TL;DR
A recognizable face, familiar voice, corporate email address, or executive chat account can communicate a request. None of those signals should independently authorize a high-value business action.
The safer model is an executive identity control plane that separates communication from authorization. High-value actions should require phishing-resistant authentication, transaction-specific signing, independent verification, role-separated approval, behavioral risk checks, controlled recovery, and an execution gate that refuses to act without verifiable evidence. Deepfake detection and liveness checks can strengthen the model, but they do not replace cryptographic proof of intent.
Introduction
For years, enterprises treated executive recognition as an informal security control.
A finance leader heard the CEO’s voice and recognized the cadence. An administrator joined a video call and saw the CIO on screen. A legal team received an email from the right mailbox. An assistant received a message from the executive’s established chat account. The medium carried the request, and the perceived identity of the sender supplied much of the authority.
That model was always vulnerable to account takeover, business email compromise, social engineering, and internal misuse. Generative AI has made the weakness harder to ignore because voice, video, writing style, and conversational context can now be reproduced convincingly enough to defeat ordinary human recognition.
The architecture mistake is not that employees fail to detect every deepfake. No organization should design a critical control around the assumption that people will consistently identify synthetic media under urgency, secrecy, and executive pressure.
The deeper mistake is allowing a communication channel to double as an authorization channel.
Voice, video, email, and chat should be allowed to start a workflow. They should not be allowed to complete a wire transfer, change a vendor’s bank account, reset a privileged identity, release sensitive information, approve an acquisition payment, authorize a production shutdown, or accept a legal obligation.
Those actions need a separate approval plane.
The Scenario: A Convincing Request That Should Still Fail
Consider a regional finance team preparing to close a confidential acquisition.
The CFO appears on a video call and asks the team to release funds before a market deadline. The request is followed by an email from the CFO’s corporate account. A chat message arrives from the same executive account with the destination details. The language is familiar. The urgency is plausible. The transaction aligns with a real project known to a small group of employees.
From a human perspective, the signals appear to corroborate one another.
From an architecture perspective, they may all belong to the same failure domain.
The attacker may have compromised the executive’s mailbox and chat session, generated synthetic audio and video, or used information from legitimate calendar entries and email threads to make the request operationally credible. Moving from one media channel to another does not create independent verification when the same identity provider, device session, account recovery process, or attacker controls the channels.
The correct system response is not to ask whether the video looks real enough.
The correct response is to ask whether the requested transaction has a valid, transaction-bound approval from an authorized identity using a control path that the media request cannot satisfy.
Scope and Terminology Guardrails
The executive identity control plane is a mental model, not a single product. It describes the identity, policy, approval, telemetry, recovery, and execution controls that sit between an executive request and a high-value business action.
Several terms need to remain separate.
TermWhat it establishesWhat it does not establishMedia authenticityWhether audio, video, or an image has trustworthy provenanceWhether the person has current business authority for a specific actionIdentity proofingConfidence that a digital identity was originally bound to the correct personWhether the current session is safe or the requested action is appropriateAuthenticationControl of an authenticator associated with an identityIntent to approve a specific transactionAuthorizationPermission to perform an action under policyProof that the user reviewed the exact transaction detailsLiveness verificationEvidence that a live person is present during a biometric interactionCryptographic proof of identity, authority, or transaction intentTransaction signingCryptographic binding between an identity and specific transaction dataWhether policy should permit the transaction without other controlsDual authorizationIndependent approval from two authorized identitiesSafety when both identities share the same recovery path or conflict of interestBehavioral telemetryContext about whether activity is consistent with expected patternsA substitute for explicit approval of a high-value action
This article focuses on high-value or high-consequence actions. Examples include payments, vendor-master changes, privileged-account recovery, encryption-key release, production access, regulated data export, legal commitments, emergency shutdowns, public disclosures, and agent actions that can materially change systems or financial records.
Routine communication, scheduling, document review, and low-risk informational requests do not need the same level of friction. The objective is not to make every executive interaction ceremonial. The objective is to place strong controls at boundaries where a fraudulent request could create material damage.
Assumptions Behind the Model
The control-plane model starts with several uncomfortable but realistic assumptions.
First, any media channel can be forged, compromised, replayed, or socially manipulated. This includes corporate channels. A message from the correct mailbox may prove only that someone controls the mailbox or an active session.
