You understand the problem. Sessions stay valid for hours after security context changes. Part 1 established that. You understand how CAEP solves it. Events flow from systems that detect changes to applications that respond. Part 2 walked through the mechanics.

Now comes the harder question: How do you actually build this?

CAEP is a standard. That means there’s no single “right” way to implement it. Architecture depends on your environment, your existing infrastructure, your risk tolerance, and how much complexity you’re willing to take on.

Let’s walk through the patterns that work at scale.

Four Integration Patterns

Your implementation will follow one of these patterns. Understanding which pattern fits your environment is the first critical decision.

Pattern 1: Direct IdP to Applications

What it is: Your identity provider connects directly to applications. No intermediaries.

  • IdP implements CAEP transmitter
  • Each application implements CAEP receiver
  • Applications subscribe directly to IdP
  • IdP publishes events to application webhooks

When to use:

  • Small number of applications (under 10)
  • Applications can accept incoming webhooks
  • Direct trust relationships already exist
  • Simple environment, low event volume

Advantages:

  • Simplest to understand
  • Low latency
  • Minimal infrastructure

Limitations:

  • Doesn’t scale (N applications = N webhook endpoints)
  • Only IdP events, no security platform signals
  • Each application handles deduplication

Reality check: This pattern works for pilots and small environments. Once you exceed 15-20 applications or need signals from multiple transmitters, you’ll outgrow it.

Pattern 2: Security Platforms as Transmitters

What it is: Multiple transmitters (IdP, EDR, device management, threat intelligence) all send events to applications.

  • IdP publishes identity events
  • EDR publishes device security events
  • Device management publishes compliance events
  • Applications subscribe to multiple transmitters

When to use:

  • Need multi-source context
  • Device-based policies required
  • Risk-driven access control
  • Medium-sized environment

Advantages:

  • Rich security context
  • Specialized systems contribute expertise
  • Applications make informed decisions

Limitations:

  • Applications manage multiple subscriptions
  • Event correlation becomes application responsibility
  • Complexity increases significantly

Reality check: This pattern adds richness but complexity. Applications need logic to handle conflicting signals. Worth it if you have sophisticated security requirements.

Pattern 3: Centralized Event Hub

What it is: All transmitters send to a central hub. The hub processes and republishes to applications.

  • Multiple transmitters → Central hub
  • Hub correlates, deduplicates, enriches events
  • Hub publishes to applications
  • Applications subscribe to hub only

When to use:

  • Large number of transmitters or receivers
  • Complex event correlation needed
  • Want centralized policy and control
  • Need single integration point per application

Advantages:

  • Single subscription per application
  • Central audit trail
  • Hub can enforce organizational policies
  • Easy to add new transmitters

Limitations:

  • Hub is critical infrastructure (single point of failure)
  • Additional latency (extra hop)
  • Requires hub development or procurement

Reality check: This is the enterprise pattern. More complex to build but far easier to operate at scale. Most organizations moving past pilots adopt this pattern.

Pattern 4: API Gateway as Enforcement Point

What it is: API gateway sits in request path, acts as CAEP receiver, enforces access.

  • Gateway subscribes to CAEP events
  • Gateway maintains session state
  • On each request, gateway checks current session state
  • Gateway enforces access before routing

When to use:

  • API-driven architecture
  • Existing API gateway infrastructure
  • Cannot modify backend applications
  • Want centralized, consistent enforcement

Advantages:

  • Centralized enforcement
  • Backends remain CAEP-unaware
  • Single point for policy management
  • Consistent across all APIs

Limitations:

  • Gateway becomes critical path
  • Doesn’t handle all access patterns
  • Session tracking complexity
  • Gateway needs comprehensive mappings

Reality check: Excellent for microservices and API-first architectures. Less suitable if you have direct UI access or background job patterns.

Policy Architecture: How Decisions Get Made

Patterns define how events move. Policies define what happens when they arrive.

Your applications need to answer this question: “When I receive an event, what should I do?”

That answer is policy.

Simple Policies

Some events require simple, straightforward policies:

Session Revoked event:

“If I receive a session-revoked event, terminate the session. No evaluation. No exceptions. Just stop.”

