Proximity-based authentication verifies a user’s identity through a nearby enrolled device without requiring them to manually enter a code. Hard or soft token codes require the user to read and type a one-time password into the application. The practical difference is less friction for the clinician, while still preserving two-factor authentication for regulated workflows.
How proximity-based authentication differs from token code entry
Proximity-based authentication changes the user action, not the assurance goal. Instead of reading and typing a one-time password, the application verifies that an enrolled device is nearby and able to respond, which reduces friction and typing errors. That makes it better suited to workflows where people authenticate often, such as clinical systems.
The nearby device is still part of a controlled authentication flow, so the security question is whether the device enrollment, possession check, and fallback path are sound. In practice, the difference from hard or soft tokens is usability and user burden, not a move away from two-factor authentication.
For teams evaluating the choice, the key distinction is that token codes depend on user transcription of a secret, while proximity-based methods depend on device possession and local interaction. That usually improves speed at sign-in and lowers help desk pressure, but it also raises the importance of managing enrolled devices and recovery paths.
Where the risk shifts when you remove manual code entry
Removing manual code entry reduces one common source of failure, but it does not remove authentication risk. The main exposure shifts toward device enrollment, lost or shared devices, and whether a nearby device can be abused if the surrounding session or endpoint is already compromised. The method is only as strong as the controls around the device and the recovery process.
Failure mechanism: If proximity checks accept the wrong device, or if enrollment and recovery are weak, an attacker can convert device possession into unauthorized access without needing to steal a typed code.
Impact: The result can still be account takeover, but with less user friction and fewer OTP-related failures. If the workflow is in a regulated environment, weak recovery or poor device governance can also create audit and access-control problems even when sign-in feels smoother.
When to prefer proximity-based authentication over token codes
Proximity-based authentication is most useful when sign-in happens repeatedly, speed matters, and the organisation wants to reduce OTP fatigue without weakening the authentication step. It can be a strong fit for clinicians, frontline staff, or any population that should not be slowed by repeated code entry.
Traditional hard or soft token codes still make sense when the organisation needs a more universal fallback, when devices are not consistently available, or when proximity hardware and enrollment complexity would create more operational burden than they remove. The right answer depends on whether your biggest pain point is user friction or device-management complexity.
For background on how this fits with stronger sign-in methods, NIST SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines is useful because it frames authenticator strength and assurance levels rather than just the sign-in user experience. NHIMG’s Passwordless and Passkeys Guide also helps compare friction-reducing methods that still preserve phishing-resistant authentication. For broader rollout context, NHIMG’s MFA Guide explains where token-based methods are still valuable and where users tend to struggle with them.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST SP 800-63 and NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-63 | Digital Identity Guidelines | Covers authenticators and assurance levels for proximity and token-based sign-in. |
| Recommendation — Use authenticator assurance guidance to choose the sign-in method and fallback path. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | IA-2 — Identification and Authentication (Organizational Users) | Applies because the subject is how users authenticate to access regulated systems. |
| IA-5 — Authenticator Management | Applies because both proximity and token codes depend on authenticator lifecycle and handling. | |
| IA-8 — Identification and Authentication (Non-Organizational Users) | Relevant where clinicians or external users authenticate into shared or hosted systems. | |
| Recommendation — Apply organizational-user authentication controls to the sign-in flow and recovery path. Manage authenticator issuance, rotation, revocation, and fallback carefully. Use external-user authentication controls when the workflow serves non-employees. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.17 — Authentication information | Applies to protecting and handling the secrets and authenticators used in both methods. |
| A.8.5 — Secure authentication | Directly maps to choosing and operating a stronger sign-in mechanism. | |
| Recommendation — Protect authentication information and restrict how it is issued, stored, and recovered. Implement secure authentication methods and verify the fallback process remains controlled. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to verify: Confirm that the nearby device is enrolled to the right person or role, that fallback authentication does not become the weakest path, and that recovery is controlled enough to survive a lost phone, shared workstation, or locked-out user without bypassing the intended assurance level.
Decision rule: If the workflow is high-frequency and user friction is driving poor compliance, proximity-based authentication is often the better operating choice. If the environment has weak device inventory, inconsistent enrollment hygiene, or broad exception handling, token codes may be simpler to govern until those controls improve.
Common mistake: Treating proximity as a convenience feature only. The authentication method can be operationally safer than OTP entry, but only when the organisation actively manages device lifecycle, fallback access, and auditability.
Practitioner takeaway: The best choice is the one that removes friction without moving trust into an unmanaged device path, because usability gains are only worthwhile when device control and recovery remain strong.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- What is the difference between U2F and app based token codes for second factor authentication?
- What is the difference between risk-based access and traditional step-up authentication?
- What is the difference between token-based API authentication and certificate-based authentication?
- What is the difference between phishing-resistant MFA and traditional password-based authentication in government identity programs?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 29, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
