Habr•August 6, 2026•🇷🇺Translated from Russian

Step-Up Authentication vs 2FA: Implementing Additional Verification for Sensitive Operations in Corporate Systems

Two-factor authentication (2FA) has become a standard for protecting corporate systems, yet it often proves insufficient for handling personal data or other high-risk operations. While 2FA verifies identity only at login and then grants access for the duration of the trusted session, modern attacks increasingly target already-active sessions. This limitation prompted the adoption of Step-Up Authentication, which requests additional confirmation precisely when a user attempts a sensitive action.

Why Standard 2FA Falls Short

Common second factors include SMS or Email OTP, TOTP from authenticator apps such as Yandex Key, Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, or Authy, and other one-time codes. These methods protect the login process effectively but do not re-verify identity during an ongoing session. As a result, prolonged sessions or shared devices can expose critical resources without further checks.

What Step-Up Authentication Provides

Step-Up Authentication differs by triggering extra verification only at the point of elevated-risk operations. Typical scenarios include work on shared devices, long-lived sessions, or access requests that demand a higher trust level than the initial login provided. In the described project, this mechanism was applied specifically when users attempted to retrieve salary information, requiring re-authentication only for selected APIs.

The technical foundation relies on ACR (Authentication Context Class Reference) values embedded in tokens. These values indicate whether login occurred with password alone or with an additional OTP. Applications inspect the ACR claim and either grant access or redirect the user for further authentication.

Project Implementation Challenges and Solution

Although Keycloak and WSO2 both support Step-Up Authentication out of the box, the project’s business requirements exceeded standard capabilities. The PIN code had to remain valid for six months, external systems needed to treat it as a user password, and verification had to occur at a separate gateway layer independent of the Identity Provider. These constraints made heavy customization of WSO2 impractical.

The team therefore created an independent PIN-code service and a dedicated gateway-2fa microservice. Only requests to protected APIs pass through this gateway; all other traffic follows the normal route. The flow works as follows:

  • The web application directs the user to the PIN service to generate a code.
  • The service creates an encrypted PIN, stores it, and delivers it via email and SMS.
  • After successful entry, the service issues a signed cookie with a defined TTL confirming Step-Up completion.
  • On subsequent protected calls, gateway-2fa validates the cookie and cross-checks key JWT fields; mismatches result in denial of access.

User Experience and Monitoring

From the user’s perspective, the additional step appears only when accessing protected data. A 401 response prompts PIN entry; successful validation sets the cookie, after which the user can work with sensitive resources until the TTL expires (set to 20 minutes in this implementation). Incorrect PIN attempts simply keep the resource inaccessible.

Usage statistics are collected in Matomo and technical metrics in ELK, enabling early detection of performance issues or unusual patterns.

Key Considerations for Deployment

Successful rollout requires careful definition of TTL duration, strong encryption for stored PINs, load testing of the additional service, and logging that supports incident investigation without exposing sensitive user data. The resulting architecture strengthens protection for critical operations while preserving a seamless login experience and supporting Zero Trust principles.

Related articles

Habr•Other

PT AF Cloud Uses Machine Learning to Detect Shifts in Web Attack Patterns from Millions of WAF Events

Positive Technologies has detailed how its PT AF Cloud service applies anomaly detection to WAF events, turning tens of millions of daily security events into actionable weekly alerts for SOC teams. The system builds traffic profiles based on the distribution of triggered protection rules for each tenant and compares current hourly or daily profiles against a weighted historical baseline using Jensen-Shannon distance. This approach identifies meaningful changes in attack composition even when overall event volume remains stable, catching the start of scans, exploitation of newly published vulnerabilities, or post-release application changes that trigger new rules. Two detection modes operate in parallel: an hourly mode for rapid spikes and a daily mode for gradual shifts distributed across multiple hours. Alerts include comparative tables of top rules, unique attack vectors, and direct links to the relevant events in the PT AF interface. Over four weeks the detector surfaced roughly 1,100 anomalies across the cloud, with expert review confirming that 69 percent indicated either an attack or a protection misconfiguration.

Habr•Other

How to Prepare Your Website for Data Center Outages: Business Resilience Checklist

Following strikes on Yandex data centers, many businesses discovered that their sites and all backups were stored in a single location, leading to complete outages. The article provides a detailed checklist to mitigate such risks by separating critical components across different providers. Key recommendations include moving DNS to an independent provider, lowering TTL values, maintaining a live mirror site on separate hosting, and isolating corporate email. Additional steps cover local backups, monitoring, access management, and CDN usage. The guidance differentiates between virtual hosting, VPS or dedicated servers, and website builders like Tilda, while emphasizing compliance with Russian data localization laws such as 152-FZ.

Securitylab•Other

How to Properly Compare CDNs: TTFB, p95 Latency, Caching, DDoS Protection and True Pricing

Selecting a CDN based solely on the number of points of presence is as unreliable as choosing a car by dashboard buttons. Networks with dozens of global PoPs may underperform for audiences concentrated in Novosibirsk or Yekaterinburg, while smaller regional providers often deliver superior peering with Russian operators. The article evaluates CDNVideo, EdgeCenter, Curator, NGENIX and Yandex Cloud CDN across verifiable features, network design, caching behavior, security controls, operations and commercial models. Performance data is separated because marketing claims cannot substitute for independent measurements from services such as CDNMON. Emphasis is placed on p95 metrics, cache hit ratios, origin shielding, raw logs and API limits rather than marketing scores. The analysis shows that no single universal ranking exists; optimal choice depends on traffic profile, audience geography, security requirements and operational workflows.

Habr•Other

Innostage Lab Benchmarks PT NGFW 1.10.3 Performance in Eight Load Scenarios

Innostage researchers conducted extensive performance testing of PT NGFW version 1.10.3, the certified release at the time of trials. The evaluation covered TCP connection setup rates, concurrent session capacity, and throughput on a custom EMIX traffic profile with varying security modules enabled. Tests used Cisco TRex generators and a high-rule-count policy of 100,000 entries to simulate realistic enterprise conditions. Results showed the device sustaining 700,000 CPS and 6.4 million concurrent connections, matching or approaching vendor claims under HA-cluster configuration. Throughput remained above 27 Gbps even with IPS, application control, antivirus, NAT, URL filtering, and logging active. The report highlights differences in test methodology compared with vendor figures, including packet sizes and clustering setup.