H33›Blog›Authentication Security Audit: A Comprehensive Checklist
Security February 24, 2026 · 35 min read

Authentication Security Audit:
A Comprehensive Checklist

Authentication is the front door to every system you operate. A single misconfiguration—an overly permissive token lifetime, a missing PKCE parameter, an unpatched hashing algorithm—can expose millions of user accounts. This guide provides a structured, framework-aligned methodology for auditing every layer of your authentication infrastructure, from password policies and session management to cryptographic primitives and post-quantum readiness.

80%
Breaches Involve Auth
$4.88M
Avg Breach Cost
277 days
Avg Detection Time
16
Audit Domains

In 2024, the average cost of a data breach reached $4.88 million globally, according to IBM's annual Cost of a Data Breach Report. Verizon's Data Breach Investigations Report consistently shows that over 80% of hacking-related breaches involve stolen or brute-forced credentials. The pattern is consistent: organizations invest heavily in perimeter defenses—firewalls, intrusion detection systems, network segmentation—while the authentication layer, the literal mechanism that decides who gets access to what, receives comparatively little structured scrutiny.

An authentication security audit changes that. It is a systematic, methodical examination of every component that participates in verifying a user's identity: the credential storage, the session lifecycle, the multi-factor mechanisms, the cryptographic primitives, the API endpoints, and the logging infrastructure that makes all of it observable. Done well, an auth audit catches the vulnerabilities that automated scanners miss—the logic errors, the configuration drift, the outdated algorithms that are technically functional but cryptographically broken.

This guide provides a complete framework for conducting that audit. It is structured as a sixteen-domain checklist, aligned with industry standards including OWASP's Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST Special Publication 800-63 (Digital Identity Guidelines), and ISO 27001. Each domain includes specific audit checks, severity classifications, and remediation guidance. The final sections cover automated tooling, remediation prioritization, post-quantum readiness assessment, and a deliverable template for the audit report itself.

Table of Contents

  1. 01 Why Audit Your Auth System
  2. 02 Audit Framework Overview
  3. 03 Pre-Audit: Scoping and Inventory
  4. 04 Password Policy Audit
  5. 05 Session Management Audit
  6. 06 MFA Implementation Audit
  7. 07 OAuth/OIDC Configuration Audit
  8. 08 Biometric System Audit
  9. 09 API Authentication Audit
  10. 10 Cryptographic Audit
  11. 11 Logging and Monitoring Audit
  12. 12 Compliance Mapping
  13. 13 Automated Testing Tools
  14. 14 Remediation Prioritization
  15. 15 Post-Quantum Readiness Assessment
  16. 16 Audit Report Template

1. Why Audit Your Authentication System

Authentication is the single most targeted attack surface in any application. The reasons are straightforward: credentials are the easiest path to unauthorized access, and the attack tooling is cheap, widely available, and increasingly automated. Understanding the threat landscape is the first step toward justifying the investment an auth audit requires.

The Breach Landscape

The numbers paint a clear picture of where organizations are failing:

Common Authentication Failures

Most authentication breaches do not involve sophisticated zero-day exploits. They involve mundane, preventable misconfigurations:

Weak Credential Storage

Passwords stored with MD5 or SHA-1 instead of bcrypt/Argon2. Plaintext passwords in logs. Unsalted hashes.

Session Mismanagement

Tokens that never expire. Missing rotation after privilege escalation. Session IDs in URLs. No server-side invalidation.

MFA Gaps

MFA available but not enforced for admins. SMS-only MFA without phishing-resistant alternatives. No MFA on API keys.

OAuth Misconfigurations

Open redirect URIs. Missing PKCE on public clients. Tokens stored in localStorage. Overly broad scopes.

An authentication audit systematically checks for each of these failures and hundreds more. It is not a one-time exercise—it is a recurring process that should happen at minimum annually, and ideally after every major change to the authentication infrastructure.

