The NIST SP 800 63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” represents a significant stride in the realm of digital identity management. These guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for the authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities, fostering a secure and reliable digital environment.
The document is divided into four parts, each addressing a distinct aspect of digital identity services. The first part provides an overview of the digital identity framework, while the subsequent parts delve into identity proofing, authenticator lifecycle management, and federation and assertions.
The guidelines underscore the importance of risk assessment in determining the required identity assurance level. This approach ensures that the security measures implemented are proportionate to the potential risks. Moreover, the guidelines advocate for the use of multi-factor authentication to enhance security, thereby reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access.
The guidelines also encourage the use of federated identity solutions, which are instrumental in facilitating seamless and secure information sharing across different systems. This approach significantly simplifies digital identity management, while also bolstering security.
In conclusion, the NIST SP 800 63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” provides a robust and flexible framework for digital identity management. These guidelines are instrumental in fostering a secure and reliable digital environment, thereby facilitating the safe and efficient exchange of digital information.
Hi Michael, This is really a concise and informative overview of the NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines.” You effectively broke down the document into its four key parts, highlighting their respective focuses on digital identity framework, identity proofing, authenticator lifecycle management, and federation and assertions.
The emphasis on risk assessment and the correlation between security measures and potential risks is a key takeaway, demonstrating a practical and risk-based approach to digital identity management. The endorsement of multi-factor authentication aligns with contemporary security best practices.
The recognition of federated identity solutions as instrumental in both simplifying digital identity management and enhancing security reflects an understanding of the evolving needs of interconnected digital ecosystems.
Your conclusion aptly summarizes the significance of the guidelines in establishing a robust and flexible framework for digital identity management, ultimately contributing to a secure and reliable digital environment. Overall, a well-articulated summary that captures the key points of the NIST guidelines.
This special publication goes over the guidelines and technical requirements needed for federal agencies implementing digital identity. Proving oneself or a digital identity is generally difficult. Identifying it remotely via a digital service is combated with opportunities from attackers to impersonate someone. From my understanding the guidelines in 800-63-3 supersede 800-63-2 and use guidelines as part of the risk assessment and implementation of their digital services. The guidelines also retire the LOA concept which stands for level of assurance which ultimately drives implementation-specific requirements. These three guidelines refer to identity proofing process, authentication process and lastly refers to the strength of an assertion in a federated environment used to communicate authentication and attribute information to a relying party. The article states, “the separation of these categories provides agencies flexibility in choosing identity solutions and increases the ability to include privacy-enhancing techniques as fundamental elements of identity systems at any assurance level”. In addition to those guidelines, they are organized into more subsections such as: 800-63A Enrollment and Identity Proofing, 800-63B Authentication and Lifecycle Management, and 800-63C Federation and Assertions. What also stood out to me is how the AAL has several levels to it just like how FIPS199 gives a section of levels whereas level one provides some assurance on claimant controls, AAL1 provides high confidence that the claimant controls are bound to the subscribers account and AAL3 provides very high confidence etc. Overall, following these guidelines will assist your agency to protect themselves against and manage digital identity.
I agree Jeff, the nesting or layering of controls and levels of control outlined by systems like AAL allows organizations to be more or less sure about who is accessing their systems. Being able to follow these outlined guidelines and understand generally how secure or thorough an access management system is creates a more clear picture for a security expert when attempting to understand the standards and risks present in an organization, both from an internal admin and auditing perspective
NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” stands as a seminal document in the realm of cybersecurity, particularly concerning digital identity management. It provides guidelines for the risk assessment methodology and an overview of general identity frameworks, using authenticators, credentials, and assertions together in a digital system, and a risk-based process of selecting assurance levels. This comprehensive special publication offers a robust set of standards and best practices to fortify digital identity verification and authentication processes. Notably, it emphasizes a risk-based approach, recognizing that different contexts demand varying levels of security measures. Multifactor authentication (MFA) is strongly advocated, aligning with contemporary security paradigms to mitigate unauthorized access effectively. The guidelines also underscore usability, acknowledging that overly complex security measures can impede user adoption and compliance. By promoting clarity and practicality, NIST SP 800-63-3 facilitates the implementation of strong yet user-friendly digital identity solutions. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of continuous evaluation and adaptation to evolving cyber threats, ensuring that organizations can maintain resilient and effective digital identity practices over time.
