WHY CISP
Move beyond portable authority.
A design thesis about how sessions should prove their authority throughout their lifecycle.
OUR POSITION
Our architectural thesis.
Industry session security is converging on one design: device-bound, dual-signed sessions with a self-healing immune response. CISP is that design — built for AI-era threats.
This is our position, not a standards-body endorsement. Device binding and proof of possession are established directions; they do not demonstrate industry adoption of the exact CISP signature and recovery profile.
A progression of design responsibilities
Credential possession → bound key possession → request context → governed recovery → inspectable evidence.
DESIGN COMPARISON
Compare mechanisms, not slogans.
| Approach | Mechanism | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Bearer session | Possession of a reusable credential | Copying can transfer authority unless constrained by additional controls. |
| OAuth DPoP | Sender-constrained tokens and request proofs | Replay handling and request-integrity limits require careful integration. |
| W3C DBSC draft | Device-bound session credentials | Does not establish endpoint health or identical per-request enforcement. |
| Proposed CISP profile | Device-bound, dual-signed requests and governed recovery | Strict signature policy, recovery authority and evidence require verification. |
Primary references: IETF RFC 9449 · W3C DBSC draft
START WITH THE SESSION
See the session lifecycle under test.
Explore the boundary. Inspect the decision. Trace the recovery.