How do you know if passkeys are actually improving security?

Why This Matters for Security Teams

Passkeys are only security-improving if they reduce real attack paths, not just replace one login prompt with another. The right question is whether the programme lowers phishing success, cuts password-reset and help-desk dependence, and preserves reliable access when devices are lost or users switch channels. That makes passkeys an identity assurance control, not a branding exercise.

For NHI Management Group, the practical benchmark is whether the new authentication method measurably reduces weak-link recovery flows and credential replay opportunities. The same measurement mindset used for non-human identity hygiene in the Ultimate Guide to NHIs applies here: if the fallback path is still password-based, the programme may leave the most attackable route untouched. NIST also frames security as outcome-based control validation in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, which is the right lens for passkey rollouts.

One useful signal is the volume and quality of recovery events. If passkeys are working, teams should see fewer password resets, fewer phishing-related account takeovers, and more stable completion through enrollment and recovery. In practice, many security teams discover that the first “passkey problem” is actually a fallback problem after an account compromise or support spike has already occurred.

How It Works in Practice

Start with a baseline, then compare before-and-after metrics for supported journeys. A passkey programme should be evaluated against the login, enrollment, recovery, and device-change paths that users actually take. Look for a drop in password reset tickets, fewer MFA fatigue or phishing incidents on supported applications, and no material increase in abandoned enrollment. If you cannot measure those paths, you cannot tell whether security improved or just moved users into a different failure mode.

Use identity and access telemetry, help-desk data, and fraud signals together. Security teams often pair passkey adoption with broader identity governance so they can see whether the access model is still resilient when a user loses a device, changes platforms, or needs recovery through support. The Ultimate Guide to NHIs highlights why credential lifecycle controls matter when identities become difficult to rotate or revoke; the same principle applies to passkey recovery factors, device bindings, and backup methods. NIST’s outcome-focused approach in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 is useful here because it pushes teams to validate effectiveness, not just deployment.

• Track password resets, account recovery events, and support contacts by channel.
• Compare phishing-related incidents before and after passkey adoption on supported apps.
• Watch enrollment completion, recovery completion, and fallback use together.
• Review whether high-risk users still rely on passwords in secondary journeys.
• Check whether device loss or account migration creates new manual exceptions.

If passkeys are doing their job, they should raise assurance while keeping access smooth. These controls tend to break down in mixed-environment estates where older applications, shared devices, or brittle recovery processes force users back to password-based fallback because the strongest login method is only as good as the weakest recovery path.

Common Variations and Edge Cases

Tighter passkey enforcement often increases operational overhead, so organisations have to balance stronger phishing resistance against more complex recovery and device management. That tradeoff is real, and current guidance suggests treating fallback as a governed exception rather than a casual convenience. There is no universal standard for how much fallback is acceptable, but the direction of travel should be clear: fewer passwords, fewer resets, and fewer opportunities for social engineering.

Some environments will show mixed results. Contractors, frontline staff, and users with shared or managed devices may have slower enrollment or more recovery friction than office-based users. In those cases, the programme may improve security for one population while degrading it for another unless support workflows are redesigned. The Ultimate Guide to NHIs is a reminder that identity controls fail when lifecycle governance is weak; passkeys are no different. Under NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, a good outcome is not “passkeys enabled,” but “authentication risk reduced without unacceptable access loss.”

Best practice is evolving for situations like kiosk access, offline recovery, and cross-device portability. Until those patterns mature, teams should treat them as monitored edge cases, not proof that passkeys are ineffective overall. The right answer is to measure the friction, tighten the fallback rules, and keep the programme focused on demonstrable risk reduction rather than adoption percentages alone.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• How do you know if identity visibility is actually improving security?
• How do you know if behavioural analytics are actually improving access security?
• How do you know if environment visibility is actually helping security operations?
• How can security teams know whether passkey adoption is actually improving security?