You bring up an excellent point regarding MFA, especially as several assurance levels outline requirements for the use of MFA. Particularly, Authenticator Assurance Level (AAL) requires that if a resource is identified at least at AAL2, it needs at least proof of possession and two different authentication factors through a secure portal with approved cryptographic techniques.
The chapter explains digital identity methods. One key takeaway from the chapter is that risk should be taken into consideration while selecting assurance levels. The three levels are FAL, AAL, and IAL. There are three sublevels for each of them.
The most insecure approach is typically Level 1, which serves as the benchmark for ensuring identity matches between digital and real identities. The process of demonstrating that a user is permitted is introduced in Level 2, and it is expanded upon in Level 3 with a more secure authentication system. The level of each assurance level should, in general, match when combining them (for instance, IAL, AAL, and FAL are all levels 2). Using various security techniques to confirm digital identification may appear cumbersome, but it is critical to maintain the highest security standards.
Your summary of the various assurance levels as well as the importance of maintaining security standards is interesting. In an ideal world, organizations would want to use the highest level of assurance throughout while maintaining user-friendly access for resources. However, a level between usability and security needs to be established on an individual resource-basis. For example, things that are and should be publicly accessible will require a lower tier for each assurance level while critical infrastructure would require the highest level of assurance while sacrificing user accessibility due to more access controls being required.
This portion of NIST’S publication is in regards to Digital Identity Guidelines. Specifically, the guidelines provide technical requirements for federal agencies to utilize digital identity services through the means of identity proofing, user authentication in using government systems on open networks, and the technical requirements for the processes and protocols required for these services. One particular point of interest from these guidelines for me was the section on the Digital Identity Model in Section 4.
The Digital Identity Model, at its core, is based on the enrollment, identity proofing, and issuance processes required by a registration authority/identity manager and the credential service providers. This process breaks down for an applicant as followed: an applicant applies to a CSP through their enrollment process. The CSP identity proofs the applicant, which if successful allows them to become a subscriber. Authenticators and a corresponding credential are established between the CSP and the subscriber. The CSP keeps the credential, its status, and enrollment data for the lifetime of the credential while the subscriber maintains their authenticators.
There are also procedures involving the the subscriber when they need to authenticate to a verifier, to which the subscriber is now a claimant. This process is as followed: the claimant proves ownership of authenticators to the verifier through an authentication protocol. The verifier talks with the CSP to validate the credential. The CSP or verifier asserts the subscriber to the relevant Relying Party to make an authorization decision. The authenticated session is established between the subscriber and the RP.
Kenneth you’ve made a comprehensive overview of NIST 800-63-3 and how it sheds light on the technical requirements for federal agencies, emphasizing identity proofing, user authentication, and protocol standards. The breakdown of the digital identity model, particularly with enrollment, identity proofing, and issuance processes, provides a clear understanding of the interactions between applicants, credential service providers, and verifiers. The outlined procedures for authentication and authorization contribute to a thorough grasp of the secure processes mandated for digital identity services in the context of open networks and government. How do you think these technical requirements and procedures will impact the efficiency and security of digital identity services within federal agencies?
NIST Special Publication 800-63-3, “Digital Identity Guidelines,” offers guidelines for managing digital identities for individuals interacting with information systems. It covers identity proofing, authentication, password management, lifecycle management, privacy considerations, usability, and risk assessment. Key points include identity proofing, strong authentication mechanisms, password management, lifecycle management, privacy considerations, user experience enhancement, and risk assessment. The guidelines aim to balance security requirements with usability and privacy, ensuring robust identity management practices that protect individuals’ identities and sensitive information in an increasingly digital world.
The NIST SP 800-63-3 document talks about the rules for managing online identities. It explains that understanding who someone is online is tricky because people can have different online identities for things like email or banking. The document points out how hard it is to prove someone is who they say they are online, using the example, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” to show the challenges of online authentication. Instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, it breaks down the process into three separate parts: proving who you are, logging in securely, and how strong the login process needs to be, depending on what you’re accessing. This way, organizations can pick what level of security they need for their services, making it safer and more private for everyone. The document is meant to help government agencies, but its ideas can be used in other areas like online shopping or services.
