The programme becomes only as strong as the fallback path. If password resets, backup codes, or help desk overrides are easier to abuse than the passkey flow, attackers will target those routes instead. Passwordless adoption fails when exception handling is less governed than primary authentication.
Why This Matters for Security Teams
Passkeys reduce one class of credential theft, but they do not remove the authentication control plane. If the fallback path is easier to abuse than the passkey flow, attackers will shift to password resets, recovery codes, SIM swap recovery, or help desk escalation. NIST SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines treats recovery and proofing as part of identity assurance, not an afterthought, because assurance is only as strong as the weakest accepted recovery method.
For NHI Management Group, this matters because the same pattern appears in machine access as well: weak exception handling becomes the real entry point. The lesson is visible in cases like JetBrains GitHub plugin token exposure, where operational shortcuts around tokens and trust boundaries can matter more than the primary authentication design. Current guidance suggests that passwordless programmes fail when fallback governance is not held to the same standard as primary authentication.
In practice, many security teams discover this only after an account takeover or support desk abuse has already occurred, rather than through intentional testing of recovery paths.
How It Works in Practice
Strong passkey deployment should be designed as a full authentication system, not just a new primary factor. That means mapping every recovery and exception path, assigning assurance levels to each one, and making the fallback path at least as resistant to phishing, social engineering, and insider misuse as the passkey itself. NIST’s identity guidance is explicit that recovery must preserve the intended assurance level; otherwise the control degrades to the weakest supported route.
Operationally, teams should review these areas together:
- Recovery and reset methods, including email links, SMS, backup codes, and knowledge-based checks.
- Help desk workflows, especially identity proofing, call-back rules, and escalation authority.
- Device loss and account re-enrolment, including how passkeys are replaced after compromise.
- Step-up verification for high-risk actions such as changing MFA, adding devices, or disabling security settings.
- Logging and alerting for fallback use, because recovery events often signal the start of an attack.
The key practical test is simple: if an attacker can convince support to bypass the passkey flow, the environment still has a passwordless facade with a legacy escape hatch. That is why current guidance from NIST SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines and the broader identity community treats recovery as a security control, not a user experience feature. The same governance mindset appears in NHI programmes, where weak secret handling creates a parallel bypass path, as highlighted in Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
These controls tend to break down in large service desks with inconsistent identity proofing because attackers can target the least mature support queue rather than the strongest login factor.
Common Variations and Edge Cases
Tighter fallback control often increases support burden, requiring organisations to balance account recovery speed against takeover resistance. That tradeoff is real, especially for executives, remote workers, and users who regularly lose devices. Best practice is evolving, but there is no universal standard for how much friction is acceptable; what matters is that the fallback path does not silently undercut the passkey programme.
One common edge case is phased rollout, where passkeys are enabled for primary login but older password or OTP routes remain available “temporarily” for compatibility. Another is federated SSO, where the app is passkey-enabled but the identity provider still allows weaker recovery. Organisations also need to watch for shared-admin accounts and delegated support roles, because those exceptions often bypass normal identity assurance checks.
For security teams, the right question is not whether passkeys are deployed, but whether every recovery and override path is measurable, logged, and governed to the same standard. JetBrains GitHub plugin token exposure is a reminder that secondary trust paths are frequently the real target when the main control is stronger than the exception handling.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 address the attack and risk surface, while NIST SP 800-63 and NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-63 | IAL/AAL recovery guidance | Fallback authentication must preserve identity assurance, not weaken it. |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AA-1 | Authentication governance covers both primary and fallback access paths. |
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-03 | Weak fallback handling mirrors secret exposure and recovery bypass risks. |
Inventory every fallback path and enforce least-privilege, phishing-resistant access wherever possible.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on June 23, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
