securityauthenticationmobile

Secure Mobile OTPs vs RCS: Which Is Best for Signature Authentication?

aapproves

2026-02-07

10 min read

Compare SMS OTP, RCS E2E, and authenticator apps for signing: security, deliverability, and UX for small businesses in 2026.

Stop losing signature approvals to slow, insecure SMS OTPs — pick the right mobile verification in 2026

If your signing workflow still relies on plain SMS OTP, you’re probably feeling the pain: delayed sign-offs, disputed signatures, and audit headaches. Small businesses need fast signings without opening the door to SIM swaps, replay attacks, or compliance gaps. This guide compares SMS OTP, RCS with end-to-end encryption (RCS E2E), and authenticator apps for signature authentication — focusing on security, deliverability, and user experience — and gives clear, practical recommendations you can implement this quarter.

Executive summary: Which method wins for signing workflows?

Authenticator apps (push/TOTP/FIDO2): Best overall for security and compliance. Use as primary method for high-assurance signatures.
RCS E2E: Best UX and rich interactions where fully supported; trending to stronger adoption in 2026 but still not universal — good as a customer-facing improvement if you detect E2E support.
SMS OTP: Best reach and fallback option; acceptable for low-risk approvals with mitigations, but inadequate alone for regulated or high-risk signatures.

Why this matters in 2026: trends changing the verification landscape

Two developments in late 2025 and early 2026 reshaped choices for mobile verification:

RCS E2E momentum: Major vendors and the GSMA’s modernization of the RCS profile moved the protocol toward MLS-based end-to-end encryption, and mobile OS vendors began adding support in betas. That unlocks secure, feature-rich messaging for signing flows — but rollout remains uneven across carriers and regions.
Stronger device-bound authentication: Push-based authenticators, WebAuthn, and passkeys became standard in many IAM and signing platforms in 2025. These provide cryptographic, phishing-resistant authentication that maps cleanly to non-repudiation requirements for signatures.

What this means for small businesses

In practice, small businesses should treat SMS OTP as a fallback, move to authenticator apps or push for primary verification when possible, and selectively use RCS E2E to improve UX where it’s reliably available.

Technical comparison: security, deliverability, and UX

1) SMS OTP — Pros and cons

Security: SMS OTPs are vulnerable to SIM swap attacks, SS7/diameter routing weaknesses, and interception using IMSI catchers. SMS codes are also easily phished and can be replayed if not bound to session/document metadata. For signing, SMS alone offers weak non-repudiation.

Deliverability: Extremely high global reach — almost every mobile number can receive SMS. Delivery consistency can vary by carrier, region, and sender reputation; carrier filtering and number blocking cause delivery rates to dip for high-volume senders. For email and messaging delivery nuances, see Gmail AI and deliverability.

User experience: Low friction (no app install) but manual: users copy/paste or memorize codes. This creates drop-off on mobile signing flows and poor mobile-first UX.

2) RCS E2E — Pros and cons

Security: When true end-to-end encryption is present, RCS mitigates network interception and provides stronger confidentiality than plain SMS. However, E2E must be available on both sender and recipient OS/client and enabled by carriers. Partial support means some interactions still traverse carrier servers unencrypted.

Deliverability: RCS reaches modern Android devices broadly and now has increasing cross-platform reach as iOS added code paths in recent betas supporting E2E. Still, coverage is fragmented worldwide — best in markets where carriers and devices uniformly support the updated RCS profiles.

UX: Rich: inline buttons, carousels, suggested replies, deep links into signing apps or web sessions, read receipts, and media attachments. This reduces friction and improves conversion for signature requests.

3) Authenticator apps (push, TOTP, FIDO2/passkeys)

Security: Strongest option. TOTP apps are resilient to network interception and SIM swaps. Push-based authenticators and FIDO2/passkeys add device-bound cryptographic attestations and phishing resistance. These methods support higher assurance levels needed for advanced/qualified signatures where required.