NIST SP 800 63-3 outlines clear guidelines and requirements for setting up effective and compliant identity authorization systems at an organizational level. The document comprehensively covers various categories such as risks, requirements and options available in providing secure access management processes from a top-down perspective. The article also outlines tiers of security identification methods and specifies how secure each level is. What I took away from this form was how malleable these processes are and how, while NIST is outlining the basic options available, they emphasize that security organizations should pick and choose what and how to implement in their own structure so as not to interfere with organizational function while still providing sufficient and compliant standards of security. I often find this sort of tightrope walk between productivity and security interesting because it raises questions over how and what we as professionals should prioritize when implementing security plans
Hi Andrew, you are spot on with your summary. Essentially, NIST SP 800-63-3 not only provides a comprehensive framework for enhancing security but also advocates for a pragmatic approach that prioritizes both security and organizational functionality. By offering guidance on risk management, requirements, and customizable options, the document empowers security professionals to make informed decisions that align with their organizational goals while ensuring compliance with stringent security standards.
I also liked how it broke down how secure each level. When examining paperwork, it’s always helpful to have a reference to go off of. To give my input on your last sentence, this is something I think about too, because it’s not hard to show up at work, nor is it hard to give effort, But what I think many people lack in (myself included) is prioritization. How do I, someone new in IT, navigate this field and know what is/isn’t most important?. I know I can always go to a higher up or coworker for pointers, but eventually, there will be times to figure it out on my own.
NIST SP 800 -63 provides guidelines for digital identity management, authentication, and lifecycle management. It offers recommendations and standards for verifying and securing digital identities in various online transactions and interactions. Key concepts that are mentioned in this guide are Identity proofing the process of verifying the identity of individuals before granting them access to digital resources, and Digital Authentication which is the process of binding digital identity to the authenticator to ensure applicants accessing the resource they are indeed who they claim to be and Lifecycle management which is the management of digital identities throughout their lifecycle, including account creation, maintenance, and termination.
The article also discussed risks and impact agencies must assess the potential risks and identify measures to minimize their impact and balance security, privacy, and usability considerations in authentication processes.
The guide aim aims to establish strong identity management practices that enhance security, protect user privacy, and ensure the trustworthiness of digital systems and transactions.
For this reading, What I liked the most was how it broke down the components of identity assurance. being in IAL,AAL, and FAL. For IAL, it’s meant in regards to identity proofing process. AAL is for authentication, and FAL is strength of assertion within a federated environment The reading then talks about how because these categories are separated, it gives agencies different options for selecting identity solutions and it also increases the capability to have privacy enhancing techniques. This is especially important because in todays day and age, it’s not practical for a company to have a singular identity solution. It’s optimal to have different identity solutions depending on the need for the moment. However, it’s important that rules are being followed hence why this document is so important, as it goes over digital identity guidelines.
I too like the identity component breakdown. You highlighted when the reading talked about the separation of the three components and how they offer a more diverse identity solution. That was a point I missed. Well, stated.
The 800-63-3 provides an overview guideline for managing digital identity, it focuses specifically on authentication and identity proofing as well as the associated risk and impact. It gives a model for which describes the many interactions in enrollment and identity proofing. The publication also goes on to begin to describe assurance levels as well as federal assurance levels some such sections being identity, authenticator, and federation assurance levels but more on that will be found in 63A. Finally in the last two sections it goes on to talk about how you use risk assessment results to select assurance levels and even gives a decision tree to better describe how to weigh factors and select the correct level. The document ends with federation considerations where it gives potential scenarios or attributes that make identity federation a more efficient and effective solution.
Alex, your explanation of NIST SP 800-63-3 is accurate. The document serves as a guide for managing digital identities, strongly focusing on verifying user identities and authentication methods. It establishes a framework that outlines the steps involved in user enrollment and confirms their legitimacy. Moreover, SP 800-63-3 introduces the concept of assurance levels for digital identity, which includes those defined by the federal government. These levels apply to various aspects of digital identity, such as the users themselves (identity assurance), the methods used for authentication (authenticator assurance), and how identities are federated across different systems (federation assurance). While SP 800-63A provides a more in-depth understanding of these assurance levels, SP 800-63-3 provides a foundational understanding.
This publication talks about how users are authenticated and joins the network. I took a certain interest in the talk of Identity Assurance levels and the requirements. This assurance in a user’s identity is described non-federated and federated systems using three levels of verification. Identity Assurance Level (IAL) and Authenticator Assurance Level (AAL). For federated systems, agencies will select a third component, Federation Assurance Level (FAL). What I learned about these components is replace the retired level of assurance (LOA) which was singular. Instead, the new system combines the appropriate business and privacy requirements side by side with the needs of the mission.
NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” to help U.S. federal agencies implement secure digital identity services. Although it is primarily for government entities, it provides valuable insights into user authentication for government IT systems. The core principle of SP 800-63-3 is a risk-based approach. It establishes a framework for evaluating the risks of managing user identities and selecting the appropriate security controls. This enables agencies to tailor their identity solutions to their needs and risk tolerance. SP 800-63-3 covers various aspects of digital identity, including verifying user identities through a process known as identity proofing and authentication. This ensures that only legitimate users interact with government systems. The document also covers the tools users rely on to prove their identity, such as passwords, tokens, or biometrics.
Additionally, it details procedures for registering users, managing their credentials, and maintaining the overall health of the identity system. Communication protocols are outlined, defining how different parts of the system interact. Finally, SP 800-63-3 addresses federated identity, which allows users to access multiple government systems with a single set of credentials, simplifying the login process. By following these guidelines, federal agencies can significantly enhance the security of their digital identity services and minimize the risk of unauthorized access.
Kelly, I agree with your analysis. NIST SP 800-63-3 plays a crucial role in guiding U.S. federal agencies toward robust digital identity services. The risk-based approach outlined in the guidelines allows agencies to tailor their identity solutions to their specific needs, ensuring a more effective and adaptable security posture
Digital Identity guidelines outline risk management procedures for choosing appropriate digital identity services. The guidelines help organizations to establish and maintain trustworthy digital identities by verifying users’ identities, authentication, and access control. The objective of digital identity guidelines is to build confidence and trust during transactions which helps to reduce the risk of unauthorized access and identity theft.
Michael Obiukwu says
The NIST SP 800 63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” represents a significant stride in the realm of digital identity management. These guidelines establish a comprehensive framework for the authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities, fostering a secure and reliable digital environment.
The document is divided into four parts, each addressing a distinct aspect of digital identity services. The first part provides an overview of the digital identity framework, while the subsequent parts delve into identity proofing, authenticator lifecycle management, and federation and assertions.
The guidelines underscore the importance of risk assessment in determining the required identity assurance level. This approach ensures that the security measures implemented are proportionate to the potential risks. Moreover, the guidelines advocate for the use of multi-factor authentication to enhance security, thereby reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access.
The guidelines also encourage the use of federated identity solutions, which are instrumental in facilitating seamless and secure information sharing across different systems. This approach significantly simplifies digital identity management, while also bolstering security.
In conclusion, the NIST SP 800 63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” provides a robust and flexible framework for digital identity management. These guidelines are instrumental in fostering a secure and reliable digital environment, thereby facilitating the safe and efficient exchange of digital information.
Samuel Omotosho says
Hi Michael, This is really a concise and informative overview of the NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines.” You effectively broke down the document into its four key parts, highlighting their respective focuses on digital identity framework, identity proofing, authenticator lifecycle management, and federation and assertions.
The emphasis on risk assessment and the correlation between security measures and potential risks is a key takeaway, demonstrating a practical and risk-based approach to digital identity management. The endorsement of multi-factor authentication aligns with contemporary security best practices.
The recognition of federated identity solutions as instrumental in both simplifying digital identity management and enhancing security reflects an understanding of the evolving needs of interconnected digital ecosystems.
Your conclusion aptly summarizes the significance of the guidelines in establishing a robust and flexible framework for digital identity management, ultimately contributing to a secure and reliable digital environment. Overall, a well-articulated summary that captures the key points of the NIST guidelines.
Jeffrey Sullivan says
NIST SP 800-63-3
This special publication goes over the guidelines and technical requirements needed for federal agencies implementing digital identity. Proving oneself or a digital identity is generally difficult. Identifying it remotely via a digital service is combated with opportunities from attackers to impersonate someone. From my understanding the guidelines in 800-63-3 supersede 800-63-2 and use guidelines as part of the risk assessment and implementation of their digital services. The guidelines also retire the LOA concept which stands for level of assurance which ultimately drives implementation-specific requirements. These three guidelines refer to identity proofing process, authentication process and lastly refers to the strength of an assertion in a federated environment used to communicate authentication and attribute information to a relying party. The article states, “the separation of these categories provides agencies flexibility in choosing identity solutions and increases the ability to include privacy-enhancing techniques as fundamental elements of identity systems at any assurance level”. In addition to those guidelines, they are organized into more subsections such as: 800-63A Enrollment and Identity Proofing, 800-63B Authentication and Lifecycle Management, and 800-63C Federation and Assertions. What also stood out to me is how the AAL has several levels to it just like how FIPS199 gives a section of levels whereas level one provides some assurance on claimant controls, AAL1 provides high confidence that the claimant controls are bound to the subscribers account and AAL3 provides very high confidence etc. Overall, following these guidelines will assist your agency to protect themselves against and manage digital identity.
