By 2026 identity checks will move from choice to rule. Regulated work must show that the right person is entering each system. Not just once but every time. So the sign in now needs real proof of something that cannot be copied or guessed.
For industries such as medical, financial, legal or operational records the consequences of unauthorized access are no longer just internal risks. They extend to legal penalties, loss of trust and long recovery cycles. This is where multi factor authentication requirements become central.
In this blog we have looked at how mfa supports compliance, the role of NIST levels, the rules that different sectors follow common gaps that appear in real environments.
MFA requirements and compliance
Regulated systems ask for strong proof of identity before access. When rules expect layers of proof the idea of multi factor authentication shows up in daily sign in steps. One sign can be a secret that only you know. Another sign can be a device that you hold. A third sign can be something that is part of you like a physical trait.
When these signs work together the system becomes harder to trick. This supports compliance because it shows that access was real and verified. Clear records of entry and activity make review steady and simple. The flow should stay light so the work continues without friction.
NIST Guidelines on Authentication
NIST gives a clear view of how sign in should work in places where trust matters. The idea is that proof of identity should not break even when pressure is high. The guidance explains how strong each factor must be. It also shows how to pick the right level for the data you protect.
- Authenticator assurance levels AAL. NIST sets three levels of strength. AAL1 allows a single factor that has basic trust. AAL2 asks for two factors that stand apart so one loss does not break the whole sign in. AAL3 expects hardware backed proof that is very hard to fake.
- Lifecycle and recovery controls. Good identity is not only about the first day. NIST wants safe setup, safe use and safe recovery. If a factor is lost it must be removed fast so no one can slip in. Recovery must prove identity again with real weight.
- Phishing resistant authenticators. Some factors hold up better against links and traps. FIDO style passkeys and smart cards can prove identity without giving a secret that can be stolen. These choices matter in high risk work.
Key Regulatory Frameworks That Expect Strong MFA
Regulated work needs proof of identity that holds steady. Different sectors follow different rules but the goal is the same. Only the right person enters the system and the record shows it clearly. This is where mfa compliance becomes a practical daily act. You align factor strength with the sensitivity of data.
HIPAA
HIPAA applies in the United States for systems that handle patient health records.
HIPAA expects strong access control for systems that store patient records. Organizations must use HIPAA compliant authentication often MFA to prove the user is the correct person who can view or update data. Clear audit logs are required to track activity. The use of strong authentication factors like MFA reduces silent misuse and shows that every access request is verified with certainty.
PCI DSS
PCI DSS applies globally to environments that process, handle or store payment card data.
PCI DSS protects payment card data. The standard expects multifactor for access to cardholder environments. Remote access and administrative access must include more than one factor. Setup must avoid simple recovery paths. Logs must show who signed in and when. This lowers the chance of unauthorized exposure of payment information.
NIST SP 800 171 and CMMC
These apply in the United States for organizations that handle controlled unclassified information for federal or defense work.
Defense related work uses NIST 800 171 and CMMC controls. These require multifactor for local and remote access to both privileged and normal accounts. Factor handling must follow rules for setup and recovery. Records of sign in and change events must stay clear. This protects shared government data.
CJIS Security Policy
CJIS applies in the United States for systems that hold criminal justice information. Law enforcement systems follow the CJIS Security Policy.
It requires a multifactor for access to criminal justice information. Agencies must choose factors that resist theft and trick attempts. Support teams must avoid giving access based on weak proof. Careful logs allow review when needed.
NYDFS and GLBA
NYDFS Part 500 applies to New York financial institutions.
GLBA applies across the United States to organizations handling consumer financial data. Financial institutions follow NYDFS Part 500 and GLBA Safeguards. Both expect strong identity proof for systems holding customer data. Multifactor must be in place for internal and external access. Regular reviews ensure the factors still hold up. These checks reduce fraud and insider misuse.
PSD2 and eIDAS
PSD2 applies across the European Union for financial services.
eIDAS applies across the European Union for digital identity and trust services. European financial services follow PSD2 Strong Customer Authentication. Government and trust services look to eIDAS. Both expect layered proof of identity that attackers cannot easily copy. Organizations match factor strength to transaction risk. The aim is smooth access without opening doors to fraud.
Common Security Vulnerabilities in Regulated Environments
In regulated environments strong access control must hold across many systems. Some platforms are modern and some are decades old. People sign in from shared workspaces, remote locations and clinical floors. Each step must protect sensitive data without stopping daily tasks.
Specific risks show up when identity checks are uneven or easy to bypass. Attackers look for the weakest path, not the strongest one.
- Mixed System Landscapes Create Blind Spots. Many organizations still use legacy applications that cannot support modern sign in flows. New cloud tools may use stronger identity checks. This uneven shape allows weak points. Older systems may store credentials in weak formats or allow login sessions that never expire. Attackers can move quietly across these gaps.
