The NIST SP 800-63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” provides a comprehensive framework for digital identity management. The document emphasizes the importance of robust identity proofing processes to ensure the security and integrity of digital identities. The guidelines provide a risk-based approach, allowing organizations to adopt different identity proofing methods based on the level of risk associated with the digital identity. The document also emphasizes the need for privacy considerations, including the minimization of personally identifiable information (PII) and the use of pseudonymous identities. The guidelines further underscore the importance of a strong authentication process, which includes multi-factor authentication methods. The NIST SP 800-63A provides a valuable resource for organizations seeking to establish secure and reliable digital identity systems. However, it also highlights the need for continuous improvement and adaptation in response to evolving threats and technologies. The document’s tone of voice is professional, making it accessible for both technical and non-technical audiences.
Undoubtably, NIST SP 800-63A offers a robust framework for digital identity management, emphasizing the importance of stringent identity proofing processes to safeguard digital identities. With a risk-based approach, it allows organizations to tailor proofing methods according to associated risks. Privacy is prioritized through PII minimization and pseudonymous identities. The guidelines advocate for strong authentication, including multi-factor methods. While a valuable resource, it also stresses the need for ongoing adaptation to address emerging threats.
Michael, I agree with your assessment of NIST SP 800-63A. The document offers a well-structured framework for digital identity management, prioritizing strong identity proofing to safeguard digital identities. The risk-based approach allows organizations to tailor their methods based on specific needs, making it adaptable. The emphasis on privacy considerations, including PII minimization and pseudonymous identities, reflects a commitment to user privacy alongside security. The push for strong authentication, including multi-factor methods, further bolsters the security posture.
SP 800-63A is a valuable resource for organizations seeking secure and reliable digital identity systems. The call for continuous improvement and adaptation acknowledges the evolving threat landscape and the need to stay ahead. Finally, the professional tone ensures accessibility for both technical and non-technical audiences.
NIST SP 800-63A
This publication deals with enrollment and identity proofing. It outlines the standards and process for enrolling individuals or entities in systems and proving their identity and actually ensuring who that really are or claim to be. Just like in SP 800-63-3, there are levels of assurance. This gives you assurance in a subscriber’s identity using one of the three IAL’s.
· IAL1- no requirement to link the applicant to specific real-life identity.
· IAL2- Evidence supports the real-world existence of the claimed identity verifies that the applicant is appropriately associated with this real-word identity.
· IAL_-physical presence is required for identity proofing. These attributes must be verified by an authorized and trained CSP representative.
What stood out the most for me in this publication was the process flow on pg.5 figure 4.1 Process Flow. This is just an example but shows how an individual can be uniquely distinguished among a given population or context. The second step is validation. There is where you are authenticated, validated and the accuracy of the identity is determined and related to the real-life subject. Lastly step 3, verification, there is where you can show or discover a linkage between claimed identity and real-life existence of the subject presenting evidence confirmed and established.
The diagram you mentioned is a very interesting view on the basic flow control for identity proofing and enrollment for one individual. The general requirements below the image outline some additional requirements when performing identity proofing at higher IAL levels (2 and 3). These requirements include that the proofing will not be performed to determine suitability or entitlement to gaining access, collection of PII is limited when validating a claimant, the CSP provides explicit notice to an applicant of the purpose for collecting/maintaining a record of attributes necessary for identity proofing, and more.
NIST SP 800-63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” stands as a pivotal document in the realm of digital security, offering a comprehensive framework for verifying the identities of individuals during enrollment into digital systems. In today’s increasingly interconnected world, where digital transactions and interactions have become ubiquitous, the significance of NIST SP 800-63A cannot be overstated. With the rise in digital platforms, the risk of identity theft and fraudulent activities has escalated, making robust identity proofing procedures essential.
This guideline provides organizations with a structured approach to ensure the authenticity of individuals’ identity claims, mitigating the risk of unauthorized access and bolstering the overall security of digital systems. By adhering to the guidelines set forth in NIST SP 800-63A, organizations can establish trust in the digital realm, safeguard sensitive data, and maintain the confidence of their users.