The Cost of Skipping Audits

Organizations that go more than 12 months without an auth audit are 3.5x more likely to experience a credential-based breach. The average remediation cost for an authentication vulnerability found in production is $15,000–$25,000, versus $500–$2,000 when caught during an audit. The math is unambiguous: regular audits are cheaper than breaches.

2. Audit Framework Overview

A robust authentication audit does not operate in a vacuum. It should be anchored to one or more recognized standards. These frameworks provide the specific controls you are testing against, remove ambiguity about what "secure" means, and produce findings that are directly mappable to compliance requirements.

OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS)

The OWASP ASVS is the most directly applicable framework for authentication audits. Version 4.0 organizes authentication requirements into Chapter V2 (Authentication) and Chapter V3 (Session Management), with three verification levels:

For most organizations, Level 2 is the appropriate target. Level 3 is warranted for financial institutions, healthcare providers, government agencies, and any system where a breach has life-safety or national security implications.

NIST Special Publication 800-63

NIST 800-63 (Digital Identity Guidelines) is the gold standard for identity assurance. It breaks authentication into three volumes:

VolumeFocusKey Requirements
800-63AIdentity ProofingIAL1–IAL3 levels; document verification, biometric matching for higher levels
800-63BAuthentication & LifecycleAAL1–AAL3 levels; authenticator types, reauthentication, session binding
800-63CFederation & AssertionsFAL1–FAL3 levels; SAML, OIDC assertion security, holder-of-key assertions

The most relevant volume for auth audits is 800-63B, which defines three Authentication Assurance Levels (AALs). AAL1 permits single-factor authentication. AAL2 requires two different authentication factors. AAL3 requires a hardware-based cryptographic authenticator with verifier impersonation resistance. Most enterprise applications should target at minimum AAL2.

ISO 27001 / 27002

ISO 27001 provides a management-system approach to information security. Annex A controls relevant to authentication include A.9.2 (User Access Management), A.9.3 (User Responsibilities), and A.9.4 (System and Application Access Control). While less prescriptive than OWASP ASVS at the technical level, ISO 27001 is often the compliance framework that triggers the audit in the first place, and audit findings should map to specific Annex A controls.

Framework Selection Guidance

Use OWASP ASVS as your primary technical checklist, NIST 800-63B to determine your target assurance level, and ISO 27001 for governance mapping. These frameworks complement rather than compete. A well-structured audit report maps each finding to all three.

3. Pre-Audit: Scoping and Inventory

An audit that does not begin with complete scoping will produce incomplete results. Before you test a single endpoint, you need a comprehensive inventory of every authentication surface in your environment.

Authentication Endpoint Inventory

Document every endpoint that accepts, validates, issues, or revokes credentials or tokens. This includes the obvious (login, registration, password reset) and the frequently overlooked:

Authentication Flow Mapping

For each endpoint, map the complete authentication flow from initial request to session establishment. Document:

Credential Storage Inventory

Identify every location where credentials or credential-equivalent material is stored:

The Forgotten Credential Store

In 60% of audits, at least one credential store is discovered that the engineering team was unaware of. Common culprits: credentials in application logs, plaintext API keys in configuration management databases, legacy authentication tables in databases that were supposed to be decommissioned, and service account passwords in CI/CD pipeline definitions. Your inventory is not complete until you have searched for what you do not expect to find.

Scope Definition Document

Produce a formal scope document that includes: all in-scope systems and endpoints, the testing methodology (black-box, gray-box, white-box), the target framework and assurance level, the testing window and any production-impact constraints, the responsible contacts for each system, and the incident escalation path if a critical vulnerability is discovered during testing. Get this signed by the appropriate stakeholder before testing begins.

4. Password Policy Audit

Password-based authentication remains the most prevalent authentication method in production systems. Even organizations moving toward passwordless authentication typically maintain password flows as a fallback. Auditing the password policy is almost always the first domain to address.

