So my company decided to migrate office suite and email etc to Microsoft365. Whatever. But for 2FA login they decided to disable the option to choose “any authenticator” and force Microsoft Authenticator on the (private) phones of both employees and volunteers. Is there any valid reason why they would do this, like it’s demonstrably safer? Or is this a battle I can pick to shield myself a little from MS?
When setting up the authentication when it asks you to set up Microsoft authenticator there should be a drop-down at the bottom of the page that says use another option that will allow you to use a phone call or text message as your chosen method of authentication.
This can be configured for the Microsoft tenant. The admin can allow all possible MFA vectors or restrict it to just a single one such as the Microsoft Authenticator. Microsoft themselves are also pushing the Authenticator, which is actually fine. I haven’t done any packet captures to see what it is sending back to Redmond, but the most secure method is great. The service you are logging into generates a two-digit number that you must enter when prompted in the Authenticator app.
Still, I’ve seen issues arise when an employee only has a flip phone or flat out refuses to install any app required for work on their personal devices. IT departments will typically fold to pressure and allow a call or text for MFA because they did not want to buy, configure, and send out phones to employees refused.
I’ve also seen IT send a company phone to a specific user that refused to allow Microsoft to have their phone number for calls or texts too. Legal told them they could not require the employee to use their personal property or reveal personal details to Microsoft in order to work.
^ This. We try to enforce Microsoft Authenticator company wide and we will never be able to completely ditch call/text as an option. We have a ton of users that don’t have smart phones. We have a policy to only allow call/text if a user specifically requests it.