In essence, NIST SP 800-63A serves as a cornerstone for digital trust and security. Its detailed requirements and controls offer organizations the means to implement robust identity verification processes, thus reinforcing the integrity of digital identity systems. As digital technologies continue to evolve and shape our society, the guidance provided by NIST SP 800-63A remains indispensable in ensuring the resilience and security of digital infrastructures.
Your analysis of the document’s role in digital security is insightful and aligns with the increasing importance of robust identity verification. The guideline’s structured approach indeed safeguards against unauthorized access and enhances overall digital system security. As technology continues to advance, do you foresee any specific areas where NIST SP 800-63A might need updates or enhancements to address emerging threats and maintain its effectiveness in ensuring digital infrastructure resilience?
Requirements for enrollment and identity verification of users seeking access to resources at each Identity Assurance Level (IAL) are outlined in NIST SP 800 63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing.” The requirements specify what constitutes acceptable, validated, and verified identification evidence that a subscriber may submit to substantiate their claim to be who they say they are. Furthermore described in this reading are the duties of Credential Service Providers (CSPs) in relation to creating and keeping enrollment records and linking authenticators (either supplied by subscribers or CSPs issued) to the enrollment record.
Your summary of the document highlights the importance of having defined requirements for each IAL as well as the importance of CSPs in relation to enrollment and proofing records. Credential service providers are essential for issuing and managing credentials related to user authentication. This document in particular highlights their responsibility in relation to the different IAL levels as well as the various identity proofing methods in the document.
NIST SP 800-63A is a complimentary document to 800-63 that focuses more on the enrollment and identity proofing processes at each IAL as well as additional guidance on implementing requirements in 800-63 with more recommendations and examples. One point of interest for me from this document is the section on Derived Credentials, section 6.
Deriving credentials refers to the process of someone proving to a CSP that they are the owner of the credential bound to an authenticator they own. The process exists from a CSP so that individuals have a chance to obtain new authenticators bound to an existing proofed record. There are two cases where deriving identity is needed: a claimant needs to obtain a derived Personal Identity Verification bound to their record within limits from having a smartcard, or an applicant wants to establish a credential with a new CSP in the case of, for example, switching from one CSP to another or using a new CSP for other uses.
Hi Kenneth, I think you hit the crucial point that NIST SP 800-63A is a socument which expands on SP 800-63, focusing on enrollment and identity proofing at various IALs, offering detailed guidance and examples for implementation. A notable aspect is the Derived Credentials section, which outlines a process for individuals to prove ownership of a credential and obtain new authenticators linked to their verified identity. This is crucial for instances where users need to transfer their identity verification between service providers or when acquiring new authentication methods, ensuring seamless identity continuity across different platforms or service changes.
Hi Kenneth.
Your breakdown of deriving credentials is spot on. I had an opportunity to look at SP 800-157 and it provides guidelines for cases in which the use of PIV Cards with mobile devices, using either contact card readers or NFC, is not an option. You start with one document (NIST 800-63) and that take you down a rabbit hole of measures and controls.
NIST Special Publication 800-63A, titled “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” offers comprehensive guidance on the process of enrolling individuals into digital identity systems and verifying their identities. The guidelines cover the enrollment process, including collecting necessary information, validating identity documents, and establishing unique identifiers for each user. They recommend various identity proofing methods, such as in-person, document, knowledge-based, biometric, and electronic verification. The guidelines emphasize the importance of adopting a risk-based approach to identity proofing, where the level of verification required is proportional to the risk associated with the transaction or activity. The concept of identity assurance levels (IALs) categorizes the strength of identity proofing and authentication processes based on the level of confidence in the claimed identity. Privacy considerations are addressed, emphasizing the need to minimize data collection, storage, and sharing practices. Overall, NIST Special Publication 800-63A provides comprehensive guidance for organizations conducting effective and secure enrollment and identity proofing processes for digital identity systems.