Password Requirements

NIST 800-63B on Composition Rules

Section 5.1.1.2 of NIST 800-63B explicitly states: "Verifiers SHOULD NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types or prohibiting consecutively repeated characters) for memorized secrets." Research consistently shows that complex composition rules reduce password entropy by making user behavior more predictable, not less. Length is the single most important factor in password strength.

Password Storage

Password Reset and Recovery

5. Session Management Audit

Session management converts a one-time authentication event into an ongoing trust relationship. It is one of the most error-prone areas in authentication because it involves distributed state, timing, and concurrency—three things that are inherently difficult to get right.

Token Generation and Structure

Token Lifecycle

Token Transport and Storage

Session Fixation Check

Verify that the session identifier changes after successful authentication. If a user authenticates and the session ID remains the same as the pre-authentication session, the application is vulnerable to session fixation attacks. This is a CRITICAL finding that appears in roughly 15% of auth audits.

6. MFA Implementation Audit

Multi-factor authentication is the single most effective control against credential-based attacks. But MFA implementations vary enormously in their actual security properties. An MFA audit must evaluate not just whether MFA exists, but how it is implemented, what attack vectors it mitigates, and which ones it does not.

MFA Coverage

TOTP (Time-Based One-Time Passwords)

WebAuthn / FIDO2

SMS-Based MFA

SMS MFA: Known Vulnerabilities

SMS-based MFA is vulnerable to SIM swapping, SS7 interception, and social engineering of mobile carrier support staff. NIST 800-63B classifies SMS OTP as a "restricted authenticator" and recommends migration to phishing-resistant alternatives (WebAuthn, hardware tokens). If your organization still uses SMS MFA, the audit finding should be: HIGH severity — plan migration to phishing-resistant MFA within 6 months. Do not remove SMS MFA before the replacement is in place—weak MFA is better than no MFA.

Backup and Recovery Codes

7. OAuth/OIDC Configuration Audit

OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect are the backbone of modern delegated authentication. They are also among the most commonly misconfigured protocols in production, largely because the specifications offer many options, and the insecure ones are often the easiest to implement. For a deeper dive into implementation specifics, see our OAuth 2.0 PKCE implementation guide.

Authorization Server Configuration

Token Configuration

Client Registration and Management

The Redirect URI Problem

Redirect URI validation failures remain the most common OAuth vulnerability in production. A 2024 analysis of 500 OAuth deployments found that 18% permitted some form of subdomain or path manipulation in redirect URIs. An attacker who can control the redirect URI can steal authorization codes. Always use exact string matching. Never permit partial matches, wildcards, or regex patterns.

8. Biometric System Audit

Biometric authentication introduces a category of risks that are fundamentally different from knowledge-based or possession-based factors. A compromised password can be changed. A compromised biometric template cannot—you cannot revoke your fingerprint. This makes the security of biometric storage and processing critically important.

Template Storage and Protection

Liveness Detection

Accuracy Thresholds

MetricDefinitionTypical TargetAudit Check
FARFalse Accept Rate< 0.001% (1 in 100,000)Verify threshold is not relaxed for UX convenience
FRRFalse Reject Rate< 1%Verify retry logic does not weaken FAR
EEREqual Error Rate< 0.5%Benchmark against NIST FRVT or equivalent
APCERAttack Presentation Classification Error Rate< 1%Test with standard presentation attack instruments

The critical audit finding in biometric systems is often not technical but architectural: where does the biometric matching happen? Client-side matching (common in mobile implementations) means the server trusts an attestation from the client that the biometric matched. This is vulnerable to client compromise. Server-side matching is more secure but requires the template to be transmitted and processed on the server, creating a privacy risk. The most secure architecture processes templates under encryption (homomorphic encryption or secure enclaves) so the server can verify identity without ever seeing the biometric data in plaintext.

9. API Authentication Audit

API authentication is often treated as an afterthought—a header value to check in middleware—but APIs are increasingly the primary attack surface. They expose more functionality than web UIs, are easier to automate attacks against, and are frequently less instrumented for monitoring.

