Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
07/06/2026 8:08 pm
TL;DR: Strong authentication is still foundational, but hardware and software tokens solve different parts of the MFA problem, especially where phishing resistance, device mobility, and lifecycle management matter, according to Axiad and cited NIST guidance. The real challenge is not choosing one factor class, but building a passwordless path that works across identity providers, devices, and user populations.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Axiad: An Identity Love Story, Hardware vs Software Security Tokens
By the numbers:
- 93% of organizations had two or more identity-related breaches in the past year.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams choose between hardware and software tokens for MFA?
A: Security teams should choose based on assurance needs, user mobility, and recovery complexity.
Q: Why do phishing-resistant authenticators still need lifecycle governance?
A: Phishing-resistant authenticators can still fail operationally if enrollment, renewal, revocation, or recovery are poorly managed.
Q: What breaks when passwordless programmes keep weak fallback options?
A: Passwordless programmes break when help-desk resets, emergency bypasses, or password recovery paths remain available without strong controls.
Practitioner guidance
- Define authenticator strength by user risk tier Classify applications and user populations by phishing exposure, privilege level, and mobility needs, then assign hardware-backed or software-backed tokens accordingly.
- Map token lifecycle controls before scaling passwordless Document how users will enroll, renew, revoke, and replace authenticators across identity providers and device types.
- Eliminate unmanaged fallback authentication paths Review password resets, help-desk overrides, and emergency access procedures to identify where weaker factors still exist.
What's in the full article
Axiad's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Factor-by-factor comparison of hardware and software token forms for different user and device scenarios
- Implementation flow for certificate-based authentication across multiple identity providers
- Token issuance, renewal, and revocation workflow detail for enterprise rollout
- Practical guidance on selecting the right authenticator for roaming versus fixed-device users
👉 Read Axiad's analysis of hardware versus software security tokens for MFA →
Hardware vs software security tokens: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
07/06/2026 9:55 pm
Hardware tokens matter because phishing resistance is still an identity governance problem, not just an authentication preference. The article correctly separates factor classes, but the governance question is which identities justify stronger assurance and which workflows can tolerate softer recovery paths. NIST SP 800-63 frames that as assurance, while ZTA pushes continuous trust evaluation across the access path. The practitioner takeaway is to align authenticator strength to risk, not to user preference alone.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, which leaves credentials active long after their intended use.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between hardware-backed and software-backed authentication in practice?
A: Hardware-backed authentication depends on a physical authenticator or device chip to prove possession, while software-backed authentication relies on an authenticator stored on an endpoint or companion device. The practical difference is not just convenience. It is whether the control can resist phishing, device compromise, and credential export in your environment.
👉 Read our full editorial: Hardware and software tokens are the real MFA trade-off
