Skip to main content

Phishing-resistant MFA · FIDO2 passkeys · authentication coverage

Not All MFA Stops a Real Attacker

Push and TOTP fall to adversary-in-the-middle toolkits like Evilginx. FIDO2 passkeys and certificate-based auth don't. Know the difference, and find where your coverage silently fails.

You deployed MFA. You still can't prove it's enforced everywhere.

Multi-factor authentication is live on corporate email and the VPN. But cloud management consoles, CI/CD pipelines, developer tools, and third-party SaaS are where coverage quietly thins out. Attackers exploit exactly that inconsistency: a strong front door means little if side doors stay open. And the MFA you do have may be the phishable kind, relaying your push approvals straight to a fraudulent site in real time.

THE IDENTITY & ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOOLKIT

Get instant access

A clear picture of which MFA actually resists adversary-in-the-middle attacks, and exactly where your coverage silently fails.
  • Phishing-resistant vs phishable MFA, with real attack context
  • A risk-tiered authentication model you can apply
  • Coverage measured as a defensible ratio by risk tier
The IAM Program Toolkit

Download the toolkit

Instant access to the full 25-page toolkit.

Verifying you're human...

The gap isn't whether you have MFA. It's which MFA, and where.

Push notifications and TOTP codes can be intercepted by adversary-in-the-middle proxy frameworks that relay the authentication session transparently, so the attacker rides in behind a legitimate login. FIDO2/WebAuthn passkeys and certificate-based authentication defeat this attack class by cryptographically binding the credential to the real relying-party domain. The toolkit shows you how to tell these apart and how to measure the coverage you actually have.

What's inside

On authentication specifically

Why push and TOTP fall to AiTM attacks, and how FIDO2/WebAuthn binds credentials to the legitimate domain
A risk-tiered authentication model mapping each access tier to its minimum MFA requirement
FIDO2 passkeys versus certificate-based authentication, and where each one fits
Coverage gaps that undermine enforcement: legacy protocols, service accounts, application exceptions, conditional access scope
Interim risk reduction for when you can't deploy phishing-resistant MFA at scale yet
Coverage measured as a ratio of applications enforcing MFA, segmented by risk tier

Outcomes

What you can do once you've read it

Separate phishing-resistant from phishable

Decide which factor types belong on privileged accounts, sensitive data, and the broader workforce, with real attack context behind each call.

Prove enforcement instead of assuming it

Replace 'MFA project complete' with a defensible coverage ratio you can show by risk tier and track over time.

Close the gaps attackers actually use

Find and shut the legacy-protocol, service-account, and conditional-access exceptions that bypass MFA entirely.

Sequence the fix without stalling

Prioritize MFA on critical entry points as a low-cost, high-value win before any broader authentication overhaul.

Report it to the board credibly

Translate authentication coverage into trend lines and residual-risk language a non-technical audience can act on.

All six domains, one playbook

Authentication is one slice. The toolkit spans access governance, PAM, lifecycle, service identities, and IGA with equal rigor.

Authentication is one domain. The toolkit covers all six.

Uneven MFA rarely travels alone. The same programs carry orphaned accounts, unrotated service credentials, and rubber-stamped access reviews, and that unevenness is exactly where breaches occur. This toolkit spans the full surface area: authentication, authorization and access governance, privileged access management, identity lifecycle, service and machine identities, and identity governance and administration. It treats service accounts and machine identities as a first-class problem, including CIEM for multi-cloud, not an afterthought.

Why it's credible

Grounded in real tooling, standards, and benchmarks

STANDARDS & TOOLING

Named by name, not vaguely

FIDO2/WebAuthn, CIEM, HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault, YubiKey, Google Titan, and Windows Hello.

ATTACK CONTEXT

The real threat, specified

Adversary-in-the-middle toolkits such as Evilginx that transparently relay push and TOTP sessions behind a legitimate login.

BENCHMARKS

Concrete deprovisioning targets

Account disable same business day, full revocation within 10 business days, and any credential rotatable within 24 hours of suspected compromise.

GOVERNANCE METRICS

Quantified, board-ready

Certification revocation below 2-3% signals rubber-stamping; time-to-deprovision target under four hours; privileged account coverage trajectory over time.

REFERENCE TABLES

Usable at the desk

Deprovisioning stages, access control policy essentials, and required PAM platform capabilities, as reference tables you can apply directly.

SCOPE

Cloud and multi-cloud

Cloud console roles, service principals, and workload identities, with CIEM treated as a required component for significant cloud infrastructure.

Questions, answered

It's built to support program assessment, vendor evaluation, and roadmap planning, with concrete timeframes, control checklists, and reference tables rather than principles alone.

25-PAGE TOOLKIT · 8 SECTIONS

Know which MFA actually holds

Instant access to the full 25-page toolkit.