Second, deepfake detection will remain useful but imperfect. Detection tools can raise risk, flag anomalies, and support incident analysis. They should not become the only gate protecting a high-value action.
Third, executive urgency is not an exception to policy. Urgency is a risk signal. Requests that demand secrecy, bypass ordinary workflow, introduce a new destination, change an approval method, or pressure staff to ignore separation of duties should receive more verification, not less.
Fourth, identity recovery is part of the attack surface. A well-designed signing process can still fail when an attacker can call the help desk, present a convincing face or voice, reset the executive’s authenticator, and immediately approve transactions.
Fifth, human and non-human identities share the same enterprise action surface. Employees, service accounts, APIs, bots, and AI agents may all initiate or execute steps in a workflow. Each identity needs explicit ownership, limited authority, traceability, and a clear relationship to the human decision-maker accountable for the outcome.
Decision Criteria for High-Value Actions
Organizations need a repeatable way to decide when the separate approval plane is required. The decision should not depend only on transaction value.
Decision criterionQuestions to askStronger control triggerFinancial or operational impactWhat is the maximum loss or disruption?Material loss, service outage, legal exposure, or customer harmReversibilityCan the action be reliably undone?Irreversible transfer, public disclosure, destructive change, or low-confidence rollbackDestination changeIs money, data, privilege, or control moving to a new target?New beneficiary, new account, new device, new key, or new external partyAuthority concentrationCan one identity complete the action alone?Executive override, root access, break-glass use, or policy exceptionIdentity recovery exposureCan the approver’s credential be reset through a weak channel?Help-desk reset, SMS recovery, voice verification, or shared administrative recoveryChannel independenceIs verification truly separate from the initiating request?Same device, same mailbox, same chat identity, or callback number supplied in the requestBehavioral anomalyIs the request consistent with normal timing, location, device, workflow, and transaction pattern?New device, unusual sequence, unusual amount, unusual geography, or policy bypassDelegated automationIs a bot, API, workflow, or AI agent acting on behalf of a human?Machine-speed execution, broad tool access, persistent credentials, or unclear sponsorship
A practical control policy can then group actions into risk tiers.
Risk tierExample actionsMinimum approval postureRoutineScheduling, ordinary document routing, low-risk information requestsAuthenticated communication and standard access controlElevatedPurchase-order approval, moderate data export, non-privileged configuration changePhishing-resistant reauthentication, policy check, complete audit recordHighPayment release, vendor bank change, privileged production action, sensitive data disclosureTransaction-specific signing, independent verification, dual authorization, anomaly checksCriticalLarge acquisition transfer, root credential recovery, encryption-key release, emergency public statementHardware-bound authenticators, role-separated dual approval, transaction signing, independent callback or in-person validation, time delay where feasible, executive-impersonation incident readiness
The important design principle is that a high-risk request cannot lower its own assurance requirements. A message that says “skip the normal process” should never be capable of changing the policy that evaluates it.
The Mental Model: Communication Plane Versus Approval Plane
The diagram below shows the architectural separation. The communication plane can create a request and provide context. It cannot directly execute the business action. The approval plane independently establishes identity, evaluates policy, binds the approver to exact transaction details, and presents verifiable evidence to the execution system.
What matters most is the final execution gate. The banking platform, ERP workflow, identity system, cloud control plane, or legal-signature workflow should reject the action when valid approval evidence is missing, expired, altered, replayed, issued for another transaction, or inconsistent with policy.
The system should not accept a screenshot of an approval, a forwarded email, a recording, a meeting transcript, or a message that says “the CEO approved this.” Those are artifacts from the communication plane. They may support an investigation, but they are not execution authority.
The Components of the Executive Identity Control Plane
Phishing-Resistant Executive Authentication
Executives and other high-authority roles should use phishing-resistant authenticators for approval systems. FIDO2 and WebAuthn passkeys, hardware security keys, smart cards, and enterprise public-key credentials are common patterns because they use public-key cryptography rather than shared secrets that can be phished or replayed.
NIST’s current Digital Identity Guidelines provide a useful assurance reference. For federal systems, Authentication Assurance Level 2 requires that a phishing-resistant option be offered, while Authentication Assurance Level 3 requires phishing resistance and a non-exportable authentication key. Enterprises do not need to copy the federal model mechanically, but the distinction is useful: ordinary workforce access and critical executive authorization should not necessarily use the same credential posture.