NIST SP 800-63-A talks about how to check and confirm someone’s identity online, especially when they want to use online services. It explains the steps and rules for making sure a person is who they say they are by using different kinds of proof like ID cards or passports. This process is important for doing things safely online, like banking or healthcare, and makes sure that a person’s digital identity matches their real-life identity. There are three levels of checking how sure we are about someone’s identity, ranging from just accepting what the person says about themselves to requiring proof in person. The document also talks about how to keep records of these checks and link them to the person’s online activities securely. This is especially important for services where knowing the real identity of a person is necessary for safety and legal reasons.
I agree that the Identity Assurance Levels or IAL system you discuss is interesting. Depending on the functions or processes of an organization, different organizations and even different departments will have different Identity Assurance Levels depending on how secure the info and systems they interact with. being able to properly identify, assign, and classify Identity Assurance Levels for systems that are being managed is essential to making sure that all information and systems in an organization are appropriately secured
Much like the previous article, this NIST write up provides guidelines for procedures overseeing identity and access management procedures among an organization’s security policies. It also outlines the processes of various sub-categories in this process, such as the credential service provider or CSP. What I found fascinating about this chapter is just how much info is collected about a user on the backend, especially in terms of the credential service provider role. As outlined in model 4.1 Process Flow, users interacting with a system must provide comprehensive info to be able to be independently identified by the organization they are interacting with and that info must be effectively checked and verified before authorization, either physical or digital is provided to the user or “subscriber”. Being able to ensure that the users you are interacting with are who they say they are and are authorized to access the systems they are trying to access is necessary for any organization but can be implemented to different levels of severity, which is where things like Identity Assurance Levels come into play to classify how thoroughly this info should be checked
NIST SP 800 – 63A Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing guide provides the requirements for users to successfully enroll and prove their identity before gaining access to digital resources and the responsibility of CSP in establishing and maintaining enrollment records and authenticating users. The guidelines specify the type of data CSPs are permitted to collect, emphasizing the collection of only necessary information for identity proofing, such as full name, date of birth, and home address, with the option to collect social security numbers when required.
The identity proofing process comprises three stages: Resolution, Validation, and Verification. In the Resolution stage, CSPs gather personally identifiable information and supporting evidence from users. The Validation phase involves verifying the validity of the provided information and documents, while the Verification phase requires additional evidence from users to supplement the provided information.
The verification must be unique and resolve to a single entry within the population, if multiple entries exist, CSPs must uniquely bind the authenticator to a single identity, a process governed by SP 800-63B guidelines. These guidelines ensure the integrity and uniqueness of digital identities, safeguarding against identity fraud(impersonation) and unauthorized access to digital resources.
Great summary, the three stages of ID proofing ensure that users provide accurate and reliable information during enrollment, thereby establishing a trustworthy digital identity. By specifying the steps involved in gathering, validating, and verifying personally identifiable information and supporting evidence, CSPs can effectively authenticate users and mitigate the risk of identity fraud and unauthorized access to digital resources.
NIST SP 800 63A is an expansion document delving deeper into Identity Level Requirements (IAL). For those wanting to gain access to resources at each Identity Assurance Level (IAL) this document provides requirements for enrollment and identity proofing of users. I like how the process flows are illustrated in Figure 4-1. On paper the process seems long and tedious when in fact it is only take seconds for your identity to be verified. It is a lot that goes in to authenticating a user. Each step in a control that if one action happens “go here” or if this happens “go there”. The everyday user has no idea what happens behind the scenes when they enter a username and password.
NIST SP 800-63A is a guide for federal agencies implementing digital identity services. It emphasizes the importance of verifying user identities and authentication to secure access to government IT systems. The document outlines a risk-based approach, where agencies assess their needs and choose appropriate security controls for enrollment and identity-proofing processes. This ensures a balance between security and user experience. The guide defines three identity assurance levels, reflecting the degree of confidence an agency can have in a user’s identity. For each level, the document specifies the technical requirements. For example, a low assurance level might involve verifying basic user information through knowledge-based questions. In contrast, a high assurance level might require stricter methods like in-person verification with government-issued IDs. Central to the enrollment process are Credential Service Providers (CSPs), trusted entities responsible for registering users and issuing digital credentials. The guide specifies technical requirements for CSPs, including secure data storage and credential management practices. The guide acknowledges that user convenience is important alongside security. It discusses potential privacy concerns and emphasizes the need for agencies to balance robust security with user privacy.
