|AuthN Type Number||Authentication Factor||Resistance to Threat|
|Theft via Dynamic MITM Phishing||Guessing / Offline Cracking||MFA Device|
|User Workstation Compromise|
|2||Phone call - See Voice Requirements see Voice Restrictions, note 1||Low||Low||High||Low||High|
|3||Phone call (VoIP) - See see Additional|
VoIP VoIP Restrictions, note 2
|5||SMS (VoIP) See see Additional|
VoIP restrictions, note 2
|6||HOTP cell phone softwaresee notes 1 ,and 3||Medium||Low||High||Medium||High|
|7||TOTP cell phone software see notes 1 ,and 3||Medium||Low||High||Medium||High|
|10||HOTP written (back up codes)||Low||Low||High||High||Low|
|11||DUO Push see note 3||High||Low||High||Medium||High|
|12||FIDO U2F token with password||High||High||High||High||High|
|13||PKI device certificate with|
|14||PKI token certificate with token|
- Voice Restrictions: Institutions deploying a phone call based solution for one of their authentication factors must incorporate multi-factor authentication concepts into their security awareness training. Specifically, a prohibition on configuring voicemail greetings to respond to MFA prompts must be in-place and discussed in training. Training should also include the prohibition against using Enterprise passwords on personal devices.
- Additional VoIP Restrictions: The use of VoIP systems (or traditional PBX solutions) that use the Enterprise password for call control or call redirection may not be used. The creators of this document note that accessibility needs can often be addressed using a hardware token instead of a voice-based solution.
- Campus deployers should pay careful attention to cell phone security. Some data sources report that the majority of Android devices are not updated and are thus highly vulnerable. Some vendors have the ability to restrict MFA use to fully patched cell phones. This table assumes that cell phones used for MFA are receiving software updates.
The Standard MFA Profile that we are developing now focuses on simple passwords no longer being sufficient in a modern world full of phishing threats. The Stronger MFA profile column would be for some future work to support an overall higher LoA, likely coupled with corresponding Identity Proofing requirements. Its It's helpful to see how the two might differ in their technology requirements.
|Item||MFA Type Number(s)|
from Table 1
|Standard MFA Profile (anti-phish - replace|
|Stronger MFA Profile (could|
support a stronger LoA)
|1||1 plus any one of 2-14||Yes||n/a - see below|
|5||1 and plus any one of 12-14||Yes||Yes|