The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800 63B, titled “Digital Identity Guidelines Authentication and Lifecycle Management,” is a significant document that outlines the best practices for digital identity management. The guidelines emphasize the importance of strong authentication mechanisms, providing an in-depth analysis of various authentication methods, their strengths, and potential weaknesses.
The document underscores the importance of password security, promoting the use of longer, complex passwords and discouraging frequent password changes. This approach reflects a shift in understanding of user behavior and the actual risks involved in password-based authentication.
Furthermore, the guidelines suggest a lifecycle management approach to digital identities, ensuring that they remain secure and effective throughout their existence. This includes provisioning, de-provisioning, and periodic review processes.
Generally, NIST SP 800 63B is a comprehensive guide for organizations aiming to develop robust, secure digital identity systems. It offers a balanced perspective, considering both technological and human factors in its recommendations. This document marks a significant step forward in the field of digital identity management, providing a solid foundation for future developments.
NIST Special Publication 800-63BThis publication homes in on authentication and lifecycle management. It also provides recommendations on types of authentications, choice of authentication that may be used by various authenticator assurance levels AAL’s. It shows recommendations on the lifecycle of authenticators. The assurance levels show the strength of the transaction. Same as the two other publications we are covering this week the levels are AAL1,2 and 3. What I did notice though is that in section three approved cryptographic techniques are required and its shows on table 2-1 how you can categorize as normative or informative sections of SP 800-63B. What stood out for me in this info packed publication was section 8on authenticator threats. It shows how an attacker that gains control of the authenticator will be able to act like the authenticator’s owner and when the authenticator’s secrets shared, the attacker could gain access to the CSP or verifier and obtain the secret value or perform a dictionary attack on a hash of that value. This is illustrated in section 8.1 pg.41. There are also other threats listed in this publication which include phishing, credential stuffing and replay attacks. It recommends security controls and best practices to mitigate these threats. Overall, it is aimed at helping organizations have secure authentication systems that protect against unauthorized access while accommodating the needs of users. By following these guidelines, you can strengthen and protect sensitive information and services.
Absolutely Jeff, NIST SP 800-63B offers comprehensive insights into authentication and lifecycle management, including recommended authenticator assurance levels (AALs) and their respective strengths. It emphasizes approved cryptographic techniques, and highlights potential threats such as phishing and replay attacks. Also, the publication provides security controls and best practices to counter these threats, aiming to enhance organizational security while meeting user needs.
Great summary of NIST SP 800-63B! The emphasis on authentication and lifecycle management, as well as the categorization of cryptographic techniques, adds depth to its relevance. The insights into authenticator threats and the recommended security controls are noteworthy. One question I have: How do you think the chapter addresses the balance between enhancing security and ensuring user convenience in authentication systems?
NIST SP 800-63B, titled “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management,” is another publication by (NIST) that provides recommendations for managing digital identities, specifically focusing on authentication and lifecycle management.
This guideline serves as a comprehensive resource for organizations seeking to establish secure authentication processes and effectively manage the lifecycle of digital identities. It outlines best practices and recommendations for various aspects of authentication, including password management, multi-factor authentication, and the selection of appropriate authentication mechanisms based on risk factors. Additionally, NIST SP 800-63B addresses the lifecycle management of digital identities, covering processes such as account creation, maintenance, suspension, and termination. It provides guidance on ensuring the integrity and security of identity data throughout its lifecycle, including measures for secure storage, transmission, and disposal of identity-related information. Overall, NIST SP 800-63B is used by organizations to enhance the security and reliability of their digital identity management systems, mitigate the risk of unauthorized access and identity theft, and ensure compliance with industry standards and regulations. It serves as a valuable resource for designing, implementing, and maintaining robust authentication and identity lifecycle management processes in today’s digital landscape.
I like your summary of the document as well as the purpose it serves towards enhancing the security and reliability of digital identity management systems. Having written requirements to comply with, especially with something as important as identity management, helps to not only safeguard the assets that require accessing but also the information stored by CSPs so that subscribers can safely use these identity management systems.