Overall, NIST SP 800-63A is a valuable guide for US federal agencies in establishing secure digital identity services. It promotes a risk-based approach, defines identity assurance levels, and outlines technical requirements for enrollment, identity proofing, and credential management. By following these guidelines, agencies can strengthen user authentication and minimize the risk of unauthorized access to their IT systems.
This document as stated in the title goes more in-depth about enrollment and identity proofing, it shows how to examine applicants based on each identity assurance level. In the introduction it explains expected outcomes of identity proofing, as well as going more in-depth into the three identity assurance levels and in the next section describes the requirements for each level as well as the process for ascertaining the information needed and enrolling a user. My favorite section is 4.3-4.5 where it describes what is needed from each assurance level and describes the whole process from requirements to collection to confirmation then additionally adding security controls appropriate for each level. I also enjoyed the table provided in 4.7 that was very succinct in describing the requirements for each level and category.
Table 5-1 provides a great example of what would be considered weak, fair, strong, and superior in regards to the quality of identity evidence. The table has numerous examples in it for the qualities. But to single out a single point, you would see, For example, if the issuing source of evidence did not perform identity spoofing, then it’s weak .If the issuing source of evidence that was confirmed of the claimed identity through an identity proofing process, it’s fair. if the issued evidence has at least one reference number that identifies the person of who it relates to, it would be considered strong. Lastly, if the evidence has a photo of the person to who it relates, it would be superior. I think for IT professionals, this is a great document to go off of because while anyone can read through paragraphs, having important examples shown through a table makes the process easier for everyone.
Michael Obiukwu says
The NIST SP 800-63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” provides a comprehensive framework for digital identity management. The document emphasizes the importance of robust identity proofing processes to ensure the security and integrity of digital identities. The guidelines provide a risk-based approach, allowing organizations to adopt different identity proofing methods based on the level of risk associated with the digital identity. The document also emphasizes the need for privacy considerations, including the minimization of personally identifiable information (PII) and the use of pseudonymous identities. The guidelines further underscore the importance of a strong authentication process, which includes multi-factor authentication methods. The NIST SP 800-63A provides a valuable resource for organizations seeking to establish secure and reliable digital identity systems. However, it also highlights the need for continuous improvement and adaptation in response to evolving threats and technologies. The document’s tone of voice is professional, making it accessible for both technical and non-technical audiences.
Ikenna Alajemba says
Undoubtably, NIST SP 800-63A offers a robust framework for digital identity management, emphasizing the importance of stringent identity proofing processes to safeguard digital identities. With a risk-based approach, it allows organizations to tailor proofing methods according to associated risks. Privacy is prioritized through PII minimization and pseudonymous identities. The guidelines advocate for strong authentication, including multi-factor methods. While a valuable resource, it also stresses the need for ongoing adaptation to address emerging threats.
Kelly Conger says
Michael, I agree with your assessment of NIST SP 800-63A. The document offers a well-structured framework for digital identity management, prioritizing strong identity proofing to safeguard digital identities. The risk-based approach allows organizations to tailor their methods based on specific needs, making it adaptable. The emphasis on privacy considerations, including PII minimization and pseudonymous identities, reflects a commitment to user privacy alongside security. The push for strong authentication, including multi-factor methods, further bolsters the security posture.
SP 800-63A is a valuable resource for organizations seeking secure and reliable digital identity systems. The call for continuous improvement and adaptation acknowledges the evolving threat landscape and the need to stay ahead. Finally, the professional tone ensures accessibility for both technical and non-technical audiences.
Jeffrey Sullivan says
NIST SP 800-63A
This publication deals with enrollment and identity proofing. It outlines the standards and process for enrolling individuals or entities in systems and proving their identity and actually ensuring who that really are or claim to be. Just like in SP 800-63-3, there are levels of assurance. This gives you assurance in a subscriber’s identity using one of the three IAL’s.
· IAL1- no requirement to link the applicant to specific real-life identity.
