Organisations should prioritise passkeys when the main problem is user friction, phishing exposure, or the operational burden of issuing and replacing physical authenticators. Passkeys are most valuable when the business needs stronger authentication without the deployability pain that comes with tokens or the password reset overhead that traditional login systems create.
Why passkeys deserve priority over older second factors
Passkeys are worth prioritising when the organisation wants to reduce phishing risk and remove the friction that comes with passwords plus a second step. They also cut operational work because there is no separate token to issue, track, replace, or synchronise across devices. That makes them especially attractive where authentication volume is high and user support load is already a constraint.
A passkey changes the authentication model rather than just adding another checkpoint. Instead of asking users to type a password and then prove possession of a separate factor, it binds sign-in to cryptographic material on a trusted device or platform. That reduces the number of ways a user can be tricked into handing access to an attacker, and it removes many of the failure modes that make legacy second-factor methods brittle in practice.
For teams comparing options, the key question is not whether the second factor is “strong enough” in the abstract. It is whether the method still holds up under phishing, prompt fatigue, device replacement, roaming users, and help desk recovery. Passkeys usually win when those operational realities matter more than supporting a shared legacy workflow. They are less compelling when the organisation needs broad compatibility with older systems that cannot yet accept modern authenticators.
Where legacy second-factor methods still create avoidable friction
Legacy second-factor methods often fail at the edges of the user journey. SMS and app-based codes can be intercepted, phished, or made painful by device changes, while hardware tokens introduce procurement, replacement, and distribution overhead. Those problems are not just inconvenience, they become direct authentication risk when users seek workarounds, lose devices, or delay enrolment because the process is cumbersome.
Passkeys are a better fit when the business wants a default that is both stronger and easier to use. They are especially useful in high-volume consumer flows, employee sign-in journeys, and environments where repeated authentication is common. The strongest signal that passkeys should move ahead of legacy methods is that the organisation keeps paying the same support and reset cost every time the current factor breaks or fails to travel well across user devices.
If you need a broader identity-risk baseline for why modern authentication matters, NHIMG’s Ultimate Guide to NHIs is a useful reference for lifecycle and control themes around credentials and access governance. For a breach example that shows how weak or legacy authentication paths can be abused, see Microsoft Midnight Blizzard breach.
What to prioritise before replacing the old factor
The best candidates for passkeys are the journeys where phishing resistance and usability must improve at the same time. Start with populations that sign in frequently, support teams that handle many recovery requests, and systems where the legacy factor is the main source of user pain. Also check whether your application mix can actually support passkeys end to end, because a partial rollout often leaves users switching between methods and preserves much of the old friction.
What to verify: confirm that account recovery, device re-enrolment, and fallback access paths are defined before rollout. If the organisation still depends on brittle help-desk identity checks or shared reset processes, a stronger primary authenticator can be undermined by a weak recovery path.
What changes at scale: once thousands of users enrol, the operational win is measured less by login time than by reduced token logistics, fewer authentication-related tickets, and fewer exposures caused by users reusing unsafe fallback paths. Passkeys deliver the most value when they simplify the normal path and make the exception path rare and controlled.
Practitioner takeaway: prioritise passkeys where user friction and phishing exposure are hurting the business today, then make sure recovery and fallback are as well designed as the primary sign-in flow.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 address the attack and risk surface, while CIS Controls v8 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | 5 — Account Management | Modern sign-in choices affect account control and recovery overhead. |
| Recommendation — Reduce legacy factor dependence and tighten account recovery around passkey enrolment. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AA — Identity Management, Authentication, and Access Control | The question is about choosing stronger authentication methods and reducing exposure. |
| Recommendation — Adopt passkeys where they materially improve authentication assurance and usability. | ||
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-04 — Phishing-Resistant Authentication | Passkeys are a phishing-resistant authentication approach aligned to modern credential handling. |
| Recommendation — Prioritise phishing-resistant authenticators over legacy second-factor methods. | ||
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- When should organisations prioritise session-bound authorization over static permission grants?
- Who is accountable when organisations keep using weak second-factor methods that are known to be vulnerable?
- When should organisations prioritise advanced data classification over legacy approaches?
- When should organisations prioritise modern DAST over keeping a legacy scanner in place?
