Tokenless 2FA – Authenticating without the need for a hardware token

What are the pros and cons of using hardware tokens versus tokenless 2FA?

Tokenless 2FA has really taken off in recent years, but in situations where there are delays in receiving SMS or signal loss, does tokenless 2FA stack up against using hardware tokens? Are there more security issues when using software tokens versus hardware tokens? Which solution is the most cost-effective?

In this quick guide, we look at the pros and cons of using hardware tokens versus tokenless 2FA to see how they compare in different situations, and find that software tokens are a strong contender in all areas, from cost savings/TCO and security through to usability and offline authentication.

We compare:

The cost implications of replacing broken tokens/batteries versus software tokens
The vulnerability of seed files held by third parties, versus those unique to your own organisation
Additional security that can be added to hardware tokens and software tokens
Usability of tokens for end-users and enrolment by administrators and users
Offline authentication in difficult situations where phone signal connectivity is an issue
Total cost of ownership and future flexibility

Read the quick guide >

More about SecurEnvoy MFA >
Learn about different MFA authentication methods >
Request a free trial of MFA >

Water authorities tighten up on security with tokenless 2FA from SecurEnvoy >
Tokenless 2FA is officially a business grade service >
PCI-compliant payment processing: Tokenless 2FA overcomes the compliance issues >
Tokenless 2FA could have stopped so many breaches >