· IAL2- Evidence supports the real-world existence of the claimed identity verifies that the applicant is appropriately associated with this real-word identity.
· IAL_-physical presence is required for identity proofing. These attributes must be verified by an authorized and trained CSP representative.
What stood out the most for me in this publication was the process flow on pg.5 figure 4.1 Process Flow. This is just an example but shows how an individual can be uniquely distinguished among a given population or context. The second step is validation. There is where you are authenticated, validated and the accuracy of the identity is determined and related to the real-life subject. Lastly step 3, verification, there is where you can show or discover a linkage between claimed identity and real-life existence of the subject presenting evidence confirmed and established.
Kenneth Saltisky says
Hi Jeffrey,
The diagram you mentioned is a very interesting view on the basic flow control for identity proofing and enrollment for one individual. The general requirements below the image outline some additional requirements when performing identity proofing at higher IAL levels (2 and 3). These requirements include that the proofing will not be performed to determine suitability or entitlement to gaining access, collection of PII is limited when validating a claimant, the CSP provides explicit notice to an applicant of the purpose for collecting/maintaining a record of attributes necessary for identity proofing, and more.
Ikenna Alajemba says
NIST SP 800-63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” stands as a pivotal document in the realm of digital security, offering a comprehensive framework for verifying the identities of individuals during enrollment into digital systems. In today’s increasingly interconnected world, where digital transactions and interactions have become ubiquitous, the significance of NIST SP 800-63A cannot be overstated. With the rise in digital platforms, the risk of identity theft and fraudulent activities has escalated, making robust identity proofing procedures essential.
This guideline provides organizations with a structured approach to ensure the authenticity of individuals’ identity claims, mitigating the risk of unauthorized access and bolstering the overall security of digital systems. By adhering to the guidelines set forth in NIST SP 800-63A, organizations can establish trust in the digital realm, safeguard sensitive data, and maintain the confidence of their users.
In essence, NIST SP 800-63A serves as a cornerstone for digital trust and security. Its detailed requirements and controls offer organizations the means to implement robust identity verification processes, thus reinforcing the integrity of digital identity systems. As digital technologies continue to evolve and shape our society, the guidance provided by NIST SP 800-63A remains indispensable in ensuring the resilience and security of digital infrastructures.
Alex Ruiz says
Your analysis of the document’s role in digital security is insightful and aligns with the increasing importance of robust identity verification. The guideline’s structured approach indeed safeguards against unauthorized access and enhances overall digital system security. As technology continues to advance, do you foresee any specific areas where NIST SP 800-63A might need updates or enhancements to address emerging threats and maintain its effectiveness in ensuring digital infrastructure resilience?
Samuel Omotosho says
Requirements for enrollment and identity verification of users seeking access to resources at each Identity Assurance Level (IAL) are outlined in NIST SP 800 63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing.” The requirements specify what constitutes acceptable, validated, and verified identification evidence that a subscriber may submit to substantiate their claim to be who they say they are. Furthermore described in this reading are the duties of Credential Service Providers (CSPs) in relation to creating and keeping enrollment records and linking authenticators (either supplied by subscribers or CSPs issued) to the enrollment record.
Kenneth Saltisky says
Hi Samuel,
Your summary of the document highlights the importance of having defined requirements for each IAL as well as the importance of CSPs in relation to enrollment and proofing records. Credential service providers are essential for issuing and managing credentials related to user authentication. This document in particular highlights their responsibility in relation to the different IAL levels as well as the various identity proofing methods in the document.
Kenneth Saltisky says
NIST SP 800-63A is a complimentary document to 800-63 that focuses more on the enrollment and identity proofing processes at each IAL as well as additional guidance on implementing requirements in 800-63 with more recommendations and examples. One point of interest for me from this document is the section on Derived Credentials, section 6.
Deriving credentials refers to the process of someone proving to a CSP that they are the owner of the credential bound to an authenticator they own. The process exists from a CSP so that individuals have a chance to obtain new authenticators bound to an existing proofed record. There are two cases where deriving identity is needed: a claimant needs to obtain a derived Personal Identity Verification bound to their record within limits from having a smartcard, or an applicant wants to establish a credential with a new CSP in the case of, for example, switching from one CSP to another or using a new CSP for other uses.
