MFA has been around for years. Most organisations have "enabled" it. And yet in 2026, it remains one of the most common points of failure in real world security incidents.
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) has been around for a long time now.
For most organisations, it's no longer a new concept. It's something that has been "rolled out", "enabled", or "ticked off" as part of a security uplift.
And yet, in 2026, MFA is still one of the most common points of failure in real world security incidents. Not because MFA doesn't work — but because it's often implemented badly, inconsistently, or without regard for how people actually work.
The question is no longer "Do you have MFA?" It's: "Is your MFA actually reducing risk — or just creating friction?"
What "good" MFA looks like in 2026
Good MFA in 2026 is not about piling on more prompts or making life harder for staff. It's about strong identity assurance that adapts to risk, supports modern working patterns, and is understood — not resented — by users.
At a practical level, good MFA means MFA is enforced everywhere it matters, not just on email. Access decisions consider who the user is, what they're accessing, and from where. Privileged accounts are treated very differently to standard users. MFA is paired with clear policies and user education, not just technical controls. And exceptions are rare, documented, and regularly reviewed.
Most importantly, good MFA is part of a broader security posture — not a standalone control.
Where organisations still get MFA wrong
Despite widespread adoption, the same mistakes appear again and again.
MFA is enabled — but only in the most obvious places. It's treated as a technology project instead of a risk control. "Temporary" exceptions quietly become permanent.
In many cases, MFA is implemented without understanding overall identity maturity. Shared accounts, excessive privileges, and poor off-boarding undermine its effectiveness regardless of how well MFA itself is configured.
Why more MFA isn't the answer
When MFA causes frustration, organisations often either water it down or add more prompts. Neither approach works.
Excessive prompts train users to approve requests without thinking — a behaviour attackers actively exploit through MFA fatigue attacks. Inconsistent enforcement creates confusion about what's expected and why.
Good MFA feels predictable, proportionate, and purposeful. Users understand why it exists, and it doesn't stand in the way of getting work done.
The role of a Cyber Review & Cultural Awareness Uplift
MFA should never be implemented or reviewed in isolation.
A Cyber Review & Cultural Awareness Uplift examines MFA in context — identity, access, user behaviour, governance, and risk. Rather than asking "Is MFA enabled?", the right question becomes: "Is MFA doing the job we think it is?"
The outcome is a practical uplift plan that strengthens security without eroding trust or productivity. It surfaces the gaps between policy and practice, between technical deployment and real world effectiveness.
MFA is necessary — but it's not sufficient
In 2026, MFA is table stakes. What differentiates organisations is not whether MFA exists, but whether it is well designed, consistently applied, governed, and understood by users.
A Cyber Review & Cultural Awareness Uplift ensures MFA is part of a coherent, defensible security posture that protects the business, its information, and its people — not just a line item in a compliance checklist.