- User Workflows Often Override Security Plans. People focus on completing tasks. If sign in feels slow they keep sessions open for long periods. Some may even share access. This weakens control. To prevent this you choose factors that match daily rhythms. This also opens the door to MFA fatigue attacks where attackers send repeated approval prompts hoping the user taps accept just to continue work.
- Unsupported Recovery Processes Weaken Assurance. Devices break. Tokens go missing. If recovery steps are weak then attackers can slip in. Recovery must confirm identity with steady proof. The process should be known and documented. Social engineering attacks often target helpdesks during recovery to trick support staff into granting access without real identity proof.
- Stale Credentials Remain Active Too Long. When roles shift or staff move to new duties old access often stays open. This creates quiet entry points. You remove credentials as soon as they are no longer needed. These stale accounts can be used to hide movement because no one expects them to be active.
- Weak Visibility Makes Risks Hard To Detect. Without regular log review small abnormal sign ins stay invisible. Over time these patterns can point to misuse or stolen access. You monitor sign in patterns and compare them with expected behavior. SIM swap attacks, token theft and session hijacking often appear as subtle signs in anomalies that only show up through continuous monitoring.
How to Solve MFA Challenges for Compliance
In regulated environments identity control must feel steady. Many organizations run old systems and modern cloud tools side by side. Sign in patterns can shift across networks and devices. A clear MFA requirement creates one trusted path.
- Identify All Active Sign In Paths. Begin with a full view of every application and sign in method. Some older systems may use authentication flows that are easy to overlook. Bring each path into a single picture.
- Select Factors That Match Daily Work Rhythms. MFA must be strong yet repeatable in real situations. Consider device based authenticators or physical keys that work without extra steps. The factor should support common tasks without slowing the user.
- Standardize The Onboarding Experience. New users should enter the system through one clear process. Each screen and step should guide without confusion. Provide short direct instructions that show what to do and why it matters.
- Provide A Verified Recovery Route. Devices may fail or be lost. Recovery must confirm identity with steady checks. The steps should be known and easy to access. This keeps access safe while preventing long delays.
- Maintain Identity Continuity Over Time. Roles shift and systems update. Review access patterns on a regular rhythm. Retire factors that are no longer in use. Increase or reduce authentication strength when real risk changes.
Best Practices for Implementing MFA in Compliance Environments
Regulated environments need strong sign in that proves the real person each time. If the process feels heavy, people look for shortcuts. So the idea is to shape mfa best practices in a way that fits daily work. You keep the path light clear, repeatable and ready for review.
Use phishing resistant authenticators.
Strong sign in begins with factors that cannot be copied or tricked. Security keys, passkeys and device based checks do not reveal secrets during login so stolen passwords or fake links cannot open the system. You see this in HIPAA for patient systems PCI DSS v4 for card data and in CJIS for criminal justice networks where identity must hold firm.
Bind identity to both the user and the device.
Access is strongest when proof ties to a real person and a known device. This prevents shared accounts and quiet impersonation. Healthcare uses this for PHI access. Finance uses it to protect transactions. Defense programs under NIST 800 171 require hardware backed identity for sensitive work. You create a direct relationship between person and entry point.
Keep recovery strict and verified.
Most breaches enter through recovery not login. So recovery must repeat the same weight of identity proof as setup. Support cannot rely on personal details alone. HIPAA expects verified proof before helpdesk resets. PCI DSS v4 blocks easy reset paths. CJIS trains teams to resist social tricks. You protect the door that opens when something gets lost.
Limit session time and respond to risk changes.
Shorter sessions reduce the chance that a system stays open and forgotten. Adaptive prompts can ask for stronger proof when something feels unusual. Healthcare floors use short sessions for shared terminals. Payment systems do this for admin actions. Defense work uses step up checks for privileged commands.
Review logs and behavior patterns continuously.
A strong MFA still needs visibility. Regular log review shows small signs of trouble like sign in at odd hours or from unknown places. HIPAA audits look for record access changes. PCI DSS v4 watches for failed login patterns. NYDFS reviews for fraud signals.
Remove unused or outdated access quickly.
Risk grows when old access stays active. Deprovision accounts when roles change. Retire factors when devices leave service. Healthcare updates access when staff move units. PCI DSS v4 removes accounts when duties shift. NIST 800 171 and CMMC require account closure at project end.
Key Considerations When Choosing an MFA Solution Compliance
The right MFA solution must meet regulatory expectations while staying workable in daily routines. Many environments mix old and new systems so the sign in path must stay steady across all of them. The goal is to choose identity proof that holds up under audit but still feels natural for you and the team.
- Assess supported authentication factors and strength. Choose an MFA solution that offers phishing resistant factors like security keys, passkeys and device based authenticators. These factors are required or strongly recommended in frameworks like NIST and CJIS. If a solution only relies on SMS or email codes it may not meet compliance in high risk environments.
