Not ratedsingcert:ad-2025-015

    Choosing the Right Authentication Methods

    Published Sources: SingCERT

    Share

    What is affected, what to do

    The available sources name no fixed version. Check the vendor guidance in the references below.

    Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability

    Metrics

    —

    Priority

    No value is available for this vulnerability.

    —

    CVSS v3

    No value is available for this vulnerability.

    —

    EPSS score

    No value is available for this vulnerability.

    Show all metrics
    Severity
    Not rated
    Priority (0–325)

    The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?

    Read in glossary
    9.62 Methodology
    Exploit maturity

    An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.

    Read in glossary
    no public PoC known
    KEV status

    The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.

    Read in glossary
    —
    Published

    Classification under NIS2 and CRA

    Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.

    NIS2

    NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.

    Read in glossary
    Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
    CRA

    The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.

    Read in glossary
    From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
    ISO/IEC 27001

    ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.

    Read in glossary
    Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.

    Description

    In this age of rapid digitalisation, attackers are actively targeting weak or misconfigured authentication systems. Background As more services move online and cyber threats become increasingly sophisticated, attackers are actively targeting weak or misconfigured authentication systems. This advisory aims to help organisations and users make informed decisions when selecting authentication methods. By understanding the strengths, trade-offs, and suitability of the methods available, stakeholders can better protect their systems and reduce the risk of account compromise.There are several methods available to keep online accounts secure. Each method offers a different balance of security, convenience and user suitability. Types of Authentication

    1. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) MFA adds an extra layer of security by requiring more than just a password — such as a code sent to your phone or an app-generated verification number. Some common examples include apps such as Google Authenticator and Microsoft Authenticator. MFA is appropriate when: Security is more important than convenience or speed. Users are happy to provide a second method of contact, like a phone number or email. Users are confident using mobile devices and can recognise unusual requests. The service can offer multiple ways to verify identity. MFA is less appropriate when: Ease of use and quick access are more important than strong security. Users prefer not to give out contact information. Users are less comfortable with mobile technology or authentication messages.
    2. Federated Single Sign-On (SSO) via OIDC Federated SSO (often seen as “Sign in with Google” or “Sign in with Apple”) allows users to log in using an existing account from a trusted provider, instead of creating a new one. It uses a protocol called OpenID Connect (OIDC) . Benefits: Users do not need to remember new passwords. Your account benefits from the existing security measures of the trusted provider, such as MFA or suspicious activity blocking. OIDC is appropriate when: Ease of use is a high priority. You trust the identity provider’s security and availability. Users are comfortable with the provider knowing they use your service. OIDC is less appropriate when: Strong, independent control over account security is required. Users want to keep their use of your service private from the identity provider. Your service has higher availability or security standards than the identity provider. You cannot tolerate service outages from the identity provider.
    3. FIDO2 FIDO2 is a newer standard that allows passwordless authentication using hardware tokens or biometrics (like fingerprint or face recognition). FIDO2 is appropriate when: Strong security is more important than ease of use. Users understand and value the need for high-level security. You can provide users with the needed device or token, rather than relying on them to buy their own. You can manage account recovery when users lose their access tokens. FIDO2 is less appropriate when: User convenience is as important as security. Users do not see the need for high security and resist using second factors. Users do not own or want to purchase smartphones or security tokens. You need immediate account recovery if a token is lost.
    4. Magic Links and One-Time Passwords (OTPs) These methods send a link or temporary code to your email or phone number that you use to sign in, usually for one-time or session-based access. Magic links and OTPs are appropriate when: Security is not the main concern, and user convenience matters just as much. Users are willing to provide an email or phone number. Users are comfortable using mobile devices and can recognise suspicious requests. Magic links and OTPs are less appropriate when: High security is required, and mobile or email systems may not be secure enough. Users do not want to give out contact information. Users may struggle to identify legitimate authentication messages. Conclusion Choosing the right authentication method depends on balancing security needs with user experience. MFA and FIDO2 offer strong protection but may be less convenient. Federated SSO via OIDC simplifies login but relies on third-party providers. Magic links and OTPs provide ease of use but are best suited for lower-risk scenarios. Understanding your needs, your threat environment, and your service requirements is key to selecting the most appropriate method of authentication. References: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/guidance/authentication-methods-choosing-the-right-type?utm_source=tldrinfosec

    Source: CSA/SingCERT