Understanding Microsoft Entra Verified ID for real-world identity engineering

Picture a familiar Windows/AD problem, just wearing 2026 clothes.

You hire a contractor in a different country. They need access to a handful of internal apps, maybe a helpdesk portal, maybe a privileged request workflow. You don’t want to create a full AD account yet. You don’t want a permanent Entra B2B guest either. HR wants “proof of employment” and “proof of training completion.” Security wants phishing-resistant assurance, but also wants to minimize what data is shared. Operations wants a flow that can be audited, revoked, and automated.

If you squint, this is the same story we’ve lived for decades with smart cards, AD CS, federation, and “show me your badge.” The twist is that the “badge” is now a cryptographically signed credential stored in the user’s wallet, presented with explicit user consent, and verified through open standards and DNS-based trust instead of your domain boundary.

That is the niche Microsoft Entra Verified ID is trying to occupy.

Simply,

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is Microsoft’s managed verifiable credentials platform that lets an organization issue cryptographically signed digital credentials to users’ wallets and verify those credentials later, using decentralized identifiers (DIDs), open credential standards, and domain-based trust binding.

That definition is accurate, but it hides the part that matters to Windows/AD teams:

Verified ID is not “another way to sign in.” It’s a way to carry an attestation (“this person is an employee”, “this caller passed Face Check”, “this device is managed”, “this contractor has safety training”) across trust boundaries, without giving the verifier online access to your directory or requiring the subject to have an account in the verifier’s tenant.

Why this matters now for Windows, AD, and identity security

Verified ID is timely because it addresses three pressures that are colliding in enterprise identity:

1. Trust boundaries keep dissolving. AD forests and Entra tenants are no longer the “container” for every identity relationship. Partners, contractors, gig workers, and customers create constant cross-boundary authentication needs.
2. Helpdesk and onboarding fraud is a top-tier attack path. Attackers don’t always break Kerberos; they convince humans to reset MFA, enroll devices, or add guests. Microsoft is explicitly positioning Verified ID (including Face Check) for high-assurance identity verification workflows like helpdesk caller validation.
3. Zero Trust pushes you toward “prove a property, not a person.” Many access decisions don’t require the verifier to learn a full identity profile. They need a smaller property: employment status, region eligibility, training completion, age bracket, entitlement level.

Classic federation (AD FS / SAML / OIDC) tends to over-share by default because it’s optimized for login claims. Verifiable credentials are optimized for portable proofs.

If you already work in hybrid identity, it helps to mentally place Verified ID alongside familiar building blocks:

• AD DS, Kerberos, NTLM: inside-domain authentication.
• AD FS / Entra OIDC: cross-app sign-in tokens.
• AD CS + smart cards: strong credential issuance anchored in PKI.
• Verified ID: attestations that can be presented outside your tenant and verified with open standards + DNS trust binding.

For Entra fundamentals and tenant-side identity management context, this internal primer is a useful refresher. Manage identities in MS Entra ID

What practitioners think Verified ID is—and what that misses

Most architects describe Verified ID as “digital credentials in Authenticator” or “decentralized identity.” That’s directionally correct, but incomplete.

A better practical description is:

• An issuer, your organization, defines a credential type – schema + display + issuance rules.
• The issuer’s tenant has a DID that represents the issuer and publishes a DID document via did:web (DNS + HTTPS).
• A user stores the credential in a wallet. Note: Microsoft Authenticator is the default wallet in Microsoft’s ecosystem
• A verifier app asks the user to present a credential through a standards-based request.
• The Verified ID service validates signatures, trust bindings, and (optionally) status/revocation, then returns results to the verifier via callbacks.

What the “digital badge” framing misses is the core engineering value:

Verified ID separates identity proof from online directory reachability

With SAML/OIDC, the verifier essentially says: “I’ll trust your identity provider, but I need it online during the transaction.”

With verifiable credentials, the verifier says: “I trust that your organization signed this credential, and I can validate it without calling your directory.”

That’s a major shift in trust shape. It’s closer to how we’ve always treated signed documents, certificates, or smart cards—except optimized for web and mobile UX.

First principles and design assumptions that drive real behavior

If you want to predict how Verified ID behaves in production, you need its foundational assumptions:

1) Credentials are tamper-evident objects, not sessions

A verifiable credential is designed to be stored and replayed (within validity constraints), not minted per-login like an access token. The W3C Verifiable Credentials model is explicitly issuer–holder–verifier, with cryptographic integrity and ecosystem-level privacy considerations.