For the highest-risk roles, device-bound or hardware-protected keys reduce the risk that a synced credential, cloud account, or help-desk process becomes the single path to executive authority.
Transaction-Specific Signing
Authentication answers whether the claimant controls an approved authenticator. Transaction signing answers whether that identity approved this specific action.
The approval should bind the signer to the significant transaction data. For a payment, that includes the amount, currency, destination, legal entity, purpose, and transaction identifier. For a privileged reset, it includes the target account, new authenticator, reason, requesting administrator, expiration, and any temporary restrictions. For a production change, it includes the system, command or change set, environment, maintenance window, rollback reference, and requested privilege.
OWASP describes this as the “what you see is what you sign” principle. The approver must see and acknowledge the material details, and the server must enforce a final authorization gate before execution.
A conceptual approval envelope might look like this:
{
“approval_id”: “APR-2026-004821”,
“transaction_id”: “PAY-2026-009144”,
“action”: “release_payment”,
“legal_entity”: “Northwind Holdings”,
“amount”: “250000.00”,
“currency”: “USD”,
“destination_fingerprint”: “BANK-ACCOUNT-SHA256-8F21A9”,
“requested_by”: “finance-workflow-017”,
“approved_by”: “executive-identity-004”,
“co_approved_by”: “treasury-controller-011”,
“authenticator_assurance”: “hardware-bound-phishing-resistant”,
“issued_at”: “2026-07-31T17:45:00Z”,
“expires_at”: “2026-07-31T18:00:00Z”,
“nonce”: “5b773bf6c73f4bfba091”,
“policy_id”: “high-value-payment-v4”,
“signature”: “detached-signature-value”
}
This is a conceptual artifact, not a complete implementation standard. In production, the organization needs a canonical representation of the signed data, protected signing keys, verified timestamps, replay protection, key lifecycle management, policy versioning, and a verifier that rejects any mismatch between the approved data and the transaction presented for execution.
The executive signs the transaction, not the email asking for the transaction.
Independent Out-of-Band Verification
Out-of-band verification is useful only when the verification path is genuinely independent from the initiating request.
Calling a number included in the suspicious email is not independent. Moving from email to a chat account linked to the same compromised identity is not independent. Asking the same person to join a video call is not independent when the threat includes real-time synthetic video.
Stronger patterns include calling a pre-registered number from the corporate directory, launching a separate approval application from a managed device, using an in-person verification process for exceptional critical actions, or requiring a second executive or controller to approve through a different identity and device path.
The FBI’s guidance for senior-official impersonation follows the same basic logic: independently identify a trusted contact route, then verify through that route rather than relying on the contact information supplied by the requester.
Dual Authorization and Separation of Duties
Dual authorization should represent two independent decisions, not two clicks in the same compromised workflow.
The two approvers should have separate identities, separate authenticators, and role separation appropriate to the transaction. A payment initiator should not also be the final approver. A vendor-bank change should be verified independently from the payment release. A privileged-account reset should not be approved solely by the same help-desk chain that can issue the replacement credential.
Thresholds should reflect impact and reversibility. A critical transfer may require an executive sponsor and a treasury controller. A root credential reset may require identity operations and security leadership. A production shutdown may require the service owner and incident commander.
Dual approval fails when both identities can be recovered through the same weak process, when one approver is merely confirming that the other gave verbal approval, or when the execution system does not verify both signatures before acting.
Liveness as a Supporting Signal
Cloud Security Alliance guidance recommends liveness verification at high-value transaction boundaries where deepfake impersonation could create material harm. This is a useful control, particularly for remote identity proofing, privileged recovery, and exceptional executive verification.
It should remain a supporting signal.
Liveness can help establish that a live person is present during a biometric interaction. It does not prove that the person controls an approved cryptographic identity, has current authority, reviewed the exact transaction, or is free from coercion. A biometric match also creates privacy, storage, accessibility, and recovery obligations that need their own governance.
The stronger pattern combines liveness with a registered device, phishing-resistant authentication, transaction-specific signing, policy evaluation, and behavioral context. Biometrics can unlock a private key locally. The approval system should verify the cryptographic result rather than treating the biometric image itself as the business authorization.
