Enabling Active Directory MFA isn’t a one-time switch. In hybrid environments spanning on-premises Active Directory and Microsoft Entra ID, MFA enforcement splits across multiple control planes: cloud authentication, endpoint sign-ins, VPNs, and legacy apps. The real risk occurs where you have coverage gaps, weak authentication methods, or configuration drift that attackers can exploit. Session hijacking techniques like the Cookie-Bite attack prove that enforcement alone fails without continuous visibility into where MFA actually protects your identity infrastructure.
This guide explains how Active Directory MFA actually works in hybrid environments, where enforcement gaps commonly appear, and how security teams can validate MFA posture over time.
What Active Directory MFA Really Means Today
Active Directory MFA often creates confusion because Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS) itself doesn’t natively enforce multifactor authentication for standard Kerberos or NTLM authentication. Unlike cloud-native identity platforms, AD DS was designed in an era when passwords and smart cards represented the security baseline. What most organizations call Active Directory MFA is actually a collection of controls applied at different enforcement points, some before authentication reaches AD, others after it validates credentials.
This distinction matters because security teams frequently assume that enabling MFA in Microsoft Entra ID automatically protects all Active Directory access. It doesn’t: Your on-premises domain controllers continue processing authentication requests exactly as they always have. When a user authenticates directly to AD through Windows sign-in, RDP, or legacy applications, those requests may bypass cloud-based MFA policies entirely unless you’ve explicitly configured additional enforcement layers.
Active Directory processes authentication; it doesn’t inherently require MFA. Your security controls must intercept and validate additional factors elsewhere in the authentication chain.
In practice, MFA enforcement spans multiple control planes, each with its own strengths and gaps: cloud authentication through Entra ID, endpoint-level controls at Windows sign-in, and network access points like VPNs or application proxies. Each plane operates independently, with its own policy engine, method support, and gap potential.
Maintaining visibility into authentication paths and administrative access is critical for organizations managing complex hybrid identity environments. Tools designed for Active Directory governance and reporting help security teams understand how identities are actually used across on-prem and cloud environments. Active Directory security fundamentally concerns controlling authentication and authorization while preventing unauthorized access, a mission that requires understanding where your MFA controls actually enforce and where they don’t.
This fragmented enforcement model explains why organizations discover privileged users accessing production servers without MFA or service accounts authenticating through paths nobody documented. Your security depends not on whether MFA exists somewhere in your environment but on mapping every authentication path and confirming which factor requirements apply to each one.
How Active Directory MFA Works in Practice
Where Active Directory MFA enforcement actually happens depends on three separate control planes: cloud authentication (Entra ID), on-premises endpoints, and network access points. Each one operates independently with its own policy engines, supported authentication methods, and visibility tools. The real challenge isn’t setting up MFA at one layer but ensuring you’ve covered all three while identifying the paths attackers use when they find gaps in your defenses.
Entra ID MFA and Conditional Access
Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) handles authentication for cloud applications and hybrid environments where users authenticate through modern protocols like OAuth 2.0 and SAML. When a user tries to access Microsoft 365, SaaS applications, or any cloud resource integrated with Entra ID, Conditional Access policies determine whether MFA gets enforced. These policies evaluate signals like user location, device compliance status, risk level, and application sensitivity before granting access.
Security Defaults provides a baseline MFA configuration that requires all users to register for MFA and challenges them when Entra ID detects suspicious activity. While it’s better than having nothing in place, Security Defaults lacks the granularity that enterprise security demands. Conditional Access policies offer precise control. For example, you can require phishing-resistant methods for privileged users, enforce device compliance before allowing access to sensitive applications, or block legacy authentication protocols entirely.
The limitation surfaces with legacy authentication. IMAP, POP3, SMTP AUTH, and Basic Authentication bypass Conditional Access entirely. Attackers frequently target these protocols because they provide direct access to cloud resources without triggering MFA prompts. Microsoft has disabled Basic Authentication for Exchange Online, but many organizations still support legacy protocols for specific applications or integrations, creating persistent gaps in their MFA coverage.