Operational implication: you must think about issuance lifecycle, revocation, and expiry as first-class controls, not afterthoughts.

2) The trust anchor is the issuer’s DID + domain binding, not your tenant boundary

Entra Verified ID uses did:web as its trust system and removed did:ion selection in late 2023.

did:web is intentionally “boring”: you prove control by serving DID configuration over HTTPS on a domain you control. The trust link is enforced using the Well-Known DID Configuration mechanism – W3C CCG.

Operational implication: DNS + HTTPS posture becomes part of identity assurance. Misconfigured TLS, redirects, or brittle domain hosting can show up as “risky” wallet warnings or failed verification.

3) The wallet is part of your security boundary

In Microsoft’s flow, Microsoft Authenticator (or a wallet built using Microsoft’s wallet libraries) mediates user consent, stores the credential, and signs presentation responses.

Operational implication: device compromise, device loss, and wallet backup/recovery become identity topics—not just endpoint topics.

4) Microsoft does not store your credential contents

This is a subtle but crucial point: the issuance plan docs and revocation guidance emphasize that Verified ID doesn’t store VC data values.

Operational implication: your verifier cannot “query Microsoft for what claims exist.” Your app must get the needed claims through presentation, and your revocation strategy must be designed up front.

5) The platform is standards-aligned, but still has Microsoft-shaped ergonomics

Verified ID supports a set of open standards including W3C VC data model, OpenID for Verifiable Credentials (OID4VC), Presentation Exchange, and common JOSE/JWS mechanisms.

Operational implication: interoperability is realistic, but you still need to validate what’s supported by the specific wallet(s) you rely on, and how Microsoft’s Request Service API maps to those standards.

Core components: the irreducible building blocks

When you strip away branding, portals, and samples, Entra Verified ID reduces to these components:

• Issuer: Your tenant + your issuance app. You define credential types/contracts and decide what claims are issued.
• Verifier / relying party: Your app that requests presentation and makes an access decision.
• Holder: The user and their wallet.
• Trust system: did:web resolution + well-known DID configuration hosted on your domain.
• Keys: Stored in Azure Key Vault; used to sign credentials and messages. Advanced setup currently requires Key Vault “Access Policy” permission model (not RBAC) due to a limitation.
• APIs:
  • Request Service REST API for issuance/presentation requests (what your apps call).
  • Admin API for onboarding/configuration/contracts/revocation management.
  • Callbacks: Your publicly reachable endpoints that receive events and final results (and have strict header/format constraints).

Now let’s go deep, because the details here are where most deployments succeed or stall.

---

The deep dive that actually makes this deployable

This section is intentionally implementation-first. It’s the part you should be able to use to build a production pilot that won’t embarrass you in a security review.

Step 0: choose a use case that matches the technology’s strengths

Verified ID shines when you need one or more of these properties:

• Cross-tenant / cross-org proof without creating accounts everywhere.
• High-assurance identity verification (helpdesk, onboarding, step-up checks).
• Data minimization (prove an attribute instead of sharing a profile).
• Portable proof that can be reused across relying parties.

Good first pilots:

• Helpdesk “Get Verified” flow before performing sensitive actions – reset MFA, add device, change phone.
• Employee/contractor proof for partner portals – discounts, facilities, supplier portals.
• Entitlement gating. E.g., require a credential before granting access package.

Bad first pilots:

• Replacing normal SSO for all internal apps. That’s not what this is optimized for.
• Anything that requires constant real-time directory state unless you design revocation/expiry carefully.

Step 1: pick your onboarding mode (Quick setup vs Advanced)

Microsoft supports:

• Quick setup  – one-click onboarding in the Entra admin center
• Advanced setup – manual Key Vault + DID registration + domain verification

Use Quick setup when:

• You’re doing a pilot.
• You can accept Microsoft-managed defaults.
• You want to get to first issuance quickly.

Use Advanced setup when:

• You need explicit Key Vault placement and governance.
• You need controlled DNS/domain binding workflows.
• You’re operating under stricter enterprise change control.

One operational detail that surprises people: Advanced setup currently requires Key Vault Access Policy permission model (not Azure RBAC) due to a documented limitation.