Behavioral Telemetry and Continuous Evaluation
Static authentication is not enough for an executive session that may remain active while risk changes.
The control plane should evaluate context such as device health, network location, travel status, access time, transaction size, beneficiary age, workflow sequence, recent identity recovery, unusual application navigation, and attempts to change approval methods. Behavioral telemetry can identify that a technically valid session is acting in a way that does not match the expected executive workflow.
These signals should drive step-up authentication, additional approval, delay, or denial. They should not silently create approval. Behavior can increase or decrease confidence, but high-value intent still needs an explicit, transaction-bound decision.
The same logic applies to non-human identities. A bot, API, or AI agent should have its own identity, limited scope, short-lived credentials where feasible, and telemetry that distinguishes its actions from those of the sponsoring human. An agent may prepare or initiate a transaction. It should not inherit unrestricted executive authority simply because it is operating in the executive’s workflow.
Privileged Reset and Recovery Controls
The recovery path is often the most dangerous part of the architecture.
A phishing-resistant authenticator provides limited protection when an attacker can convince the service desk to replace it using a voice call, video meeting, email, or personal knowledge. Executive and privileged identity recovery should therefore be treated as a critical transaction in its own right.
A strong recovery model includes:
Use of the current authenticator to authorize changes whenever it is still available.
Two-person approval for exceptional recovery, with role separation between identity operations and security.
Re-proofing through a controlled process that does not rely on face or voice alone.
Revocation of active sessions, refresh tokens, recovery codes, and device registrations after suspected compromise.
A cooling-off period or temporary transaction restriction after a high-authority credential reset.
Notification through previously registered channels, including channels not changed during the recovery event.
Complete evidence showing who requested, approved, executed, and reviewed the recovery.
The architecture must also prevent an attacker from changing the registered callback number, recovery email, or approval device and then immediately using the new method to authorize a critical action. Changes to the authorization method should themselves require strong authorization through the existing method or a tightly governed exception path.
Media Provenance Without Media Authority
Content Credentials and related provenance mechanisms can help show where media originated, how it was edited, and whether signed metadata is present. These capabilities are useful for public statements, executive communications, evidentiary analysis, and rapid dispute of fraudulent media.
They still should not turn media into a transaction token.
A genuinely recorded executive video can be outdated, taken out of context, replayed, or issued before the transaction details changed. Provenance can answer questions about the media object. The approval plane must answer whether an authorized identity approved the current transaction under the current policy.
Media provenance improves trust in communication. Transaction signing creates authority for execution.
The Execution Gate Is the Real Control
Many organizations already have strong authentication, well-trained staff, and multi-step approval workflows. They remain exposed when the downstream system can execute the action without validating the approval evidence.
The final execution gate should verify:
The transaction exists and is in an approvable state.
The approver identities are active and authorized for this action.
Required signatures are valid and cover the exact transaction data.
The transaction has not changed since approval.
The approval has not expired or been replayed.
The policy version and risk tier are correct.
Separation-of-duties requirements are satisfied.
Recent identity recovery, device change, or anomalous behavior has not triggered a hold.
The action is within the approved amount, destination, environment, time window, and authority ceiling.
The evidence is written to an audit trail before execution.
This gate needs to be close to the system of action. A signed approval stored in a ticket has little value when the bank, ERP, IAM platform, or cloud API can be called through another path that bypasses the ticket.
The goal is not better documentation of an unsafe process. The goal is a process that cannot complete without valid authorization evidence.
Emergency Executive-Impersonation Procedure
Organizations should rehearse an executive-impersonation procedure before the first credible incident. The runbook must protect both financial operations and the executive’s legitimate ability to communicate during the investigation.
The procedure should begin with a temporary hold on affected transactions, not a broad assumption that every executive message is fraudulent. Security should verify the executive through a registered path, preserve the original media and message metadata, and determine whether the incident is synthetic media, account compromise, device compromise, insider misuse, or a combination.
Finance and treasury need immediate instructions for contacting financial institutions when a payment may have been released. Identity teams need authority to revoke sessions, suspend recovery methods, rotate credentials, and temporarily restrict high-value approvals. Legal and communications teams need a separate plan for public misinformation or fraudulent executive statements.
Recovery should not restore full authority immediately after a credential reset. A temporary hold, reduced transaction ceiling, additional approver, and heightened monitoring can limit the blast radius while the organization validates the new identity state.
