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.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Axiad: “An Identity Love Story: Hardware vs Software Security Tokens”.
By the numbers:
- 93% of organisations had two or more identity-related breaches in the past year, according to CyberArk research cited by Axiad.
Key questions
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 traditional MFA methods fail against phishing attacks?
A: Traditional MFA fails because many methods still depend on a code, prompt, or approval that an attacker can intercept, relay, or coerce in real time.
Q: What breaks when token enrollment and revocation are handled inconsistently?
A: Inconsistent token handling creates delayed onboarding, stranded access, and unnecessary support overhead.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise authenticator tiers by use case Define which applications and user populations require phishing-resistant hardware-backed credentials and which can use software-based tokens with lower assurance.
- Map token selection to device mobility Treat roaming users, fixed-device users and shared-device users differently.
- Govern token enrolment and revocation as lifecycle controls Build issuance, renewal, suspension and revocation into the identity lifecycle so token state changes follow joiner, mover and leaver events without manual lag.
Bottom line: Hardware and software tokens are not interchangeable controls because they solve different assurance and mobility problems.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
07/06/2026 9:55 pm
Token choice is now an identity governance decision, not a feature preference. The article shows that hardware and software tokens create different assurance, portability and support outcomes, which means IAM teams are really choosing between governance models. Phishing resistance, roaming access and revocation complexity do not sit outside the control framework. They define it. The practitioner takeaway is to treat authenticator class as part of access policy design, not a user convenience decision.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Why do organisations struggle to move from passwords to passwordless access in practice?
A: The main blockers are integration complexity, technical debt, and user acceptance, especially in environments with multiple authentication vendors and varied workflows. Passwordless fails when it is treated as a single login method rather than an access programme. Teams need consistent policy, broad authenticator support, and a rollout plan that reflects operational reality, not idealised architecture.
👉 Read our full editorial: Hardware and software tokens are the real MFA trade-off