Step 2: treat domain binding like PKI hygiene, not a “portal checkbox”

With did:web, your DID is tied to your domain and HTTPS posture. Microsoft’s setup guidance explicitly warns:

• Use HTTPS
• The domain cannot be a redirect
• Wallets use this domain binding to decide whether to display a “verified” indicator.

If you skip domain verification during development, Microsoft’s own tutorial shows you’ll get a risky/unsafe warning in the wallet UX.

Production-grade rule of thumb:

• Put your DID hosting under a stable subdomain (example pattern: https://did.company.com).
• Make TLS and content hosting part of your identity change process (similar to certificate rollover discipline).

Step 3: decide your credential type, claims, and revocation strategy up front

This is where a lot of teams fail later.

Key facts:

• Verified ID doesn’t store VC values.
• Revocation requires indexing exactly one claim so the credential can be found later; that claim is salted + hashed and stored, not stored in clear.

This forces an architectural choice:

Option A: short-lived credentials (operationally simple)

• Expire quickly (hours/days)
• Re-issue often
• Lower revocation burden, but higher issuance volume

Option B: long-lived credentials (better UX, more lifecycle complexity)

• Expire slowly – takes months.
• Must design robust revocation and re-issuance workflows
• Must pick an indexed claim that remains stable (employee ID, immutable GUID)

Many Windows/AD teams naturally prefer “cert-like” long-lived credentials. That can work, but only if you also bring “CRL discipline” into the design.

Step 4: wire up the Request Service API correctly

From an app perspective, the center of gravity is the Request Service REST API.

Two endpoints are the practical starting point:

• Create issuance request
  POST https://verifiedid.did.msidentity.com/v1.0/verifiableCredentials/createIssuanceRequest
• Create presentation request
  – the companion endpoint for verification

To call the API, your app needs:

• An app registration
• An access token acquired via OAuth 2.0 client credentials flow.
  • Microsoft explicitly recommends MSAL in its starter doc.
• The correct scope for the Request Service API
  • Microsoft’s issuance spec shows .default on the service scope.

A minimal mental model for the request payloads:

• You send authority (your issuer/verifier DID)
• You send callback URL + correlation state
• You describe the requested credential/claims/contract
• You receive back a QR-code URL and track lifecycle via callback events

Important callback constraints:

• The callback URL must be reachable on the public internet, or you’ll get a callback URL unreadable error.
• Callback headers are constrained
  • Microsoft documents only certain headers like api-key or Authorization are supported; others can error.

In practice, many pilots use ngrok for development. Microsoft’s tutorial explicitly uses ngrok and points to a FAQ if you can’t use it. Production should use a real internet-facing endpoint with strict ingress controls (more on hardening below).

Step 5: implement issuer + verifier flows with a repeatable validation plan

A robust pilot should include both:

• Issuance of a credential (issuer flow)
• Verification of that credential (verifier flow)

Microsoft provides sample apps and a structured tutorial that includes:

• Creating a custom credential type in the portal
• Gathering tenant details (authority DID, manifest URL)
• Configuring a sample application (Endpoint, scope, authority, credential type/manifest)

A pragmatic approach (even if you won’t use the sample code long-term):

1. Run the sample end-to-end once.
2. Confirm your DNS/domain binding removes the “risky site” wallet warning.
3. Reimplement the flow in your real app using the same API calls.

Step 6: harden it from “works” to “production-grade”

This is the part most blog posts skip.

Network hardening for callbacks

Your callback endpoint becomes a high-value target because it receives verification outcomes. Harden it as if it were an authentication endpoint:

• Require correlation state validation (anti-replay).
• Reject unexpected event ordering.
• Require a strong shared secret or authorization header that matches your issuance/presentation request configuration (within supported header limits).
• Put the endpoint behind a WAF or API gateway with allowlists/rate limits.

Microsoft explicitly calls out network hardening for Request Service API callbacks in its evolving guidance.

Key management and crypto posture

Verified ID supports multiple signature algorithms and has introduced NIST P-256 support (relevant for regulated environments).
It also provides instructions for upgrading signing keys to become FIPS compliant.

If your security team cares about FIPS/NIST alignment, treat this as a first-class checklist item—not a late-stage scramble.

Logging reality check

Verified ID audit logging currently focuses on management changes via the Admin API, not every issuance/presentation event.

So you must instrument your own issuer/verifier apps for:

• Who requested issuance?
• Who presented which credential type?
• What decision was made?
• What was the business context?

This is similar to how AD FS apps must log the authorization decision even if the federation service logs token issuance.