Nicholas Nirenberg says
Hi Kenneth, I think you hit the crucial point that NIST SP 800-63A is a socument which expands on SP 800-63, focusing on enrollment and identity proofing at various IALs, offering detailed guidance and examples for implementation. A notable aspect is the Derived Credentials section, which outlines a process for individuals to prove ownership of a credential and obtain new authenticators linked to their verified identity. This is crucial for instances where users need to transfer their identity verification between service providers or when acquiring new authentication methods, ensuring seamless identity continuity across different platforms or service changes.
Erskine Payton says
Hi Kenneth.
Your breakdown of deriving credentials is spot on. I had an opportunity to look at SP 800-157 and it provides guidelines for cases in which the use of PIV Cards with mobile devices, using either contact card readers or NFC, is not an option. You start with one document (NIST 800-63) and that take you down a rabbit hole of measures and controls.
Chidiebere Okafor says
NIST Special Publication 800-63A, titled “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” offers comprehensive guidance on the process of enrolling individuals into digital identity systems and verifying their identities. The guidelines cover the enrollment process, including collecting necessary information, validating identity documents, and establishing unique identifiers for each user. They recommend various identity proofing methods, such as in-person, document, knowledge-based, biometric, and electronic verification. The guidelines emphasize the importance of adopting a risk-based approach to identity proofing, where the level of verification required is proportional to the risk associated with the transaction or activity. The concept of identity assurance levels (IALs) categorizes the strength of identity proofing and authentication processes based on the level of confidence in the claimed identity. Privacy considerations are addressed, emphasizing the need to minimize data collection, storage, and sharing practices. Overall, NIST Special Publication 800-63A provides comprehensive guidance for organizations conducting effective and secure enrollment and identity proofing processes for digital identity systems.
Nicholas Nirenberg says
NIST SP 800-63-A talks about how to check and confirm someone’s identity online, especially when they want to use online services. It explains the steps and rules for making sure a person is who they say they are by using different kinds of proof like ID cards or passports. This process is important for doing things safely online, like banking or healthcare, and makes sure that a person’s digital identity matches their real-life identity. There are three levels of checking how sure we are about someone’s identity, ranging from just accepting what the person says about themselves to requiring proof in person. The document also talks about how to keep records of these checks and link them to the person’s online activities securely. This is especially important for services where knowing the real identity of a person is necessary for safety and legal reasons.
Andrew Young says
I agree that the Identity Assurance Levels or IAL system you discuss is interesting. Depending on the functions or processes of an organization, different organizations and even different departments will have different Identity Assurance Levels depending on how secure the info and systems they interact with. being able to properly identify, assign, and classify Identity Assurance Levels for systems that are being managed is essential to making sure that all information and systems in an organization are appropriately secured
Andrew Young says
Much like the previous article, this NIST write up provides guidelines for procedures overseeing identity and access management procedures among an organization’s security policies. It also outlines the processes of various sub-categories in this process, such as the credential service provider or CSP. What I found fascinating about this chapter is just how much info is collected about a user on the backend, especially in terms of the credential service provider role. As outlined in model 4.1 Process Flow, users interacting with a system must provide comprehensive info to be able to be independently identified by the organization they are interacting with and that info must be effectively checked and verified before authorization, either physical or digital is provided to the user or “subscriber”. Being able to ensure that the users you are interacting with are who they say they are and are authorized to access the systems they are trying to access is necessary for any organization but can be implemented to different levels of severity, which is where things like Identity Assurance Levels come into play to classify how thoroughly this info should be checked
Mariam Hazali says
NIST SP 800 – 63A Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing guide provides the requirements for users to successfully enroll and prove their identity before gaining access to digital resources and the responsibility of CSP in establishing and maintaining enrollment records and authenticating users. The guidelines specify the type of data CSPs are permitted to collect, emphasizing the collection of only necessary information for identity proofing, such as full name, date of birth, and home address, with the option to collect social security numbers when required.
