“As the Administration advances its updated Cyber Strategy [PDF] and new Executive Order on Ushering in the Next Frontier of Quantum Innovation, GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy, Federal Identity & Cybersecurity Division has been entrusted with critical responsibilities for protecting federal identity and building access systems, including supporting the governmentwide migration to post-quantum cryptography outlined in OMB Memorandum M-26-15 [PDF].”
I haven’t gotten around to sharing this, but it’s significant.
“Marisol Cruz Cain, director of GAO’s Information Technology and Cybersecurity branch, told members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Government Operations that in May 2025, the General Services Administration (GSA) ‘issued a contract modification for Login.gov that indicated the program’s Anti-Fraud Team determined that fraudulent accounts passed the identity proofing services and that the sophistication of the attempts would increase exponentially in the future.’”
The lesson learned, which extends well beyond Login.gov: just because something has a checkbox indicating standards certification doesn’t necessarily mean that it truly conforms with the standard…every time.
Because I have talked about differentiation ad nauseum, I’m always looking for ways to see how identity/biometric and technology vendors have differentiated themselves. Yes, almost all of them overuse the word “trust,” but there is still some differentiation out there.
And I found a source that measured differentiation (or “unique positioning”) in various market segments. Using this source, I chose to concentrate on vendors who concentrate on identity verification (or “identity proofing & verification,” but close enough).
Before you read this, I want to caution you that this is NOT a thorough evaluation of The Prism Project deepfake and synthetic identity report. After some preliminaries, it focuses on one small portion of the report, concentrating on ONLY one “beam” (IDV) and ONLY one evaluation factor (differentiation).
Four facts about the report
First, the report is comprehensive. It’s not merely a list of ranked vendors, but also provides a, um, deep dive into deepfakes and synthetic identity. Even if you don’t care about the industry players, I encourage you to (a) download the report, and (b) read the 8 page section entitled “Crash Course: The Identity Arms Race.”
The crash course starts by describing digital identity and the role that biometrics plays in digital identity. It explains how banks, government agencies, and others perform identity verification; we’ll return to this later.
Then it moves on to the bad people who try to use “counterfeit identity elements” in place of “authentic identity elements.” The report discusses spoofs, presentation attacks, countermeasures such as multi-factor authentication, and…
Well, just download the report and read it yourself. If you want to understand deepfakes and synthetic identities, the “Crash Course” section will educate you quickly and thoroughly, as will the remainder of the report.
Synthetic Identity Fraud Attacks. Copyright 2025 The Prism Project.
Second, the report is comprehensive. Yeah, I just said that, but it’s also comprehensive in the number of organizations that it covers.
In a previous life I led a team that conducted competitive analysis on over 80 identity organizations.
I then subsequently encountered others who estimated that there are over 100 organizations.
This report evaluates over 200 organizations. In part this is because it includes evaluations of “relying parties” that are part of the ecosystem. (Examples include Mastercard, PayPal, and the Royal Bank of Canada who obviously don’t want to do business with deepfakes or synthetic identities.) Still, the report is amazing in its organizational coverage.
Third, the report is comprehensive. In a non-lunatic way, the report categorizes each organization into one or more “beams”:
The aforementioned relying parties
Core identity technology
Identity platforms
Integrators & solution providers
Passwordless authentication
Environmental risk signals
Infrastructure, community, culture
And last but first (for purposes of this post), identity proofing and verification.
Fourth, the report is comprehensive. Yes I’m repetitive, but each of the 200+ organizations are evaluated on a 0-6 scale based upon seven factors. In listed order, they are:
Growth & Resources
Market Presence
Proof Points
Unique Positioning, defined as “Unique Value Proposition (UVP) along with diferentiable technology and market innovation generally and within market sector.”
Business Model & Strategy
Biometrics and Document Authentication
Deepfakes & Synthetic Identity Leadership
In essence, the wealth of data makes this report look like a NIST report: there are so many individual “slices” of the prism that every one of the 200+ organizations can make a claim about how it was recognized by The Prism Project. And you’ve probably already seen some organizations make such claims, just like they do whenever a new NIST report comes out.