Performance and scaling intuition

Issuance involves Key Vault signing operations. Microsoft’s issuance planning doc notes multiple Key Vault signing operations per issuance transaction and recommends understanding these dependencies.

That matters at scale:

• If Key Vault is throttled or misconfigured, issuance slows.
• Regional placement matters
  • Microsoft lists supported Key Vault regions and recommends co-locating with your tenant/service region.

Failure modes and rollback strategies you should plan for

Here are the big ones, and how to survive them:

• Domain binding misconfigured → Wallet warns users / reduces trust
  Fix: stable HTTPS domain, no redirects, complete did:web registration and domain verification.
• Callback not reachable → Request creation fails or flow stalls
  Fix: public endpoint, tested DNS, firewall rules, supported headers only.
• Key Vault permission model mismatch → Setup blocks
  Fix: ensure Access Policy model is used for the Key Vault in advanced setup scenarios.
• Admin API token/scope confusion → onboarding/automation fails
  Community threads show scope/token pitfalls (e.g., “token contains no wids” style issues) and Microsoft points back to correct API guidance.
• Need to revoke credentials but no indexed claim exists
  Fix: design indexed claim during credential definition. You cannot retrofit revocation cleanly if you skipped indexing.

Rollback strategy (keep it boring):

• Start with one credential type.
• Keep expiry short during the pilot.
• If you need to stop, disable the relying party flow and stop accepting presentations while leaving existing credentials to expire naturally.
• For severe incidents, revoke credentials using the indexed claim design.

A practical reference architecture (Windows/AD-friendly)

Here’s a deployment pattern that tends to pass security reviews because it mirrors established identity boundaries:

            +------------------------------+
            |   Entra tenant (Issuer)      |
            |  - Verified ID configured    |
            |  - did:web:did.company.com   |
            |  - Key Vault keys            |
            +---------------+--------------+
                            |
   HR / AD / Entra claims   |  Issuance Request (API)
                            v
                 +----------+----------+
                 | Issuer Web App      |
                 | - AuthN user        |
                 | - createIssuanceReq |
                 | - callback endpoint |
                 +----------+----------+
                            |
                            | QR / deep link
                            v
                 +----------+----------+
                 | Wallet (Authenticator|
                 | or custom wallet lib)|
                 +----------+----------+
                            |
                            | Presentation
                            v
                 +----------+----------+
                 | Verifier Web App    |
                 | - createPresentReq  |
                 | - business decision |
                 | - logs + risk gates |
                 +----------+----------+
                            |
                            v
                 +---------------------+
                 | App / Helpdesk / PAM|
                 +---------------------+

If you’re used to AD FS: think of Issuer Web App + Verified ID service as the token service for credentials, and the Wallet as the user-mediated “token holder” that can present proofs to verifiers without calling your directory each time.

---

Further drill-down:

Below are the kinds of questions that reveal whether someone understands Verified ID as an engineering system, not a marketing concept.

1) If Microsoft doesn’t store credential values, what exactly can the verifier rely on?

The verifier relies on cryptographic proofs: the credential is signed by the issuer’s keys, and verification checks validate integrity, issuer identity (DID), and trust binding (domain linkage). Your app then decides based on the claims presented.

2) What breaks if your did:web domain gets misconfigured or expires?

Trust breaks. Wallets may show warnings – “risky site” patterns in Microsoft’s own tutorial), and verifiers may reject requests because domain binding can’t be validated. Treat the did:web domain like a PKI root endpoint.

3) Why is Key Vault in the architecture at all?

Because signing keys must be protected and usable for signing operations. Verified ID stores keys in Azure Key Vault in advanced setups and uses them to sign credentials and related messages.

4) What’s the practical limit on “how big” a credential request can be?

Microsoft documents size limits for issuance requests, photo claims, callback messages, and DID documents; these constraints force you to keep payloads lean.

5) How do you revoke a credential if Microsoft doesn’t store it?

You must design the credential to index one claim (salted + hashed) so it can be searched and revoked later. Without an indexed claim, you can’t revoke.

6) What’s the failure mode if your callback endpoint is not reachable?

The Request Service API can throw callback URL unreadable errors or your flow stalls because lifecycle events can’t be delivered. Microsoft explicitly requires the callback URI to be reachable.

7) Why is “callback hardening” a security topic?

Because the callback carries verification outcomes. If an attacker can spoof or replay callback events, they can trick your app into granting access. You must validate correlation state, authorize callbacks, and apply network controls.

