Ownership should sit jointly with identity security, application platform teams, and the teams managing public clients. The reason is that DPoP spans token issuance, proof validation, browser or mobile key storage, and client lifecycle decisions, so no single control domain can govern it alone.
Why This Matters for Security Teams
DPoP and sender-constrained tokens are not just token-format decisions. They determine who can mint proofs, who can validate them, how client keys are protected, and how quickly trust can be revoked when a device, browser session, or mobile app is compromised. That makes ownership a cross-functional control, not a point solution. The governance problem is closely related to broader NHI lifecycle failures documented in the Top 10 NHI Issues and the Guide to the Secret Sprawl Challenge, where exposed secrets and weak lifecycle discipline turn “secure-by-design” controls into paper policies. At a governance level, sender-constrained tokens support the same least-privilege and verification goals reflected in the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, but they still need clear operational ownership. Identity security usually sets policy, application platform teams implement the token and proof plumbing, and client-owning teams manage key storage and rotation. In practice, many security teams encounter DPoP failures only after a token is replayed, rather than through intentional design reviews.Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
NHIMG Editorial Note
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 6, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 6, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