API Key Management

Rate Limiting and Throttling

JWT Validation

Service-to-Service Authentication

Internal service-to-service authentication is frequently the weakest link. Audit for: shared static secrets passed as environment variables (rotate them), mTLS certificates approaching expiration, service meshes with overly permissive authorization policies, and internal APIs that accept requests without any authentication because they are "only accessible from the VPC." Network boundaries are not authentication.

10. Cryptographic Audit

Every authentication mechanism ultimately depends on cryptographic primitives. A session token is only as secure as the CSPRNG that generated it. A biometric template is only as protected as the encryption algorithm guarding it. A cryptographic audit evaluates whether the right algorithms are used, with the right parameters, in the right modes. For a broader treatment of cryptographic preparedness, see our crypto agility guide.

Symmetric Cryptography

Asymmetric Cryptography

Hashing

TLS Configuration

The Quantum Threat to Current Cryptography

RSA-2048, ECDSA P-256, and all currently deployed asymmetric algorithms are vulnerable to Shor's algorithm on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. While large-scale quantum computers do not yet exist, the "harvest now, decrypt later" threat is real today: adversaries can capture encrypted traffic now and decrypt it when quantum hardware matures. NIST has finalized post-quantum standards (FIPS 203, FIPS 204). Section 15 of this guide covers quantum readiness assessment in detail. See also: What is Post-Quantum Cryptography?

11. Logging and Monitoring Audit

An authentication system without comprehensive logging is one where breaches are discovered by customers, journalists, or attackers themselves. The logging audit verifies that authentication events are captured with sufficient detail for incident detection, investigation, and forensic analysis.

Authentication Event Logging

Log Integrity and Protection

Anomaly Detection and Alerting

The monitoring audit should include a practical test: trigger a known-bad authentication pattern (e.g., 50 rapid failed logins from a single IP) and measure the time from event to alert to human acknowledgment. If this exceeds 15 minutes for a critical alert, the monitoring pipeline needs improvement.

12. Compliance Mapping

Authentication audit findings must be mapped to the compliance frameworks that govern your organization. This mapping transforms technical findings into business-relevant risk statements and determines remediation timelines.

FrameworkRelevant ControlsAuth-Specific Requirements
SOC 2CC6.1, CC6.2, CC6.3, CC6.6Logical access controls, credential management, system boundaries, encryption in transit
PCI DSS v4.0Req 7, Req 8Unique IDs, MFA for CDE access, password complexity (12+ chars), 90-day rotation for service accounts
HIPAA164.312(d), 164.312(a)Person or entity authentication, access controls, automatic logoff, encryption
FedRAMPIA family (IA-1 through IA-11)Authenticator management, cryptographic module validation (FIPS 140-2/3), re-authentication
GDPRArt. 5(1)(f), Art. 32Appropriate security of processing, pseudonymization, encryption, integrity assurance
ISO 27001A.9.2, A.9.3, A.9.4User access provisioning, secret authentication management, access control to systems

Key Compliance Considerations

PCI DSS v4.0 is the most prescriptive framework for authentication. It requires MFA for all access to the cardholder data environment, minimum 12-character passwords (up from 7 in v3.2.1), and automatic session lockout after 15 minutes of inactivity. Organizations handling payment data should audit against PCI DSS first, as its requirements generally exceed those of other frameworks.

SOC 2 Type II evaluates whether controls operated effectively over a period (typically 12 months). An auth audit finding that is remediated within the SOC 2 observation period can be disclosed as an exception with remediation evidence, but persistent findings will result in a qualified opinion.

FedRAMP requires FIPS 140-2 (or FIPS 140-3) validated cryptographic modules for all authentication operations. This means you cannot simply use OpenSSL—you need a FIPS-validated build of your cryptographic library. This is frequently the most expensive and time-consuming finding to remediate.