On-Premises Access Points
When users authenticate directly to on-premises Active Directory (via Windows sign-in, Remote Desktop Protocol, or file share access), you’re working outside Entra ID’s control plane. AD DS processes these requests using Kerberos or NTLM, neither of which supports MFA natively. Securing these access points requires implementing additional enforcement mechanisms at the endpoint or network layer.
Windows Hello for Business provides the most effective solution for endpoint MFA. It replaces passwords with cryptographic key pairs tied to biometric factors or PIN codes, creating a hardware-backed authentication method that protects against credential theft. Smart cards and FIDO2 security keys offer similar protection, requiring physical tokens that generate time-based authentication codes. These methods work well for interactive logins but don’t address all access scenarios.
Remote access tools like Microsoft Entra ID Application Proxy or third-party privileged access management solutions can inject MFA requirements before users reach on-premises resources. Jump servers and bastion hosts provide another enforcement point, requiring MFA before users access production systems through RDP or SSH. The real challenge is maintaining an accurate inventory; many organizations discover forgotten access paths during security assessments, each representing a potential MFA bypass.
Legacy Apps, VPNs, and Network Authentication
VPN concentrators, legacy web applications, and network access control systems typically authenticate against Active Directory through RADIUS or LDAP. These protocols were built before modern authentication standards existed and require additional infrastructure to support MFA. Network Policy Server on Windows Server can integrate with cloud MFA services, but configuration complexity often leads to inconsistent implementation across different access points.
MFA Enforcement Mechanisms for Legacy Access
Here’s how different access methods handle MFA enforcement, along with the common gaps that appear in each approach.
Access Method | Typical Enforcement Point | Coverage Gaps |
VPN Access | RADIUS/NPS with cloud MFA extension | Split tunneling bypasses and service accounts without MFA |
Web Applications | Application Proxy or reverse proxy with MFA | Direct network access and API endpoints |
WiFi/802.1X | Certificate-based or NPS RADIUS | Guest networks, IoT devices, and certificate expiration |
Database Access | Jump server or PAM solution | Application service accounts and direct database connections |
Application proxy solutions from Microsoft, or alternatives like Silverfort and Duo, place an authentication layer between users and legacy applications. These proxies intercept authentication requests, validate MFA before forwarding credentials, and provide session management capabilities. The trade-off involves additional latency and potential compatibility issues with applications that implement custom authentication flows or expect specific network architectures.
What Active Directory MFA Does Not Automatically Protect
Implementing Active Directory MFA often creates a false sense of security, so to speak. Security teams frequently discover that their MFA deployment protects user-facing authentication while leaving critical attack surfaces completely exposed. Understanding these gaps matters because attackers specifically target authentication paths that bypass MFA requirements, exploiting the common assumption that “we have MFA enabled” equals full protection across the board.
Service accounts and non-interactive logons represent the most significant blind spots in Active Directory MFA deployments. These accounts authenticate using passwords, API keys, or certificates without any human interaction, making traditional MFA methods impossible to apply. Application service accounts connecting to databases, scheduled tasks running under dedicated credentials, and system-to-system authentication all operate outside your MFA enforcement policies. Attackers who compromise these accounts gain persistent access that bypasses every MFA control you’ve implemented for regular users.
Service accounts don’t authenticate like users do. Your MFA policies don’t protect authentication paths that never trigger an interactive login prompt.
Legacy authentication protocols create permanent gaps in MFA coverage. NTLM, SMBv1, and older versions of LDAP lack the capability to challenge users for additional factors during authentication. Even when you’ve enforced MFA everywhere in Entra ID and deployed endpoint protection, applications still using these protocols authenticate against Active Directory with just a password. Certificate-based authentication provides stronger security than passwords alone, but many organizations continue supporting weak authentication methods across their infrastructure. The protocol itself prevents MFA enforcement, regardless of how strict your policies claim to be.