Andrew Young says
I agree Jeff, the nesting or layering of controls and levels of control outlined by systems like AAL allows organizations to be more or less sure about who is accessing their systems. Being able to follow these outlined guidelines and understand generally how secure or thorough an access management system is creates a more clear picture for a security expert when attempting to understand the standards and risks present in an organization, both from an internal admin and auditing perspective
Ikenna Alajemba says
NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” stands as a seminal document in the realm of cybersecurity, particularly concerning digital identity management. It provides guidelines for the risk assessment methodology and an overview of general identity frameworks, using authenticators, credentials, and assertions together in a digital system, and a risk-based process of selecting assurance levels. This comprehensive special publication offers a robust set of standards and best practices to fortify digital identity verification and authentication processes. Notably, it emphasizes a risk-based approach, recognizing that different contexts demand varying levels of security measures. Multifactor authentication (MFA) is strongly advocated, aligning with contemporary security paradigms to mitigate unauthorized access effectively. The guidelines also underscore usability, acknowledging that overly complex security measures can impede user adoption and compliance. By promoting clarity and practicality, NIST SP 800-63-3 facilitates the implementation of strong yet user-friendly digital identity solutions. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of continuous evaluation and adaptation to evolving cyber threats, ensuring that organizations can maintain resilient and effective digital identity practices over time.
Kenneth Saltisky says
Hi Ikenna,
You bring up an excellent point regarding MFA, especially as several assurance levels outline requirements for the use of MFA. Particularly, Authenticator Assurance Level (AAL) requires that if a resource is identified at least at AAL2, it needs at least proof of possession and two different authentication factors through a secure portal with approved cryptographic techniques.
Samuel Omotosho says
The chapter explains digital identity methods. One key takeaway from the chapter is that risk should be taken into consideration while selecting assurance levels. The three levels are FAL, AAL, and IAL. There are three sublevels for each of them.
The most insecure approach is typically Level 1, which serves as the benchmark for ensuring identity matches between digital and real identities. The process of demonstrating that a user is permitted is introduced in Level 2, and it is expanded upon in Level 3 with a more secure authentication system. The level of each assurance level should, in general, match when combining them (for instance, IAL, AAL, and FAL are all levels 2). Using various security techniques to confirm digital identification may appear cumbersome, but it is critical to maintain the highest security standards.
Kenneth Saltisky says
Hi Samuel,
Your summary of the various assurance levels as well as the importance of maintaining security standards is interesting. In an ideal world, organizations would want to use the highest level of assurance throughout while maintaining user-friendly access for resources. However, a level between usability and security needs to be established on an individual resource-basis. For example, things that are and should be publicly accessible will require a lower tier for each assurance level while critical infrastructure would require the highest level of assurance while sacrificing user accessibility due to more access controls being required.
Kenneth Saltisky says
This portion of NIST’S publication is in regards to Digital Identity Guidelines. Specifically, the guidelines provide technical requirements for federal agencies to utilize digital identity services through the means of identity proofing, user authentication in using government systems on open networks, and the technical requirements for the processes and protocols required for these services. One particular point of interest from these guidelines for me was the section on the Digital Identity Model in Section 4.
The Digital Identity Model, at its core, is based on the enrollment, identity proofing, and issuance processes required by a registration authority/identity manager and the credential service providers. This process breaks down for an applicant as followed: an applicant applies to a CSP through their enrollment process. The CSP identity proofs the applicant, which if successful allows them to become a subscriber. Authenticators and a corresponding credential are established between the CSP and the subscriber. The CSP keeps the credential, its status, and enrollment data for the lifetime of the credential while the subscriber maintains their authenticators.