So let’s look at the tiny slice of the prism that is my, um, focus for this post.
Unique positioning in the IDV slice of the Prism
So, here’s the moment all of you have been waiting for. Which organizations are in the Biometric Digital Identity Deepfake and Synthetic Identity Prism?
Deepfake and Synthetic Identity Prism. Copyright 2025 The Prism Project.
Yeah, the text is small. Told you there were a lot of organizations.
For my purposes I’m going to concentrate on the “identity proofing and verification” beam in the lower left corner. But I’m going to dig deeper.
In the illustration above, organizations are nearer or farther from the center based upon their AVERAGE score for all 7 factors I listed previously. But because I want to concentrate on differentiation, I’m only going to look at the identity proofing and verification organizations with high scores (between 5 and the maximum of 6) for the “unique positioning” factor.
I’ll admit my methodology is somewhat arbitrary.
There’s probably no great, um, difference between an organization with a score of 4.9 and one with a score of 5. But you can safely state that an organization with a “unique positioning” score of 2 isn’t as differentiated from one with a score of 5.
And this may not matter. For example, iBeta (in the infrastructure – culture – community beam) has a unique positioning score of 2, because a lot of organizations do what iBeta does. But at the same time iBeta has a biometric commitment of 4.5. They don’t evaluate refrigerators.
So, here’s my list of identity proofing and verification organizations who scored between 5 and 6 for the unique positioning factor:
ID.me
iiDENTIFii
Socure
Using the report as my source, these three identity verification companies have offerings that differentiate themselves from others in the pack.
Although I’m sure the other identity verification vendors can be, um, trusted.
Normally these blog posts are addressed to Bredemarket’s PROSPECTS, the vendors who provide solutions that use biometrics or other technology. Such as identity proofing solutions.
But I’ve targeted this post for another audience, the organizations that BUY biometrics and technology solutions such as identity proofing solutions. Who knows? Perhaps they can use Bredemarket’s content-proposal-analysis services also. Later I will explain why you should use Bredemarket, and how you can use Bredemarket.
So if you are with an organization that SELLS identity proofing solutions, you can stop reading now. You don’t want to know what I am about to tell your prospects…or do you?
When you buy an identity proofing solution, you take on many responsibilities. While your vendor may be able to help, the ultimate responsibility remains with you.
Here are some questions you must answer:
What are your business goals for the project? Do you want to confirm 99.9% of all identities? Do you want to reduce fraudulent charges below $10 million? How will you measure this?
What are your technology goals for the project? What is your desired balance between false positives and false negatives? How will you measure this?
How will the project achieve legal compliance? What privacy requirements apply to your end users—even if they live outside your legal jurisdiction? Are you obtaining the required consents? Can you delete end user data upon request? Are you prepared if an Illinois lawyer sues you? Do you like prison food?
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit found the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has not exercised sufficient oversight of its digital identity-proofing program…
As many of you know, the IRS’ identity proofing vendor is ID.me. The GAO didn’t find any fault with ID.me. And frankly, it couldn’t…because according to the GAO, the IRS’ management of ID.me was found to be deficient.
“IRS was unable to show it had measurable goals and objectives for the program. IRS receives performance data from the vendor but did not show it independently identified outcomes it is seeking. IRS also has not shown documented procedures to routinely evaluate credential service providers’ performance. Without stronger performance reviews, IRS is hindered in its ability to take corrective actions as needed.
“ID.me acknowledges that its identity-proofing process involves the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. However, IRS has not documented these uses in its AI inventory or taken steps to comply with its own AI oversight policies. Doing so would provide greater assurance that taxpayers’ rights are protected and that the technologies are accurate, reliable, effective, and transparent.”
You would think the IRS had a process for this…but apparently it doesn’t.
Dead on arrival (DOA).
But I’m not the IRS!
I’ll grant that you’re not the IRS. But is your identity proofing program management better…or worse?
Do you know what questions to ask?
Let Bredemarket ask you some questions. Perhaps these can help you create relevant external and internal content (I’ve created over 22 types of content), manage an RFP proposal process, or analyze your industry, company, or competitors.