Break-glass and emergency access accounts pose a security paradox. These accounts exist specifically for scenarios where normal authentication systems fail, which often means they’re explicitly excluded from MFA requirements to prevent lockout situations. While this exclusion serves a legitimate purpose, it also creates privileged accounts that authenticate with only a password. Every excluded account represents an attack target with credentials that provide high-level access without requiring additional verification factors. Without strict governance of these exceptions, what started as one emergency account multiplies into dozens of MFA-exempt privileged identities scattered across your environment.
Temporary MFA exclusions become permanent gaps through administrative drift. You create an exception for a user traveling internationally, a contractor accessing a specific system, or a department piloting new software; the exclusion solves an immediate problem, but nobody documents an expiration date or assigns ownership for review. These exceptions accumulate over time, creating a growing population of users who authenticate without MFA while your policies claim universal enforcement. The gap is operational, not technical, and it remains invisible until someone specifically audits exception lists buried in various policy configurations.
The 5 Most Common Active Directory MFA Security Gaps
While some MFA gaps are architectural by design, most real-world failures come from operational drift and incomplete rollout. Deploying Active Directory MFA across your infrastructure builds stronger authentication, but implementation alone doesn’t guarantee protection. Security gaps emerge not from missing MFA entirely but from partial coverage, incomplete registration, weak authentication methods, and exceptions that accumulate quietly over time. These gaps persist because they’re operational problems that look like technical ones, and they stay invisible until an attacker exploits them or an audit forces you to document what’s actually protected.
Here are five specific issues to watch out for.
1. MFA Policies Exist, but Users Aren't Fully Registered
Your Conditional Access policies require MFA for all users accessing cloud applications. The policy shows as “enabled” in your console, and compliance reports indicate full deployment. However, a gap appears when you check actual registration status: You discover that 15-20% of your user population never completed MFA enrollment. These users either received temporary exceptions during rollout, fell through gaps in communication, or exploited the grace period that nobody remembered to close.
Unregistered users bypass your MFA requirements because authentication systems can’t challenge factors that the user never configured. Some organizations allow unregistered users to access resources with just passwords until they complete enrollment; others block access entirely but create help desk bottlenecks when users can’t work. Neither approach addresses the fundamental problem: Your security depends on users completing a registration process that you can’t automatically enforce.
2. MFA Enforced for Cloud Apps but Not On-Premises Access
This gap represents the most common configuration pattern in hybrid environments. Organizations implement Conditional Access policies for Microsoft 365 and SaaS applications while leaving on-premises authentication paths completely unprotected. Users authenticate to Entra ID with MFA when accessing Exchange Online, but they sign into domain-joined workstations, access file shares, and connect through RDP using only passwords. The technical reason makes sense: AD DS doesn’t enforce MFA natively. However, the security consequence remains, which is that privileged access to production systems happens without additional verification.
Attackers specifically target this gap by compromising domain credentials and moving laterally through on-premises infrastructure. They bypass cloud MFA entirely by authenticating directly to Active Directory, exploiting the fact that domain controllers process Kerberos and NTLM requests without consulting Entra ID policies. Organizations discover this gap during incident response when they realize attackers accessed critical systems despite “having MFA everywhere.”
3. Weak MFA Methods Still Being Allowed
Not all authentication factors provide equal protection. For example, SMS-based one-time passwords remain vulnerable to SIM swapping attacks and interception; voice calls face similar risks. Push notifications without number matching allow attackers to spam users with approval requests until someone accidentally accepts. According to Instasafe, adaptive MFA solutions adjust authentication requirements based on risk levels, but they still depend on having strong baseline methods configured.
This comparison outlines the phishing resistance and primary vulnerabilities of common MFA methods.
Authentication Method | Phishing Resistance | Primary Vulnerabilities |
SMS / Voice | No | SIM swapping, interception, social engineering |
Push Notification (basic) | No | MFA fatigue attacks, accidental approval |
Authenticator App (TOTP) | Partial | Phishing sites can capture and replay codes |
Push with Number Matching | High | Requires user attention to context |
FIDO2 Security Keys | Yes | Physical theft, device management overhead |
Windows Hello for Business | Yes | Device compromise, TPM vulnerabilities |
Many organizations enable MFA without restricting which methods users can register. This approach prioritizes adoption over security, allowing users to choose SMS verification because it’s convenient. The policy technically enforces MFA, but it permits authentication factors that sophisticated attackers routinely bypass. Fixing this gap requires defining allowed methods explicitly, not just requiring that users complete any form of additional verification.