There are also procedures involving the the subscriber when they need to authenticate to a verifier, to which the subscriber is now a claimant. This process is as followed: the claimant proves ownership of authenticators to the verifier through an authentication protocol. The verifier talks with the CSP to validate the credential. The CSP or verifier asserts the subscriber to the relevant Relying Party to make an authorization decision. The authenticated session is established between the subscriber and the RP.
Alex Ruiz says
Kenneth you’ve made a comprehensive overview of NIST 800-63-3 and how it sheds light on the technical requirements for federal agencies, emphasizing identity proofing, user authentication, and protocol standards. The breakdown of the digital identity model, particularly with enrollment, identity proofing, and issuance processes, provides a clear understanding of the interactions between applicants, credential service providers, and verifiers. The outlined procedures for authentication and authorization contribute to a thorough grasp of the secure processes mandated for digital identity services in the context of open networks and government. How do you think these technical requirements and procedures will impact the efficiency and security of digital identity services within federal agencies?
Chidiebere Okafor says
NIST Special Publication 800-63-3, “Digital Identity Guidelines,” offers guidelines for managing digital identities for individuals interacting with information systems. It covers identity proofing, authentication, password management, lifecycle management, privacy considerations, usability, and risk assessment. Key points include identity proofing, strong authentication mechanisms, password management, lifecycle management, privacy considerations, user experience enhancement, and risk assessment. The guidelines aim to balance security requirements with usability and privacy, ensuring robust identity management practices that protect individuals’ identities and sensitive information in an increasingly digital world.
Nicholas Nirenberg says
The NIST SP 800-63-3 document talks about the rules for managing online identities. It explains that understanding who someone is online is tricky because people can have different online identities for things like email or banking. The document points out how hard it is to prove someone is who they say they are online, using the example, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” to show the challenges of online authentication. Instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, it breaks down the process into three separate parts: proving who you are, logging in securely, and how strong the login process needs to be, depending on what you’re accessing. This way, organizations can pick what level of security they need for their services, making it safer and more private for everyone. The document is meant to help government agencies, but its ideas can be used in other areas like online shopping or services.
Andrew Young says
NIST SP 800 63-3 outlines clear guidelines and requirements for setting up effective and compliant identity authorization systems at an organizational level. The document comprehensively covers various categories such as risks, requirements and options available in providing secure access management processes from a top-down perspective. The article also outlines tiers of security identification methods and specifies how secure each level is. What I took away from this form was how malleable these processes are and how, while NIST is outlining the basic options available, they emphasize that security organizations should pick and choose what and how to implement in their own structure so as not to interfere with organizational function while still providing sufficient and compliant standards of security. I often find this sort of tightrope walk between productivity and security interesting because it raises questions over how and what we as professionals should prioritize when implementing security plans
Chidiebere Okafor says
Hi Andrew, you are spot on with your summary. Essentially, NIST SP 800-63-3 not only provides a comprehensive framework for enhancing security but also advocates for a pragmatic approach that prioritizes both security and organizational functionality. By offering guidance on risk management, requirements, and customizable options, the document empowers security professionals to make informed decisions that align with their organizational goals while ensuring compliance with stringent security standards.
Hashem Alsharif says
Hello Andrew,
I also liked how it broke down how secure each level. When examining paperwork, it’s always helpful to have a reference to go off of. To give my input on your last sentence, this is something I think about too, because it’s not hard to show up at work, nor is it hard to give effort, But what I think many people lack in (myself included) is prioritization. How do I, someone new in IT, navigate this field and know what is/isn’t most important?. I know I can always go to a higher up or coworker for pointers, but eventually, there will be times to figure it out on my own.
Mariam Hazali says
NIST SP 800 -63 provides guidelines for digital identity management, authentication, and lifecycle management. It offers recommendations and standards for verifying and securing digital identities in various online transactions and interactions. Key concepts that are mentioned in this guide are Identity proofing the process of verifying the identity of individuals before granting them access to digital resources, and Digital Authentication which is the process of binding digital identity to the authenticator to ensure applicants accessing the resource they are indeed who they claim to be and Lifecycle management which is the management of digital identities throughout their lifecycle, including account creation, maintenance, and termination.
The article also discussed risks and impact agencies must assess the potential risks and identify measures to minimize their impact and balance security, privacy, and usability considerations in authentication processes.
The guide aim aims to establish strong identity management practices that enhance security, protect user privacy, and ensure the trustworthiness of digital systems and transactions.