The identity proofing process comprises three stages: Resolution, Validation, and Verification. In the Resolution stage, CSPs gather personally identifiable information and supporting evidence from users. The Validation phase involves verifying the validity of the provided information and documents, while the Verification phase requires additional evidence from users to supplement the provided information.
The verification must be unique and resolve to a single entry within the population, if multiple entries exist, CSPs must uniquely bind the authenticator to a single identity, a process governed by SP 800-63B guidelines. These guidelines ensure the integrity and uniqueness of digital identities, safeguarding against identity fraud(impersonation) and unauthorized access to digital resources.
Chidiebere Okafor says
Great summary, the three stages of ID proofing ensure that users provide accurate and reliable information during enrollment, thereby establishing a trustworthy digital identity. By specifying the steps involved in gathering, validating, and verifying personally identifiable information and supporting evidence, CSPs can effectively authenticate users and mitigate the risk of identity fraud and unauthorized access to digital resources.
Erskine Payton says
NIST SP 800 63A is an expansion document delving deeper into Identity Level Requirements (IAL). For those wanting to gain access to resources at each Identity Assurance Level (IAL) this document provides requirements for enrollment and identity proofing of users. I like how the process flows are illustrated in Figure 4-1. On paper the process seems long and tedious when in fact it is only take seconds for your identity to be verified. It is a lot that goes in to authenticating a user. Each step in a control that if one action happens “go here” or if this happens “go there”. The everyday user has no idea what happens behind the scenes when they enter a username and password.
Kelly Conger says
NIST SP 800-63A is a guide for federal agencies implementing digital identity services. It emphasizes the importance of verifying user identities and authentication to secure access to government IT systems. The document outlines a risk-based approach, where agencies assess their needs and choose appropriate security controls for enrollment and identity-proofing processes. This ensures a balance between security and user experience. The guide defines three identity assurance levels, reflecting the degree of confidence an agency can have in a user’s identity. For each level, the document specifies the technical requirements. For example, a low assurance level might involve verifying basic user information through knowledge-based questions. In contrast, a high assurance level might require stricter methods like in-person verification with government-issued IDs. Central to the enrollment process are Credential Service Providers (CSPs), trusted entities responsible for registering users and issuing digital credentials. The guide specifies technical requirements for CSPs, including secure data storage and credential management practices. The guide acknowledges that user convenience is important alongside security. It discusses potential privacy concerns and emphasizes the need for agencies to balance robust security with user privacy.
Overall, NIST SP 800-63A is a valuable guide for US federal agencies in establishing secure digital identity services. It promotes a risk-based approach, defines identity assurance levels, and outlines technical requirements for enrollment, identity proofing, and credential management. By following these guidelines, agencies can strengthen user authentication and minimize the risk of unauthorized access to their IT systems.
Alex Ruiz says
This document as stated in the title goes more in-depth about enrollment and identity proofing, it shows how to examine applicants based on each identity assurance level. In the introduction it explains expected outcomes of identity proofing, as well as going more in-depth into the three identity assurance levels and in the next section describes the requirements for each level as well as the process for ascertaining the information needed and enrolling a user. My favorite section is 4.3-4.5 where it describes what is needed from each assurance level and describes the whole process from requirements to collection to confirmation then additionally adding security controls appropriate for each level. I also enjoyed the table provided in 4.7 that was very succinct in describing the requirements for each level and category.
Hashem Alsharif says
Table 5-1 provides a great example of what would be considered weak, fair, strong, and superior in regards to the quality of identity evidence. The table has numerous examples in it for the qualities. But to single out a single point, you would see, For example, if the issuing source of evidence did not perform identity spoofing, then it’s weak .If the issuing source of evidence that was confirmed of the claimed identity through an identity proofing process, it’s fair. if the issued evidence has at least one reference number that identifies the person of who it relates to, it would be considered strong. Lastly, if the evidence has a photo of the person to who it relates, it would be superior. I think for IT professionals, this is a great document to go off of because while anyone can read through paragraphs, having important examples shown through a table makes the process easier for everyone.