Implementation guidance for Australian Essential Eight controls in Microsoft environments - ISM controls with PSPF mappings
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| ISM Control | ISM-1872 |
| Revision | 1 |
| Updated | Dec-23 |
| Guideline | Not provided |
| Section | Authentication hardening |
| Topic | Multi-factor authentication |
| Essential Eight | ML2, ML3 |
| PSPF Levels | NC, OS, P, S, TS |
This control mandates a Conditional Access policy named ‘USR - G - Require strong auth’ that is targeted to users as required and enforces multifactor authentication with phishing-resistant authentication strength to protect access to cloud resources. It specifies that only strictly phishing-resistant methods like FIDO2 security keys or Windows Hello for Business are considered phishing-resistant, while the Microsoft Authenticator app is not technically phishing-resistant but provides resistance to phishing; best judgement should be used when selecting authentication strength.123
Conventional MFA methods (TOTP codes via SMS or authenticator app, push notifications) are vulnerable to real-time phishing attacks using adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) proxies such as Evilginx2, Modlishka, and Muraena. These tools relay authentication sessions transparently, capturing session cookies even after MFA completion — bypassing MFA entirely without stealing credentials.
Phishing-resistant MFA methods (FIDO2 security keys, Windows Hello for Business, Certificate-Based Authentication) bind the authentication assertion cryptographically to the specific origin (relying party ID / domain). An AiTM proxy operating on a lookalike domain receives an authentication assertion that is cryptographically invalid for the legitimate service — the authentication fails at the server side even if the user is deceived.
The ACSC Essential Eight Maturity Level 3 explicitly requires phishing-resistant MFA for all users of online services. The Microsoft Authenticator number matching and additional context features improve resistance to MFA fatigue attacks but do not meet the phishing-resistant threshold — they can still be bypassed by sophisticated AiTM attacks.
| MFA method | Phishing-resistant | AiTM-resistant | ISM ML3 compliant |
|---|---|---|---|
| SMS OTP | No | No | No |
| TOTP (authenticator app) | No | No | No |
| Push notification (Authenticator) | No | Partial (number match) | No |
| Certificate-Based Authentication (CBA) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| FIDO2 security key | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Windows Hello for Business | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Passkey (device-bound) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
The Conditional Access authentication strength Phishing-resistant MFA (built-in) enforces this policy in Entra ID — requests that do not satisfy a phishing-resistant method result in a block (CA error 53003) rather than fallback to a weaker method.
[!NOTE] The USR - G - Require strong auth policy will be deployed via Conditional Access to require phishing-resistant MFA for users as required, and it will acknowledge that phishing-resistant MFA methods may not always be possible and that only FIDO2 security keys or Windows Hello for Business are strictly phishing-resistant while the Microsoft Authenticator app is not strictly phishing-resistant but is resistant to phishing.
Identify admin roles and create Entra ID groups to roll out enforcement gradually.
Define authentication strengths for enforcement
Use phishing-resistant MFA strength as the baseline for privileged access sign-ins.[^4]3
Refer to built-in authentication strengths to select appropriate methods (e.g., phishing-resistant options such as hardware-backed keys, device-bound credentials, or certificate-based methods).[^5]
Create Conditional Access policy for administrators
Create Conditional Access policy for standard users
Include legacy app handling and external user considerations
Monitor Conditional Access sign-in logs for policy CA block 53003 (authentication strength not satisfied) to identify users who are unable to satisfy phishing-resistant MFA requirements and need device or credential remediation.2