13. Automated Testing Tools

Manual auditing is necessary for logic flaws and architectural issues, but automated tools dramatically improve coverage for known vulnerability patterns. A mature auth audit combines both.

DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing)

OWASP ZAP

Open-source DAST with authentication testing scripts. Automates session management testing, CSRF detection, and token analysis. Good for baseline coverage.

Burp Suite Professional

Industry-standard for web auth testing. Session token entropy analysis, JWT manipulation, OAuth flow testing. The Intruder module is essential for brute-force and enumeration testing.

Nuclei

Template-based scanner with 6,000+ community templates. Excellent for testing known misconfigurations (default credentials, exposed admin panels, CVE-specific auth bypasses).

Authz / AuthMatrix

Burp extensions specifically for authorization testing. Map roles to endpoints and automatically test for horizontal and vertical privilege escalation.

Custom Scripts and Automation

Certain audit checks require custom tooling. Build scripts for:

Infrastructure and Configuration Scanning

Tool Limitation Warning

Automated tools excel at finding known patterns but are ineffective at discovering business logic flaws. An automated scanner will not tell you that your "forgot password" flow allows an attacker to enumerate valid email addresses via response timing differences, or that your MFA implementation accepts the previous TOTP code indefinitely. Manual testing by experienced auditors remains essential for logic-layer vulnerabilities.

14. Remediation Prioritization Framework

An audit that produces findings without clear prioritization is an audit that produces paralysis. Every finding must be classified by severity, and severity should drive both the remediation timeline and the resource allocation.

Severity Classification

SeverityDefinitionSLAExamples
CRITICALExploitable now, leads to mass account compromise24–72 hoursSQL injection in login, alg:none JWT accepted, plaintext password storage
HIGHExploitable with moderate effort, affects individual accounts1–2 weeksSession fixation, missing MFA on admin, user enumeration, CSRF on password change
MEDIUMExploitable under specific conditions, limited impact30–60 daysWeak password policy, excessive token lifetime, missing rate limiting
LOWInformational or defense-in-depth improvement90 days / next sprintMissing HSTS preload, verbose error messages, cookie without SameSite

Prioritization Matrix

When multiple findings compete for limited engineering resources, prioritize based on three factors:

  1. Exploitability: How easy is it to exploit? A vulnerability that requires only a web browser ranks higher than one requiring physical access.
  2. Blast radius: How many users or systems are affected? A flaw in the primary login endpoint ranks higher than one in an admin-only API.
  3. Regulatory exposure: Does the finding create a compliance violation? A PCI DSS non-conformity affecting payment processing has a regulatory-driven remediation SLA that overrides the technical severity.

The Quick Wins List

Every audit should produce a "quick wins" list: findings that are low-effort to remediate but high-impact. Common quick wins include adding HttpOnly and Secure flags to session cookies (5 minutes), enabling HSTS (1 line of configuration), adding rate limiting to login endpoints (1–2 hours with standard middleware), and disabling the implicit OAuth grant (configuration change). These should be remediated during the audit, not deferred.

15. Post-Quantum Readiness Assessment

This section of the audit evaluates your organization's preparedness for the transition to quantum-resistant cryptography. Even if large-scale quantum computers are years away, the cryptographic migration itself takes years, and the "harvest now, decrypt later" threat means that data encrypted today with classical algorithms is already at risk. See our comprehensive overview of post-quantum cryptography for the full technical background.

Cryptographic Inventory

The first step is a complete inventory of every cryptographic algorithm, key, and certificate in your authentication infrastructure:

Quantum Vulnerability Assessment

AlgorithmTypeQuantum ThreatAction Required
RSA-2048Key exchange / signaturesBROKEN by Shor'sMigrate to ML-KEM / ML-DSA
ECDSA P-256SignaturesBROKEN by Shor'sMigrate to ML-DSA or SLH-DSA
ECDH X25519Key exchangeBROKEN by Shor'sMigrate to ML-KEM
AES-256Symmetric encryptionGrover's: 128-bit effectiveAlready sufficient at 256-bit
SHA-256HashingGrover's: 128-bit effectiveAlready sufficient; SHA-3 preferred for new systems
Argon2idPassword hashingMinimal impactNo change needed

