Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint //

Authentication

checkLoop 1checkLoop 2checkLoop 3
11/12/2019
04:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

The Myths of Multifactor Authentication

Organizations without MFA are wide open to attack when employees fall for phishing scams or share passwords. What's holding them back?

Compromised credentials are a huge threat to companies today. Why? The attacker is actually using valid (that is, stolen but valid) credentials, so why would your antivirus, firewall, and other technologies you might have in place flag anything unusual? Your tools assume people accessing your network are who they say they are.

This threat is now well known among organizations, but many of them still are not doing what needs to be done about password security. A couple of years ago, we surveyed 500 IT security managers in the US and UK, and the results showed that only 38% of organizations use multifactor authentication (MFA) to better secure network credentials. Sadly, more recent research shows that things haven’t changed much.

Why Are Organizations Reluctant to Adopt MFA?
Here are some myths that plague MFA:

Only large enterprises should use MFA.
This is a common misconception. Many organizations believe that a company needs to be a certain size to be able to benefit from MFA. They’re wrong. Using MFA should be a key security measure for any company, regardless of size. The data to protect is as sensitive and the disruption as serious in any company. And using MFA doesn't have to be complex, costly, or frustrating.  

MFA should only be used to protect privileged users.
Wrong again. In most organizations, most employees are considered to have access to valuable data, so they rely only on local Windows credentials. It seems a bit exaggerated to require them to use MFA to log in. But it's not. Those "nonprivileged" employees actually have access to data that can be harmful to the company. For example, let's take a nurse who could sell a celebrity patient's data to a newspaper. This shows the value of data and the possible harm that can come from it being inappropriately used.

But that's not all. Cybercriminals usually don't start with a privileged account; they take advantage of any account that falls victim to phishing scams to then laterally move within the network in order to find, access, and exfiltrate valuable data.

MFA is not perfect.
OK, no security solution is perfect — but MFA is close. As you may have heard, the FBI issued a warning recently regarding situations where cybercriminals were able to bypass MFA. There were two main authenticator vulnerabilities: "channel jacking," involving taking over the communication channel that is used for the authenticator, ⁠and "real-time phishing," ⁠which uses a machine-in-the-middle that intercepts and replays authentication messages. According to experts, such attack types require considerable costs and effort. Most hackers who encounter MFA prefer to move on to their next (easier) victim than trying to bypass this security measure. You can also take simple precautions to avoid some vulnerabilities, such as choosing MFA authenticators that don't rely upon SMS authentication. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology discourages SMS and voice in its latest Digital Identity Guidelines).

Despite recent events, the FBI affirms that MFA is still effective and that it's one of the simplest steps an organization can take to improve security.

MFA disrupts users' productivity.
It doesn't have to. With new technology, there is always the same challenge: implementing it in a way that least disrupts employees' productivity. If it's too disruptive, users will find a way to circumvent security controls. Without this sensitivity, adoption can slow or even stop. Therefore, MFA requires flexibility. Administrators may want to avoid prompting users for MFA each time they log in. That's why MFA should be customized according to each company’s needs.

Anyone can be victim of compromised credentials — whether you are a privileged or nonprivileged user. Using MFA should be a key security measure for any company, regardless of size, and can be one of the easiest ways to keep accounts secured.

Related Content:

 

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "Account Fraud Harder to Detect as Criminals Move from Bots to 'Sweat Shops'"

François Amigorena is the founder and CEO of IS Decisions, and an expert commentator on cybersecurity issues. IS Decisions software makes it easy to protect against unauthorized access to networks and the sensitive files within. Its customers include the FBI, the US ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Michael Landewe
50%
50%
Michael Landewe,
User Rank: Author
11/21/2019 | 12:55:04 PM
MFA is an easy way to tell attackers to just 'move on'.
Every minute of every day, attackers are utilizing breached password lists to attack both public and private services. If they notice MFA on a domain, however, they will typically not waste their resources and move on. 

Something that the article didn't mention is that NIST has changed its guidelines so that if you are using MFA, you no longer need to force users to change thier password every 90 days. 

If you pair MFA with a password manager, which makes a 32 character password as simple as 8, your barrier to compromise will be exponentially higher than your neighbor. 

 

 
Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19777
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
stb_image.h (aka the stb image loader) 2.23, as used in libsixel and other products, has a heap-based buffer over-read in stbi__load_main.
CVE-2019-19778
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer over-read in the function load_sixel at loader.c.
CVE-2019-16777
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Versions of the npm CLI prior to 6.13.4 are vulnerable to an Arbitrary File Overwrite. It fails to prevent existing globally-installed binaries to be overwritten by other package installations. For example, if a package was installed globally and created a serve binary, any subsequent installs of pa...
CVE-2019-16775
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Versions of the npm CLI prior to 6.13.3 are vulnerable to an Arbitrary File Write. It is possible for packages to create symlinks to files outside of thenode_modules folder through the bin field upon installation. A properly constructed entry in the package.json bin field would allow a package publi...
CVE-2019-16776
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-13
Versions of the npm CLI prior to 6.13.3 are vulnerable to an Arbitrary File Write. It fails to prevent access to folders outside of the intended node_modules folder through the bin field. A properly constructed entry in the package.json bin field would allow a package publisher to modify and/or gain...
checkLoop 4