8) How is this different from just using Entra ID Conditional Access + MFA?

Conditional Access governs sign-in to your apps inside the Entra authentication plane. Verified ID governs presentation of a portable proof, often for scenarios where sign-in alone doesn’t prove the property you care about – employment verification, helpdesk caller assurance, partner portals, entitlement proofs.

9) What happens if the user loses their phone?

This becomes a wallet recovery problem. Microsoft’s FAQ discusses recovery approaches and trade-offs: There isn’t a single magic answer; you design recovery like you design credential recovery.

10) Is Verified ID “self-sovereign identity”?

It’s better described as “decentralized credential exchange using standards.” The issuer still controls issuance policies and trust decisions, but the holder controls presentation and sharing. That maps to the DID/VC model rather than pure “no central services” ideology.

11) What’s the trust anchor for did:web, and how is it verified?

The trust anchor is control over the web origin (domain + HTTPS). The well-known DID configuration spec defines how to prove the DID–domain relationship.

12) How do you avoid turning credentials into long-lived bearer tokens?

Use short expiry where possible, require Face Check or step-up where needed, and design revocation. Avoid embedding overly powerful entitlements into long-lived credentials unless you can revoke quickly.

13) Does Verified ID support open standards like OpenID4VC and Presentation Exchange?

Microsoft’s supported standards documentation lists OpenID for Verifiable Credentials and Presentation Exchange among supported specs.

14) What’s your “upper bound” for how many relying parties can use one verifier DID?

Microsoft’s planning guidance indicates a tenant has a verifier DID, and multiple relying parties can share it. Practically, the bound becomes operational: logging separation, policy separation, and how you partition apps and callback endpoints.

15) Why might you not want Verified ID for an internal-only app?

If the app already lives fully inside your Entra trust boundary and needs real-time directory authorization, classic sign-in tokens + Conditional Access + device compliance may be simpler and more auditable. Use Verified ID when portability or higher-assurance verification is the actual need.

---

Inherent tendencies and systemic risks

Verified ID has strong value, but it also has built-in tendencies you should plan around.

1) DNS/HTTPS becomes a security dependency

In AD, DNS is already critical, but this is different: did:web makes your public domain hosting part of the trust fabric. Outages or misconfigurations become identity-impacting.

Mitigation:

• Treat did:web hosting like an identity Tier-0-ish dependency.
• Separate it from marketing site infra.
• Monitor availability and certificate expiry aggressively.

2) You can accidentally create “shadow authorization”

If you embed “role” or “entitlement” claims in a credential and treat it as authoritative for months, you may bypass your normal access governance (PIM, access reviews, group-based controls).

Mitigation:

• Put stable properties in credentials (employment status, department, training completion date).
• Keep dynamic entitlements in normal policy systems or short-lived proofs.
• Use revocation/expiry discipline.

3) Logging and incident response shift to your apps

Because issuance/presentation events are not guaranteed to be fully captured in Entra audit logs (management changes are logged; issuance/presentation aren’t fully reported), your incident response depends on your app telemetry.

Mitigation:

• Log every issuance and verification decision with correlation IDs.
• Store enough metadata to reconstruct what happened without storing sensitive claims unnecessarily.

4) Wallet security becomes part of IAM

Device loss, malware, and backup/recovery choices directly affect identity assurance. Microsoft explicitly treats wallet apps as the holder component.

Mitigation:

• Require strong device security posture for high-risk credentials.
• Use step-up (Face Check) for sensitive operations.

---

Common misunderstandings and sharp corrections

Misunderstanding: “Verified ID replaces Entra ID sign-in”

Appeal: one tool to rule them all.

Reality: Verified ID augments identity scenarios; it does not replace core authentication flows. Microsoft’s architecture docs frame it as augmenting scenarios like onboarding and proof-based access across trust boundaries.

Rule of thumb: Use Verified ID when you need a portable attestation. Use Entra sign-in when you need an authenticated session.

Misunderstanding: “If I issued it once, it’s always true”

Appeal: feels like a badge.

Reality: employment status changes, contracts end, privileges change. Revocation and expiry are how you keep truth aligned.

Rule of thumb: If the claim can change, it must expire fast or be revocable.

Misunderstanding: “Revocation is automatic”

Reality: you must index a claim; otherwise you can’t revoke.

Rule of thumb: No indexed claim, no revocation. Decide indexing before you ship.

