Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 8:39 pm
TL;DR: Passwordless authentication in 2026 only works when cryptographic credentials are bound to a verified human identity, because FIDO2 alone does not prevent insecure enrollment or impersonation, according to 1Kosmos. The governance test has shifted from password removal to whether identity proofing, phishing resistance, and hardware-backed verification are integrated end to end.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by 1Kosmos: Passwordless authentication in 2026 and the identity assurance problem
Questions worth separating out
A: Security teams should treat phishing resistance as the default requirement, not an optional enhancement.
Q: Why do passwordless deployments still fail when passwords are removed?
A: They fail when organisations eliminate passwords but keep weak identity proofing and recovery.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about passwordless and biometrics?
A: They often assume biometrics authenticate the user by themselves.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate phishing resistance from passwordlessness Assess every login method for domain binding, replay resistance, and fallback exposure.
- Harden enrollment before rollout Require identity proofing, liveness checks, and documented recovery procedures before issuing passwordless credentials.
- Tie device trust to access policy Confirm that hardware-backed authenticators, managed devices, and recovery paths are all governed under the same access policy.
What's in the full article
1Kosmos' full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Vendor-by-vendor feature comparisons across 1Kosmos, Ping Identity, Yubico, Okta, and Microsoft Entra ID
- Implementation details on identity verification, biometric liveness, and FIDO2 enrollment flows
- Regulatory mapping to NIST AAL2, AAL3, PSD2, and Zero Trust requirements
- Practical distinctions between passwordless methods such as passkeys, QR login, and magic links
👉 Read 1Kosmos' analysis of passwordless authentication and identity assurance →
Passwordless authentication in 2026: are your controls really phishing-resistant?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:21 am
Identity proofing is now part of authentication, not a separate pre-step. Passwordless programmes fail when they treat enrollment as administrative plumbing and login as the real security event. The article shows why that split no longer holds: if the wrong person is enrolled, the strongest cryptography in the world still authenticates the wrong identity. For IAM leaders, the control boundary has moved upstream to proofing.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 79% of organisations have experienced secrets leaks, with 77% of these incidents resulting in tangible damage, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which means most identity programmes still lack complete control over machine identity exposure.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can IAM teams measure whether passwordless is actually improving security?
A: Measure whether phishing attempts, help desk resets, and recovery-based takeovers are falling without increasing onboarding fraud. Also check whether every enrolled credential can be traced back to a verified identity and a governed recovery path. If those controls are missing, the programme is reducing friction more than it is reducing risk.
👉 Read our full editorial: Passwordless authentication in 2026 depends on verified identity
