent revocation, and unclear ownership for assurance decisions. FIDO2 and PKI should sit in one governance model, with different controls for different subjects. That gives IAM, PKI, and security teams a shared view of which identity type is being authenticated, trusted, or signed at any point.
Why This Matters for Security Teams
fido2 and PKI are often treated as separate technical domains, but the real risk is organisational drift: two programmes, two policy sets, two revocation paths, and two answers to the same assurance question. That split makes it harder to prove who can authenticate, who can sign, and who can recover access after compromise. NIST’s Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines both point toward consistent identity assurance and lifecycle control, not siloed ownership.
For NHIs and human identities alike, the issue is not whether the cryptography is modern or legacy. It is whether the organisation can make one coherent decision about trust, binding, revocation, and audit evidence across both mechanisms. That is why NHIMG’s Ultimate Guide to NHIs — Regulatory and Audit Perspectives is useful here: it frames identity governance as a lifecycle and accountability problem, not a tool-specific one. In practice, many security teams discover the cost of separation only after a certificate expires, a passkey policy conflicts with recovery requirements, or an audit asks why revocation evidence lives in two different systems.
How It Works in Practice
A unified programme does not mean FIDO2 and PKI use the same controls in every case. It means one governance model sets policy for assurance, issuance, revocation, recovery, logging, and exception handling, while the underlying mechanisms remain distinct. FIDO2 is usually strongest for phishing-resistant user authentication. PKI is usually stronger where device identity, signing, mutual TLS, or workload trust needs certificate-based assertions. The shared layer is the identity decision, not the token format.
Practically, security teams should align both programmes around a single inventory of subjects, relying parties, approval workflows, and revocation triggers. That includes:
- one policy owner for assurance levels and acceptable use
- one review path for credential issuance and recovery exceptions
- one revocation standard for lost devices, terminated users, and compromised keys
- one evidence model for audit logs and attestation records
This matters because lifecycle failures are often the real weak point. NHIMG research shows only 20% of organisations have formal offboarding and revocation processes for identities, and 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames. The same governance gap can appear when FIDO2 credentials are reset without updating PKI trust records, or when certificate enrollment is managed separately from account recovery. The NHI Lifecycle Management Guide and the Top 10 NHI Issues both reinforce the same operational lesson: identity control fails at handoff points, not only at issuance.
Where possible, integrate both into common IAM, PKI, and GRC workflows so access decisions, device trust, and revocation status are visible in one place. These controls tend to break down in highly distributed environments where certificate authorities, help desks, and workforce identity teams all approve different parts of the same authentication chain.
Common Variations and Edge Cases
Tighter consolidation often increases coordination overhead, requiring organisations to balance standardisation against specialised control requirements. That tradeoff is real: FIDO2 and PKI are not interchangeable, and some environments need separate operational tooling even when governance is shared.
Best practice is evolving for mixed estates. For example, a regulated enterprise may use FIDO2 for workforce login, PKI for managed devices, and certificate-based signing for high-assurance workflows. In those cases, the programme should remain unified at the policy level while implementation stays domain-specific. The same is true for delegated administration: a PKI team may manage certificate authorities, while IAM manages FIDO2 enrolment, but both should answer to the same identity risk framework.
There is no universal standard for exactly how to split operational ownership, so the right model depends on scale, regulatory exposure, and whether certificates are used for authentication, encryption, or signing. The main anti-pattern is letting separate teams define competing trust rules. That creates inconsistent revocation, duplicate exception handling, and audit confusion. Organisations should document which identity types are authenticated, which are trusted for device or workload binding, and which are permitted to sign business actions, then keep those decisions consistent across the full lifecycle.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 address the attack and risk surface, while NIST CSF 2.0 and NIST SP 800-63 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AA-01 | Identity assurance and lifecycle coordination fit unified FIDO2 and PKI governance. |
| NIST SP 800-63 | Digital identity guidance underpins assurance, authenticators, and recovery decisions. | |
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-01 | Unified lifecycle governance reduces fragmented ownership and revocation gaps for identities. |
Define one identity assurance policy and apply it consistently to both FIDO2 and PKI enrolment, revocation, and recovery.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 8, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