Deliverability: Requires app installation or platform support (passkeys). This limits reach but is often acceptable for business users and repeat signers — and user adoption has accelerated since 2024-25.

UX: Superior for frequent signers: one-tap approvals and persistent device trust reduce friction. Initial onboarding is the tradeoff.

Security deep dive: replay attacks, SIM swaps, and non-repudiation

For signing workflows, security concerns aren’t just about confidentiality — they’re about binding the act of approval to the signer and the specific document. Here’s how each method holds up against core threats and required mitigations.

Replay attacks

Replay attacks reuse valid authentication data to produce fraudulent approvals. Mitigations that should be implemented regardless of OTP channel:

Bind the OTP or approval token to the document hash and session ID on the server side.
Use single-use tokens with very short TTLs (30–120 seconds for OTPs; push approvals can be time-limited to a few minutes).
Record nonce + cryptographic signature of the document and log it in the audit trail.

SIM swap and number takeover

SMS is uniquely vulnerable to SIM swap fraud where attackers port a number to gain the OTP. Mitigations include:

Risk-based checks (flag unusual IP, device fingerprints, geolocation mismatches).
Secondary verification (email confirmation, KBA, or a push approval for high-value transactions).
Rate-limiting and carrier intelligence to detect bulk porting attempts.

Non-repudiation and auditability

Signing requires a defensible audit trail: who signed, when, what they saw, and assurance that the signature wasn’t tampered with. Technical controls to implement:

Store the document hash (SHA-256 or stronger), timestamp, signer identity, and authentication proof (e.g., token ID, device attestation) in the audit log.
Use server-side time-stamping and, where required, third-party time-stamping authorities for legal-grade records (e.g., qualified e-signatures in the EU).
For highest assurance, integrate certificate-based signing (PKI) or FIDO attestation into the signing flow.

Deliverability & UX: pick the approach that fits your customers

Here’s a practical UX rule: match the verification method to the signer profile.

One-time or first-time signers / consumers: RCS (if E2E available) gives the smoothest experience — deep links and interactive cards reduce friction. If RCS E2E isn’t guaranteed, use SMS fallback with extra controls.
Business customers / repeat signers: Encourage authenticator apps or passkeys. The initial onboarding effort pays off in faster signings and stronger legal defensibility.
High-risk or regulated transactions: Use authenticator apps + document binding + server-side logs and consider certificate-based signatures.

Real-world example (illustrative)

Example: A 25-person insurance broker replaced SMS OTP as the only verification method with a hybrid flow in 2025. They implemented:

Device-bound push authenticator for brokers and frequent customers.
RCS E2E messages for new consumer signers in supported regions, with inline approve buttons.
SMS OTP fallback bound to the document hash with short TTL and risk scoring.

Results after 6 months: approval times dropped 42%, signature disputes fell by 60%, and overall signing completion increased 18% due to better mobile UX. These gains illustrate the impact of matching method to user context.

Implementation checklist for small businesses (step-by-step)

Follow this practical path to secure, efficient signature authentication in Q1–Q2 2026.

Step 1 — Assess risk & compliance needs

Classify signature types: low, medium, high risk (consider monetary value, regulatory requirements).
Map legal requirements: ESIGN/UETA, eIDAS levels, industry-specific standards (HIPAA, FINRA).

Step 2 — Choose primary and fallback methods

Primary: authenticator app (push/FIDO2) for business users and high-risk signers.
Secondary: RCS E2E for consumer UX where supported; implement capability detection.
Fallback: SMS OTP with strong session/document binding and risk checks.

Step 3 — Implement cryptographic binding and logging

Compute a document hash server-side and include it in the challenge for OTP/push flows.
Use single-use tokens and store token IDs, IP, device fingerprint, geolocation, and timestamp.
Keep immutable logs and consider a write-once storage (WORM) or hash anchoring to blockchain for tamper evidence if needed for audits.