A Practical Implementation Path
Inventory the Actions, Not Just the Executives
Start by listing the business actions that currently accept executive approval through voice, video, email, chat, assistant relay, or ticket comments. Include payments, vendor changes, data releases, privileged resets, legal signatures, emergency operations, and AI-agent workflows.
For each action, identify the initiating channel, system of record, approving roles, recovery path, execution system, reversibility, and maximum impact. This exposes where recognizable identity has quietly become part of the control design.
Classify Transaction Risk and Define Evidence
Assign risk tiers using impact, reversibility, destination change, authority concentration, and recovery exposure. Define the evidence required for each tier before choosing a product.
The evidence model should specify which identity signed, what transaction data was covered, which policy applied, which co-approver participated, what risk signals were evaluated, when the approval expires, and where the execution result is recorded.
Separate Request Intake from Authorization
Modify workflows so communication channels create a pending request rather than an executable instruction. Normalize the request into a transaction record with a unique identifier and immutable significant fields.
The approver should open the trusted approval system independently, review the transaction details, and sign there. Replying “approved” to the original message should not satisfy the control.
Deploy Strong Authenticators and Protected Recovery
Prioritize executives, finance approvers, identity administrators, cloud administrators, legal signatories, and emergency-access holders for phishing-resistant authentication. Use hardware-bound authenticators for the highest-risk roles where the operating model can support them.
At the same time, redesign recovery. Strong authentication deployed on top of weak reset procedures creates a control that looks mature until it is attacked.
Bind Approval to Execution
Integrate the approval service with the system of action. The execution system should verify the signatures, policy, transaction state, expiry, and separation-of-duties evidence before performing the action.
Where direct integration is not yet possible, place an enforceable gateway or reconciliation control in front of the action. Manual copy-and-paste of an approval identifier is not equivalent to cryptographic binding and should be treated as an interim risk.
Add Telemetry, Holds, and Response Automation
Send approval, recovery, device, session, and transaction events to the security monitoring pipeline. Build alerts for new beneficiaries, post-recovery approvals, impossible travel, unusual transaction sequences, approval-method changes, repeated failed signing, and attempts to bypass the control plane.
Response automation can place a transaction on hold, revoke a session, require an additional approver, or block a recently reset identity from critical actions. Automated containment should be narrow, reversible, and tested so that the control does not create an unmanaged business outage.
Rehearse With Executives and Operators
Executives need to understand that the process protects their authority rather than questions it. Finance, identity operations, legal, service desks, and security teams need a shared script for refusing out-of-band pressure and escalating suspicious requests without creating unnecessary confrontation.
Tabletop exercises should test a deepfake video call, a compromised executive mailbox, a service-desk recovery attempt, a fraudulent vendor-bank change, and an AI agent initiating a high-value action. The exercise should verify both fraud prevention and the organization’s ability to continue legitimate operations.
Operational Ownership
The executive identity control plane crosses organizational boundaries. It will fail when every team owns only its local component.
CapabilityAccountable ownerOperational responsibilityApproval policy and risk tiersCFO, CIO, CISO, or delegated governance bodyDefine which actions require signing, dual approval, delays, or holdsExecutive authenticationIdentity and access managementIssue authenticators, enforce assurance, manage device binding and lifecycleTransaction-signing serviceApplication or platform ownerPresent significant data, create challenges, verify signatures, prevent replaySeparation of dutiesBusiness process owner and internal auditDefine independent roles, review conflicts, test approval pathsPrivileged recoveryIdentity operations and securityOperate two-person recovery, revoke sessions, apply post-recovery restrictionsBehavioral telemetrySecurity operations and fraud teamsCorrelate identity, device, transaction, and workflow anomaliesExecution enforcementBanking, ERP, IAM, cloud, or application ownerReject actions without valid approval evidenceExecutive-impersonation responseIncident commander with finance, legal, and communicationsPause transactions, verify identity, preserve evidence, contain, recover, communicate
Executives also have an operational responsibility. They need to use the strong approval path consistently, avoid asking staff to bypass it, protect their enrolled devices, report lost authenticators quickly, and support delays when the control plane identifies a legitimate anomaly.
A policy that leadership routinely overrides teaches the organization that executive pressure is stronger than technical evidence. Attackers depend on that lesson.