- Check legacy system compatibility. Many regulated environments rely on older applications that do not support modern protocols. The MFA solution should bridge identity across old and new systems without forcing replacements. Look for support for RADIUS LDAP SAML and modern identity federation so every sign in path stays covered.
- Review onboarding and identity proofing steps. Compliance expects that users are verified before MFA is issued. Choose an MFA platform that includes identity proofing options such as ID checks hardware key issuance or controlled enrollment. This makes sure the first time sign in is as strong as every sign in after it.
- Evaluate recovery and reset process strength. Attackers often target helpdesk recovery. A compliant MFA solution must provide a recovery path that repeats real identity proof not just personal questions. Look for step up verification of secure channels and logged recovery events to prevent social engineering slips.
- Confirm logging audit trails and reporting depth. Compliance reviews need clear records of who signed in from where and with which factor. The MFA system should generate audit logs that are completely readable and exportable. This allows quick regulatory reporting and supports investigations when needed.
- Check for role based control and lifecycle management. Access must change as roles shift. The MFA solution should allow automated removal of factors when a user leaves a department or project. This prevents stale credentials from becoming hidden entry points. Lifecycle tools keep access clean over time.
How Infisign Simplifies MFA Compliance
Infisign keeps strong sign in simple so teams and customers do not feel slowed. The platform protects every login with identity checks that feel natural. This makes mfa compliance easier because the security sits inside the flow of work instead of interrupting it.
You get clear access control, strong identity proof and a calm user experience. Nothing feels forced. Everything fits into the systems you already use.
Infisign’s Smart Multi Factor Authentication
Infisign keeps sign in strong without making daily work heavy. The system watches the shape of each login. When it looks normal the sign stays light. When a location device or action feels unusual the system asks for stronger proof like a face check, fingerprint, approval code or physical key. You stay protected without losing flow.
Why Infisign Adaptive MFA Works
Infisign’s mfa feature adjusts the level of proof based on real conditions like device role, location and risk. This lets people move through work without stopping. The same identity path reaches cloud apps, on premise tools and hybrid setups so the environment stays steady. Legacy systems are covered too so no hidden weak doors remain.
Supported Sign In Methods
- Biometric checks like face or fingerprint on a trusted device
- Hardware keys based on FIDO2 and WebAuthn for proof that cannot be copied
- Device based passkeys for passwordless sign in
- Authenticator app codes when needed
- Push approval on a known device
- Email or SMS codes only as fallback for rare cases
NAG and MPWA Support
Older systems cannot use modern sign in so risk hides there. Infisign uses MPWA to connect legacy and on premise apps into one trusted path NAG and to bring biometric and passwordless proof to old web apps that cannot support it. You protect every system together, not just the new ones.
Infisign’s Single Sign On (SSO)
Infisign gives one sign in path across all applications so you sign in once and keep going without repeated steps. Setup can be completed in less than 4 hours which keeps adoption smooth. SSO makes review clear because every session starts from one verified identity point.
Go Passwordless
Infisign’s Passwordless Authentication removes passwords fully, so sign in feels natural instead of forced. It uses biometric checks like face, fingerprint, and iris recognition on trusted devices, along with device passkeys built on FIDO2 and WebAuthn. Magic links allow quick access from a verified device when needed. You confirm identity with something you are and something you already hold. A single approval opens all connected apps, keeping work steady while raising security everywhere.
Infisign’s App Integration
Infisign connects with over 6000 pre-built applications across cloud, on-premise and hybrid environments. You plug into your existing tech stack without rebuilding systems. The setup uses ready APIs and SDKs so apps integrate fast. With one identity path covering everything you reduce weak spots and keep access consistent everywhere.
Infisign’s Conditional Access and Identity Governance
Infisign notices the context of each sign in, including device type, location, role, and the sensitivity of the system being reached. When a low role account tries to enter high risk controls, conditional access adds stronger proof or blocks the attempt. Every login and action is recorded, so review stays clear.
Identity governance updates roles as people join, move, or leave teams. You get access that matches real work, with no forgotten accounts or silent entry points.
Start strengthening access in a way that does not slow your team. Infisign gives fast enrollment, clear control, and a sign in flow that feels natural in daily work. Book your demo today!
FAQs
What are the requirements for two-factor authentication?
Two factor authentication needs two different signs of identity like a secret and a device or a physical trait. The idea is to prove the real person is present.
Is MFA a regulatory requirement?
In many regulated environments yes. Healthcare, finance, defense and government systems often expect layered identity proof. The goal is to show access is controlled and traceable at all times.
Does NIST 800 171 require MFA?
Yes. NIST 800 171 asks for multifactor on network access for normal users and local or network access for privileged users. This protects controlled data from unauthorized entry.