Hashem Alsharif says
For this reading, What I liked the most was how it broke down the components of identity assurance. being in IAL,AAL, and FAL. For IAL, it’s meant in regards to identity proofing process. AAL is for authentication, and FAL is strength of assertion within a federated environment The reading then talks about how because these categories are separated, it gives agencies different options for selecting identity solutions and it also increases the capability to have privacy enhancing techniques. This is especially important because in todays day and age, it’s not practical for a company to have a singular identity solution. It’s optimal to have different identity solutions depending on the need for the moment. However, it’s important that rules are being followed hence why this document is so important, as it goes over digital identity guidelines.
Erskine Payton says
Hello Hasham.
I too like the identity component breakdown. You highlighted when the reading talked about the separation of the three components and how they offer a more diverse identity solution. That was a point I missed. Well, stated.
Alex Ruiz says
The 800-63-3 provides an overview guideline for managing digital identity, it focuses specifically on authentication and identity proofing as well as the associated risk and impact. It gives a model for which describes the many interactions in enrollment and identity proofing. The publication also goes on to begin to describe assurance levels as well as federal assurance levels some such sections being identity, authenticator, and federation assurance levels but more on that will be found in 63A. Finally in the last two sections it goes on to talk about how you use risk assessment results to select assurance levels and even gives a decision tree to better describe how to weigh factors and select the correct level. The document ends with federation considerations where it gives potential scenarios or attributes that make identity federation a more efficient and effective solution.
Kelly Conger says
Alex, your explanation of NIST SP 800-63-3 is accurate. The document serves as a guide for managing digital identities, strongly focusing on verifying user identities and authentication methods. It establishes a framework that outlines the steps involved in user enrollment and confirms their legitimacy. Moreover, SP 800-63-3 introduces the concept of assurance levels for digital identity, which includes those defined by the federal government. These levels apply to various aspects of digital identity, such as the users themselves (identity assurance), the methods used for authentication (authenticator assurance), and how identities are federated across different systems (federation assurance). While SP 800-63A provides a more in-depth understanding of these assurance levels, SP 800-63-3 provides a foundational understanding.
Erskine Payton says
This publication talks about how users are authenticated and joins the network. I took a certain interest in the talk of Identity Assurance levels and the requirements. This assurance in a user’s identity is described non-federated and federated systems using three levels of verification. Identity Assurance Level (IAL) and Authenticator Assurance Level (AAL). For federated systems, agencies will select a third component, Federation Assurance Level (FAL). What I learned about these components is replace the retired level of assurance (LOA) which was singular. Instead, the new system combines the appropriate business and privacy requirements side by side with the needs of the mission.
Kelly Conger says
NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” to help U.S. federal agencies implement secure digital identity services. Although it is primarily for government entities, it provides valuable insights into user authentication for government IT systems. The core principle of SP 800-63-3 is a risk-based approach. It establishes a framework for evaluating the risks of managing user identities and selecting the appropriate security controls. This enables agencies to tailor their identity solutions to their needs and risk tolerance. SP 800-63-3 covers various aspects of digital identity, including verifying user identities through a process known as identity proofing and authentication. This ensures that only legitimate users interact with government systems. The document also covers the tools users rely on to prove their identity, such as passwords, tokens, or biometrics.
Additionally, it details procedures for registering users, managing their credentials, and maintaining the overall health of the identity system. Communication protocols are outlined, defining how different parts of the system interact. Finally, SP 800-63-3 addresses federated identity, which allows users to access multiple government systems with a single set of credentials, simplifying the login process. By following these guidelines, federal agencies can significantly enhance the security of their digital identity services and minimize the risk of unauthorized access.
Mariam Hazali says
Kelly, I agree with your analysis. NIST SP 800-63-3 plays a crucial role in guiding U.S. federal agencies toward robust digital identity services. The risk-based approach outlined in the guidelines allows agencies to tailor their identity solutions to their specific needs, ensuring a more effective and adaptable security posture
Akintunde Akinmusire says
Digital Identity guidelines outline risk management procedures for choosing appropriate digital identity services. The guidelines help organizations to establish and maintain trustworthy digital identities by verifying users’ identities, authentication, and access control. The objective of digital identity guidelines is to build confidence and trust during transactions which helps to reduce the risk of unauthorized access and identity theft.