This is the safest policy. Session revocation means something serious happened. Immediate action is appropriate.

Device Compliance Change event:

“If I’m a high-risk application (financial, sensitive data), and device compliance drops below acceptable, revoke or restrict access. If I’m low-risk, log and monitor.”

Policy is application-specific. Your financial system has different tolerances than your internal wiki.

Contextual Policies

Some events require evaluation:

Token Claims Change event:

“If the claims that changed affect my authorization, re-evaluate. If a user was demoted from admin to user, check if they’re currently performing admin actions. If yes, require re-authentication. If no, allow session to continue with new permissions.”

This requires logic. The application must understand which claims affect which permissions.

Assurance Level Change event:

“For sensitive operations, I require high assurance. Before approving a financial transaction, check current assurance level. If assurance dropped below requirement, trigger step-up authentication. Otherwise, proceed.”

This enables adaptive security. Risk varies by operation. Policy reflects that.

Building Policies

Start by asking these questions for each event type:

  1. Does this event affect my access decisions?
  2. If yes, how urgently should I respond?
  3. Do different types of users or operations have different requirements?
  4. What’s my tolerance for false positives?
  5. How do I communicate this to users?

Your answers become policy.

Example policy for Credential Change:

  • Routine reset (user-initiated): Allow sessions to continue. Low urgency.
  • Forced reset (compromise detected): Terminate all sessions. High urgency. Require new authentication.
  • MFA enrollment change: Allow sessions to continue. Medium urgency. Log for review.

Different reasons. Different responses. Same event type.

Deployment Considerations

Patterns and policies are architecture. Deployment is infrastructure.

Webhook Infrastructure

Applications need endpoints that accept HTTPS POST requests. This requires:

  • TLS certificates (public or internal CA)
  • DNS or IP routing to endpoints
  • Firewall rules allowing transmitters to reach receivers
  • Load balancing if high availability required
  • Authentication between transmitter and receiver

Most organizations underestimate the infrastructure work here. Budget for it.

Event Processing Capacity

Estimate your event volume:

  • Number of users and devices
  • Expected events per subject per day
  • Peak event rates (mass termination, widespread compliance failure)
  • Processing latency requirements

Size your infrastructure accordingly. Event storms happen. A mass termination can spike event volume dramatically.

Operational Monitoring

Implement monitoring for:

  • Event delivery success rates
  • Processing latency
  • Failed deliveries and retries
  • Policy evaluation outcomes
  • System health

Set up alerts for delivery failures or processing backlogs. These are your early warnings.

Resilience

Design for failures:

  • If transmitter is unavailable? Applications keep operating with cached state.
  • If receiver is unavailable? Transmitter retries. Events queue. Eventual delivery.
  • If network is partitioned? Default to safer behavior (deny access rather than blindly allowing).

Build graceful degradation. Systems fail. Your architecture should handle it.

Common Pitfalls

Learn from others’ mistakes:

Pitfall 1: Trying to do everything at once

Don’t implement all five event types across all applications in week one. You’ll create operational chaos. Start narrow. Expand gradually.

Pitfall 2: Not thinking through policies first

Technical implementation is easier than policy design. Invest time in policy before you build. Know what your applications should do when events arrive.

Pitfall 3: Infrastructure not ready

Webhook handling is harder than it sounds. Retry logic, idempotency, error handling. Make sure your infrastructure is solid before high volumes hit.

Pitfall 4: Operational maturity gaps

CAEP is event-driven. Event-driven systems require different operational thinking than traditional systems. Make sure your ops team understands it. Train them. Document processes.

Pitfall 5: Ignoring audit and compliance

CAEP creates audit trails. Make sure you’re capturing them. Make sure they’re accessible. Compliance teams will ask. Be ready.

What’s Next

You now understand how CAEP is implemented. You understand integration patterns, policy design, and deployment considerations.

But implementation is about today.

Part 4 is about tomorrow. Part 4 ties everything together: why CAEP is foundational for Zero Trust, and why AI agents make continuous access evaluation critical for the future.

Zero Trust requires continuous verification. AI agents require continuous authorization. CAEP enables both.

Series Navigation

CAEP Explained Series: