Strengthening authorization frameworks with PEPs, advice, and obligations

Effective authorization mechanisms are the backbone of safeguarding data. PEPs, advice, and obligations play pivotal roles.

Axiomatics   ·   Wednesday, August 20th, 2025   ·   Reading Time: 3 minutes

In the intricate web of modern digital security, effective authorization mechanisms are the backbone of safeguarding sensitive data and systems. Among these mechanisms, Policy Enforcement Points (PEPs), advice, and obligations play pivotal roles in ensuring access control is both precise and adaptable.

Yet, questions often arise: Can the PEP be trusted? How can advice and obligations enhance security and user experience?

Understanding these components is essential for organizations aiming to build a resilient and transparent security framework. By delving into the roles and interconnections of PEPs, advice, and obligations, we can uncover how they work together to not only protect but also optimize both internal processes and end user interactions.

Let’s explore how these elements come together to create a stronger, smarter approach to authorization.

Can I trust the PEP?

The PEP is what protects your organization’s applications by intercepting what’s going in and out of the applications. On the surface, it may seem like a great safeguard, but you might find yourself wondering: Can I trust the PEP? Can I trust the PEP to force the decision I’m giving it? Is my PEP enough to enforce the right decision?

To keep it simple, you have to trust the PEP. There is implicit trust between the PEP and the Policy Decision Point (PDP) because if there isn’t, how can you even trust the PEP to ask the right question?

It’s one thing to not trust client-side checks where there could be a malicious user or script trying to influence what the PEP is actually doing, however, these checks are, and should be, client-side.

By using client-side checks to secure the communication between the PEP and the PDP, you can sleep soundly at night knowing that your data is guarded.

What are advice and obligations for?

One of the most common ways we see advice and obligations used for is to provide feedback to the end user itself. Instead of a message that flashes on screen with the words “access denied”, this process allows you to provide additional information, such as “call this number” or an error code, directly to the user.

While this can be done, it’s important to maintain balance and consider the environment in which it’s being used. For example, if you’re a consumer-facing organization, you want to keep your customers happy, while keeping them safe. If your site isn’t user-friendly, users may turn to different vendors or sites for a solution that might not be trustworthy. What’s great about advice and obligations is that you can create error codes that explain exactly why access was denied. For example, you could explicitly state that the user doesn’t have the correct license or code number to access specific data.

Additionally, the obligation side can enhance security by giving users access to specific data. For example, if you want to put multi-factor authentication (MFA) in place, obligations make it possible to ask the user for information needed, such as codes or passwords, for them to receive access. Other measures can also be put into place by obligations, such as requiring users to take a security course before they can get access.

Not only are advice and obligations useful in consumer-facing environments, but they can also be beneficial for internal use, particularly in regards to testing. During testing, advice and obligations can help ensure that decisions are coming from the intended rule and/or policy branch. This is possible because policies are often structured as “tree structures,” with various branches and nodes where decisions can originate. In these cases, obligations and advice can serve as breadcrumbs, helping to confirm that the decision came from the expected branch and rule. These messages are only visible to the DevOps team, not the end user, which is beneficial for both system clarity and internal improvements.

By breaking away from the binary “yes/no” decision model, where all users receive a permit or denied access, advice and obligations not only improve the user experience, but also helps testers understand exactly what needs to be enhanced. When you can follow the trail of breadcrumbs left by advice and obligations, it’s easier to identify areas for improvement, such as strengthening authentication mechanisms or enabling two-factor authentication for the end user.

All in all, advice and obligations are powerful processes that not only enhance user experience, but also help your internal teams improve testing methods.

Enhancing security with trust and transparency

PEPs, advice, and obligations are far more than technical components — they are the cornerstones of an effective and adaptable authorization framework. Trusting the PEP ensures seamless and secure enforcement of access control decisions, while advice and obligations extend the functionality beyond a simple “permit or deny” model. Together, they enhance user experience, boost internal efficiency, and refine security processes.

Leveraging these mechanisms, organizations can strike a balance between robust protection and transparency, ensuring that both end users and internal teams benefit from improved insights and performance. In a dynamic security landscape, understanding and integrating these elements creates stronger defenses, fosters trust, and builds the foundation for future resilience.

Ready to gain more knowledge on policy-driven authorization? Here are some additional resources that look at this topic:

• Why traditional IAM solutions are no longer enough
• Policies or graphs: which approach works best?
• State of Authorization: Playbook Edition