Fritsch, LotharRoßnagel, HeikoSchunck, Christian H.Günther, Jochen2023-06-052023-06-052023978-3-88579-729-6https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/41687A National Digital Identity Framework should be designed in a proactive manner, should focus on a resilience-oriented approach, and should be aimed at limiting the risks that may originate from identity data management [IT18]. What is the preparedness of digital identity providers for recovery from compromise that affects large numbers of identities? Failures or attacks may destroy authenticators, data or trust chains that are the foundations of large identity ecosystems. The re-issuance of digital identities, of authenticators or the re-enrollment of the user base should get planned as contingency measures. Important parameters will be recovery time, complexity of re-registering subjects, distribution of effort between certification authorities, registrars and relying parties, and the availability of alternative technologies and staff resources. The article will, based on a review of standards and requirements documents, present evidence for a shortage of recovery readiness that endangers relying parties and identity ecosystems. From a review of standards and practice, we extract recovery procedures as far as they are planned for.endigital identityidentity managementcybersecuritydisaster recoveryre-issuanceidentity lifecycleText/Conference Paper10.18420/OID2023_131617-5468