Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 8:40 pm
TL;DR: Two-factor authentication stops many credential-based attacks, but phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication offers stronger protection by adding flexible, risk-based assurance, according to 1Kosmos. Basic 2FA is increasingly a transitional control, while passwordless and hardware-backed MFA better balance security, compliance, and user friction.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by 1Kosmos: 2FA vs MFA: why phishing-resistant authentication now matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations choose between 2FA and MFA for sensitive access?
A: Choose MFA whenever the account can expose privileged systems, regulated data, or remote access paths.
Q: Why do SMS-based authentication codes still create security risk?
A: SMS remains vulnerable to SIM swapping, interception, and social engineering, which means the second factor can be redirected to the attacker.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about MFA fatigue?
A: Teams often assume a prompt is protective simply because a user sees it.
Practitioner guidance
- Deprecate SMS-based 2FA for sensitive access Remove SMS from administrator, remote access, and regulated workflows first.
- Separate low-risk convenience from high-risk assurance Use lower-friction flows for routine access only when the potential impact is limited.
- Implement number matching and challenge friction Force active user participation in push-based approval flows to reduce MFA fatigue and blind acceptance.
What's in the full article
1Kosmos's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Detailed factor-by-factor comparison of SMS, authenticator apps, hardware keys, and biometrics
- Implementation guidance for adaptive authentication decisions in different risk contexts
- Compliance discussion for PCI DSS, GDPR, HIPAA, and federal identity guidelines
- Practical deployment considerations for recovery flows, exception handling, and audit evidence
👉 Read 1Kosmos's analysis of 2FA versus MFA and phishing-resistant authentication →
2FA vs MFA security gaps: are your controls keeping up?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:23 am
2FA is a transitional control, not an endpoint. The article correctly shows that basic two-factor schemes improve security, but they still rely on a fixed second checkpoint that attackers increasingly know how to bypass. From an identity governance perspective, that makes 2FA suitable for lower-risk use cases and inadequate as a universal control standard. Practitioners should treat it as a stepping stone, not the final architecture.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Lack of credential rotation is cited as the top cause of NHI-related attacks by 45% of organisations, followed by inadequate monitoring and logging at 37% and over-privileged accounts at 37%.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can IAM teams make authentication stronger without adding too much friction?
A: Use adaptive authentication so low-risk sessions stay simple while higher-risk logins trigger stronger proof. Combine trusted devices, phishing-resistant factors, and clear recovery paths to avoid repeated unnecessary challenges. The goal is not more prompts, but better assurance per prompt.
👉 Read our full editorial: 2FA vs MFA: why phishing-resistant authentication now matters