Common Failure Modes
Training Employees to Spot Deepfakes
Awareness matters, but human detection cannot be the final authorization control. The strongest training outcome is not “identify every fake.” It is “route every high-value request into the verified approval plane.”
Using a Secret Phrase
Shared phrases can be overheard, recorded, disclosed, socially engineered, or generated from compromised communications. They may help in a narrow emergency process, but they are not durable cryptographic identity and should not authorize a transaction.
Confirming Through Another Media Channel
A second channel is useful only when it is independently trusted. Email followed by chat, or chat followed by video, may still depend on the same compromised device, account, recovery method, or attacker.
Requiring a Video Call
A video call can support context, liveness, or human coordination. It should not substitute for transaction signing. Real-time synthetic media and compromised accounts make appearance-based approval too weak for critical actions.
Relying on Login MFA
MFA at login protects the account session. It does not prove that the user approved a specific amount, destination, privilege change, or legal commitment. High-value actions need step-up authentication and transaction binding.
Adding Dual Approval Without Recovery Separation
Two approvers do not create independent control when both accounts can be reset by the same service desk using the same weak verification process. Separation of duties must include the identity lifecycle and recovery path.
Logging Approval Without Enforcing It
A ticket, email archive, or audit log can show that someone claimed approval. It does not prevent execution through another path. The system of action must verify approval evidence before it acts.
Conclusion
Voice, video, email, and chat are still valuable business communication channels. They are fast, human, and operationally necessary. The problem begins when an organization treats recognizable media as proof of executive authority.
Synthetic media makes that weakness visible, but the architectural lesson is broader. A compromised mailbox, stolen session, coerced executive, malicious insider, weak recovery process, or over-privileged AI agent can exploit the same approval gap.
The executive identity control plane closes that gap by separating the request from the authority to act. The request enters through communication. The approval occurs through phishing-resistant identity, exact transaction review, cryptographic signing, independent authorization, behavioral checks, protected recovery, and a final execution gate.
The practical rule is simple: media can explain what someone wants. Only the verified transaction plane should authorize what the enterprise does.
This model also extends the same principle used in governed AI-agent architectures. A human-in-the-loop control is meaningful only when the human identity, approved action, authority boundary, evidence, and execution path are all explicit. Whether the requester is an executive, an assistant, a workflow, or an AI agent, high-value authority should remain verifiable, scoped, and difficult to impersonate.
External References
National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency: CSI: Contextualizing Deepfake Threats to OrganizationsCanonical URL: https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Digital-Media-Center/Document-Gallery/igphoto/2003298925/
National Security Agency and International Partners: Content Credentials: Strengthening Multimedia Integrity in the Generative AI EraCanonical URL: https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/29/2003634788/-1/-1/0/CSI-CONTENT-CREDENTIALS.PDF
Federal Bureau of Investigation: Business Email CompromiseCanonical URL: https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-and-scams/business-email-compromise
Federal Bureau of Investigation: Senior U.S. Officials Continue To Be Impersonated in Malicious Messaging CampaignCanonical URL: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/alerts/2025/senior-us-officials-continue-to-be-impersonated-in-malicious-messaging-campaign
National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST Special Publication 800-63-4Canonical URL: https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63.html
National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST Special Publication 800-63BCanonical URL: https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html
Cloud Security Alliance: Identity in the Age of AI: Rethinking Zero Trust’s First PillarCanonical URL: https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2026/05/01/identity-in-the-age-of-ai-rethinking-zero-trust-s-first-pillar
Cloud Security Alliance: Navigating Identity and Access Management (IAM)Canonical URL: https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/artifacts/navigating-identity-and-access-management-iam
OWASP Cheat Sheet Series: Transaction Authorization Cheat SheetCanonical URL: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Transaction_Authorization_Cheat_Sheet.html
FIDO Alliance: Passkeys for Payments & Transaction SecurityCanonical URL: https://fidoalliance.org/passkey-use-case/payments/
AI Due Diligence for M&A: The Technology Questions CEOs and CIOs Must Answer Before Signing
TL;DR AI due diligence should answer a harder question than whether the target uses artificial intelligence. The buyer must determine what part…
The post The Executive Identity Control Plane: Why Voice, Video, and Email Are No Longer Approval Channels appeared first on Digital Thought Disruption.