Migration Readiness Checklist

Post-Quantum Authentication Today

You do not have to wait for quantum computers to arrive to adopt quantum-resistant authentication. Lattice-based cryptography (the foundation of NIST's ML-KEM and ML-DSA standards) is efficient enough to deploy today. Modern post-quantum authentication systems achieve sub-millisecond latency while providing security against both classical and quantum adversaries. The question is not when to begin migration, but how long you can afford to wait.

16. Audit Report Template and Deliverables

The audit is only as valuable as the report that communicates its findings. A well-structured audit report speaks to multiple audiences: executives who approve remediation budgets, engineers who implement fixes, and compliance teams who map findings to regulatory requirements.

Report Structure

1

Executive Summary

One-page summary for leadership. Overall risk rating (Critical/High/Medium/Low). Total findings by severity. Top 3 risks in business language. Estimated remediation cost and timeline. Comparison to previous audit (if applicable).

2

Scope and Methodology

Systems tested, testing methodology (black-box, gray-box, white-box), frameworks used (OWASP ASVS level, NIST AAL target), testing period, tools employed, and any scope limitations or exclusions.

3

Findings Detail

Each finding documented with: unique identifier, title, severity, affected systems, description, evidence (screenshots, request/response pairs), framework mapping (OWASP ASVS, NIST, CWE), remediation recommendation, and estimated effort.

4

Compliance Mapping Matrix

Table mapping each finding to the relevant compliance controls (SOC 2, PCI DSS, HIPAA, etc.). This allows compliance teams to immediately assess the regulatory impact of each finding.

5

Remediation Roadmap

Prioritized remediation plan organized into immediate (0–72 hours), short-term (1–4 weeks), medium-term (1–3 months), and long-term (3–12 months) phases. Each phase includes specific engineering tasks, estimated effort, and dependencies.

6

Appendices

Full technical evidence, tool output, scan results, configuration snapshots, and the cryptographic inventory. This section supports the findings with raw data for engineering teams who need to reproduce and validate issues.

Deliverables Checklist

Building an Audit-Ready Authentication Architecture

The most effective way to pass an authentication security audit is to build an architecture that is secure by design rather than secure by patching. The patterns that produce clean audit results are well established:

Authentication security is not a point-in-time achievement. Algorithms weaken, new attack techniques emerge, compliance requirements evolve, and the quantum computing threat grows closer. The audit framework in this guide is designed to be repeated—annually at minimum, and after every significant change to your authentication infrastructure. Each iteration should be faster than the last, as systematic remediation reduces the finding count and automated tooling catches regressions.

The organizations that treat authentication auditing as a continuous practice, rather than an annual checkbox, are the ones that keep their users' credentials safe. Start with the scoping exercise in Section 3, run through each domain methodically, and build the remediation roadmap that moves your authentication architecture from wherever it is today toward the standard it needs to meet.

Ready to Go Quantum-Secure?

H33 provides post-quantum authentication infrastructure that is built to pass the most rigorous security audits. Lattice-based FHE biometrics, quantum-resistant key exchange, and zero plaintext exposure—all in a single API call. Start with 10,000 free authentications, no credit card required.

Get Free API Key →

Build With Post-Quantum Security

Enterprise-grade FHE, ZKP, and post-quantum cryptography. One API call. Sub-millisecond latency.

Get Free API Key → Read the Docs
Free tier · 10,000 API calls/month · No credit card required

Related Articles

Security
Credential Stuffing Defense
Architecture
Zero Trust Architecture
PQC
What Is Post-Quantum Cryptography?
Auth
Passwordless Authentication
Implementation
OAuth 2.0 PKCE Implementation
PQC
Crypto Agility: Quantum-Ready
Verify It Yourself