Misunderstanding: “Callbacks are just plumbing”

Reality: callbacks are security-critical and have strict constraints (reachable endpoint, supported headers).

Rule of thumb: Treat callback endpoints like auth endpoints: authenticate, validate, rate-limit.

Expert essentials checklist (pasteable)

• did:web domain uses HTTPS, no redirects, monitored certificate lifecycle
• Key Vault configured per setup mode; Access Policy model used if doing advanced setup
• Credential types have a defined expiry policy aligned to claim volatility
• Revocation design exists: exactly one indexed claim chosen and documented
• Issuer/verifier apps log every issuance and verification decision (don’t rely on audit logs alone)
• Callback endpoints are internet reachable, hardened, and use supported headers only
• Wallet/device loss recovery is defined for high-assurance credentials
• Security review covers crypto posture (P-256/FIPS requirements if applicable)

---

Where Verified ID fits in your architecture, and where it doesn’t

High-value applications (especially for Windows/AD-heavy orgs)

1. Helpdesk identity verification before sensitive actions
   Combine a presented “Verified Employee” credential with Face Check for higher assurance. Microsoft explicitly documents helpdesk verification use cases.
2. Partner access without tenant sprawl
   Instead of creating accounts everywhere, require a credential presentation before granting limited access. This can complement Entra external identities patterns.
3. Onboarding workflows
   Issue a credential after HR validation, then use it as a prerequisite for downstream access package or device enrollment flows. Microsoft notes Entitlement Management integration scenarios.
4. Verified employment assertions for external ecosystems
   Microsoft has published guidance around “place of work verification” (e.g., LinkedIn).

Anti-patterns

• Trying to use Verified ID as a universal replacement for MFA
• Embedding high-privilege access grants into long-lived credentials
• Running without a revocation/expiry design
• Relying on portal-only setup with no IaC or repeatable automation for enterprise rollouts (use Admin API where appropriate, with correct permissions/scopes).

Practical alternatives and complements

Verified ID is not the only “passwordless / strong auth” control in the Microsoft ecosystem. For classic sign-in hardening, Windows Hello for Business remains a key approach (key-based auth replacing passwords) – MS Hello

For hybrid identity hygiene, ensure your Entra Connect/Cloud Sync practices are solid—especially if credential issuance is based on directory claims that originate in AD DS. Filtering and synchronization decisions can become security decisions – azure AD connect advanced filtering for synchronization

Forward look: what changes over the next 3–7 years

A few trends are likely:

• Standards converge, wallets diversify. OpenID4VC and Presentation Exchange are becoming the lingua franca for wallet-to-verifier interactions. Microsoft’s standards posture suggests the ecosystem is moving toward interoperability.
• Identity verification becomes a core identity control, not a niche. Face Check GA and helpdesk-focused guidance signal that “prove you’re really you” is becoming a first-class IAM workflow.
• Enterprise demands for regulated crypto increase. P-256 and FIPS-oriented key guidance is a hint of where customer requirements are going.

How to hedge today:

• Design credential types to be portable and standards-aligned.
• Avoid hard dependencies on one wallet UX unless you control the wallet (wallet libraries exist for that reason).
• Keep claims minimal and stable; treat authorization as a separate layer.

---

Key takeaways and what to do next

Entra Verified ID is easiest to understand when you stop thinking “login” and start thinking “portable, signed attestations.”

It can materially reduce onboarding friction and helpdesk fraud when implemented with strong lifecycle controls. It can also create shadow authorization if you treat credentials like permanent access grants.

If you want to build momentum from here:

• Run a pilot with one credential type (employee or contractor proof).
• Implement issuer + verifier flows with hardened callbacks.
• Decide expiry/revocation strategy before production.

For related deep dives on windows-active-directory.com that pair well with this topic:

• Hybrid identity and directory synchronization hygiene – Entra Connect filtering
• Passwordless authentication fundamentals – Windows Hello for Business
• Broader Entra identity management capabilities – users, groups, governance
• A quick overview-style primer on Entra Verified ID to share with stakeholders

And if your day-to-day reality is “operate AD + Entra cleanly at scale,” ManageEngine’s resources can complement Verified ID work:

• ADManager Plus guidance for Azure AD (Entra ID) integration and operational workflows
• ManageEngine’s verifiable digital badges approach (useful as a mental model for credential portability, even if not the same platform) – useracademy.manageengine.com