4. Privileged Users Being Treated Like Standard Users
Privileged accounts demand stronger MFA methods, more frequent verification, and additional context evaluation during authentication. When a global administrator signs in from a new location or device, that authentication attempt deserves scrutiny beyond what a standard user requires. Organizations that treat all accounts equally create situations where compromising a privileged account proves no more difficult than breaching any other identity in the directory.
5. Exceptions That Never Expire
Every MFA exclusion you create becomes a permanent gap unless you build governance around it. These exceptions accumulate because creating them solves immediate problems while reviewing them requires dedicated effort nobody schedules.
The operational reality makes this gap particularly insidious. Security teams know exclusions exist but lack continuous visibility into who’s excluded, why they’re excluded, and whether those exceptions still serve legitimate purposes. Manual reviews happen quarterly at best, leaving months where inappropriate exclusions provide attackers with password-only access to protected resources. Governance tools that continuously audit exceptions, flag aged configurations, and require regular attestation transform this operational gap into a managed risk.
Cayosoft Guardian Protector provides continuous visibility into MFA registration status, authentication methods, privileged account coverage, and exception inventories across both Active Directory and Entra ID. Security teams gain reporting that validates actual MFA coverage rather than relying on policy configurations that claim enforcement without proving it. Schedule a demo to see how governance workflows close the gap between deployment and verified protection.
Conclusion
Active Directory MFA stops being theoretical when you document every authentication path and verify which factors actually protect each one. Enforcement across cloud and on-prem systems removes obvious risks, but sustained protection requires governance that identifies drift before attackers exploit it.
Security maturity isn’t about whether MFA exists but rather how quickly you detect registration gaps, weak methods, privileged account exceptions, and legacy protocols that bypass policies. Organizations that treat MFA as a deployment project find gaps during incidents; those that use continuous validation catch them while they’re still configuration issues. Map enforcement planes, audit exceptions, and establish reporting that proves coverage rather than assumes it.
FAQs
No. Kerberos is a single-factor authentication protocol that validates credentials but doesn’t inherently require multiple verification factors. While Kerberos can work alongside MFA solutions like smart cards or Windows Hello for Business, the protocol itself only handles password-based authentication without enforcing additional factors.
Yes, Active Directory supports LDAP authentication for applications and services that need to query directory information and validate credentials. However, LDAP authentication typically operates as single-factor verification unless you implement additional enforcement mechanisms like certificate-based authentication or integrate third-party MFA solutions at the application layer.
FIDO2 security keys and Windows Hello for Business provide the strongest protection for Active Directory MFA because they’re phishing-resistant and use cryptographic authentication tied to hardware. These hardware-backed methods significantly reduce risk compared to SMS or basic push notifications for privileged accounts accessing Tier 0 infrastructure.
Active Directory uses Kerberos as its default authentication protocol with NTLM as a fallback, both of which rely solely on passwords without requiring additional verification factors. Single-factor approaches are insufficient for modern security requirements, which is why organizations layer Active Directory MFA controls at endpoints, cloud authentication, and network access points.
You can create temporary MFA exclusions through Conditional Access policy exemptions or group-based exceptions, but these require governance workflows that automatically expire and alert security teams when exceptions age beyond defined thresholds. Without expiration dates and regular attestation requirements, temporary exclusions inevitably become permanent vulnerabilities that attackers specifically target.
Want to See Cayosoft in Action?
Cayosoft is recognized by Gartner as an ITDR solution provider and provides solutions that make identities more resilient to attacks and guarantee a fast forest recovery, if needed. Learn how Cayosoft Guardian facilitates granular change tracking, post-breach analysis, and long-term AD security improvements. Schedule a demo to see the capabilities in depth.