Step 4 — Detection, throttling, and fraud rules

Integrate anomaly detection: sudden geo-IP changes, impossible travel, repeated failed attempts.
Throttle OTP requests and add cooling periods for repeated resends.

Step 5 — UX design

Prefer one-tap push approvals or RCS action buttons over code entry where possible.
For SMS, use auto-fill hints for mobile web / in-app signers to reduce errors.
Show clear context in messages: file name, amount, recipient, and a link to the exact document version the signer will approve.

Step 6 — Integration and monitoring

Integrate authentication events with your CRM and document management system for a single audit view.
Monitor delivery rates, approval times, and exception rates by channel monthly. See notes on deliverability for email-driven fallbacks.

Practical verification patterns for developers

Use these patterns to harden your signing flow.

Challenge contains document hash: Server -> client: {challengeID, docHash, expiresAt}. Client includes challengeID when approving.
One-time token validation: Server marks token used on first successful validation; subsequent attempts fail.
Device attestation: For push and FIDO, capture attestation assertions and persist in logs to strengthen identity claims.
Signed audit bundle: After approval, create a signed audit bundle (docHash, signerID, tokenID, timestamp, attestation) and store it immutably.

When RCS is a smart bet — and when it’s not

RCS E2E is attractive because it provides a secure and modern UX without forcing users to install another app. Choose RCS when:

You can detect that both sender and recipient support RCS E2E.
Your signing audience uses modern Android devices or iOS where the updated RCS stack is enabled.
You want to embed signing metadata and reduce click-through friction for consumer transactions.

Don’t rely on RCS as the only mechanism when:

Coverage is fragmented in your market or you cannot detect E2E support reliably.
Your workflow requires legally higher assurance that only cryptographic, device-bound signers can provide.

Regulatory note: signatures and evidentiary weight

In many jurisdictions, the legal validity of an e-signature depends on the ability to show intent, attribution, and integrity of the signed record. For high-assurance signatures (e.g., eIDAS advanced/qualified levels), SMS is usually insufficient. Use device-bound cryptographic proofs, certificate-based signing or trusted service providers to meet the highest legal standards.

Actionable recommendations for small businesses — quick wins

Implement authenticator app push approvals for employees and high-value customers this quarter.
Add RCS E2E as an enhanced UX option where you can detect support; keep SMS as fallback.
Bind every OTP or approval token to the document hash and store signed audit bundles.
Set short TTLs (30–120s) for OTPs and one-minute windows for push approvals; implement single-use tokens.
Monitor delivery and fraud metrics weekly; adjust fallback logic and throttling based on data.

Closing thoughts: a pragmatic, layered approach

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. In 2026, the best-performing signing workflows use layered authentication: authenticator apps or device-bound push approvals as the primary method, RCS E2E for richer consumer UX where supported, and SMS OTP only as a controlled fallback. This combination gives you the security and auditability required for compliance while improving user experience and completion rates.

“RCS end-to-end encryption is finally becoming a practical option for secure messaging, but adoption still varies by carrier and device. Use it where available — and rely on app-based cryptographic auth for the highest-assurance signatures.”

Next steps — a 30-day plan for small businesses

Week 1: Audit existing signing flows, classify signature risk, and map required evidence for audits.
Week 2: Pilot authenticator app push signings for staff and VIP customers; implement document hashing and single-use tokens.
Week 3: Add RCS E2E capability detection and a simple RCS approval template for consumer signers where supported.
Week 4: Roll out SMS OTP as a monitored fallback with rate limits, and configure dashboards for delivery and fraud metrics.

Call to action

Ready to reduce signature turnaround and lock down your audit trail? Start with a free 30-minute security review tailored to small businesses. We’ll map the right layered approach (authenticator apps, RCS where safe, SMS fallback), show how to bind authentication to document hashes, and produce a 90-day rollout plan that fits your team. Click to schedule or contact our integrations team to run a pilot.

approves

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.