This guideline describes the various forms of authentication mechanisms. This is referred to as the Authentic Assurance Level (AAL). AAL, like NIST SP 800-63A, includes three stages: AAL1 (some assurance), AAL2 (high confidence), and AAL3 (very high confidence), with each level indicating the claimant’s level of trust in the control and possession of their authentication. Basically, the stronger the authentication, the lower the chance of attack. Level 1 requires a single or multi-factor authentication, level 2 requires proof of possession and control of two separate authentication factors, and level 3 requires hardware-based authentication and an authenticator that prevents verifier impersonation.
I like your summary of the different Authentic Assurance Levels as well as the necessary authentication and authenticators necessary for assets evaluated at each level. When an asset requires a higher level of assurance, the authentication necessary also increases to safeguard the asset. The table in section 4 summarizes the necessary requirements to safeguard, such as an AAL3 requiring Level 2, Level 1, and Level 3 physical security for all authenticators. Comparatively, both AAL1 only requires Level 1 government agency verifiers while AAL2 requires Level 1 government agency authenticators and verifiers.
NIST 800-63B is an updated addition to 800-63 that provides more information on authentication and digital authentication mechanisms. This includes more information on Authenticator Assurance Levels, Authenticator and Verifier Requirements, Lifecycle Management, Session Management, Threats and Security Considerations, Privacy Considerations, and Usability Considerations. One specific section that interested me is the section on Privacy Considerations, section 9.
The Privacy Considerations section supplements the section regarding authenticator assurance levels. CSPs need to conduct a privacy risk assessment for records retention including the likelihood that the records that are retained will cause issues for subscribers or the impact if a problem occurred such as unauthorized access to the records. Subscriber consent can count as sharing risk, but subscribers need to have a reasonable expectation that their records can be assessed and, therefore, can accept sharing the risk. Additionally, appropriate privacy controls must be in place when using authentication mechanisms and the information processed should be limited with PII gathered as a mechanism for authentication be appropriately protected. There are also some specific compliance obligations that exist depending on organization/agency such as the Privacy Act of 1974 or the E-Government Act of 2002 in the United States.
NIST SP 800-63B is a set of guidelines focused on the authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities, which is part of a larger framework that includes guidelines on enrollment, identity proofing, and federation. It explains how digital identities work for online transactions and emphasizes that not all digital identities need to be linked back to a real person. The document details the process of digital authentication, which verifies if a user really controls the identifiers (like passwords or security tokens) they claim to have. This is important for ensuring that users accessing a service are who they say they are, especially when returning to the service later on.
Good overview of the document, you highlighted its crucial role in guiding authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities. The emphasis on understanding how digital identities function in online transactions is key, especially with the acknowledgment that not all identities need a direct link to a real person. The explanation of the digital authentication process helps ensure users genuinely control claimed identifiers, it also underscores the importance of verifying identities, particularly for returning users. Looking ahead, how do you think the guidelines in this document will change in say 5 years?
An interesting point you mentioned is that not all digital identities have to be connected to a person. I do agree that it’s important to ensure that people are who they say they are, but I wonder what can be done in the future. Since it’s evident technology is ever-changing, I assume digital authentication must be going through testing stages of ways to reinvent authentication. As with everything, a vulnerability would be discovered. But, I would think if this is a new method, it would be harder to break through.
NIST SP 800 63B covers the general outline for the lifecycle of authentication and access controls. Like the previous NIST articles this paper creates three authenticator assurance levels or AALs, but also outlines important info regarding password and certificate policy as it pertains to expired or lost password info. CSPs are instructed by NIST to have stringent guidelines in regard to how to handle expired or lost passwords, but the expiration window or decisions on expirations is left up to an organization. What stood out to me was specifically how these policies often bump into user expectations and can cause issues or frustration from a user end. I thought a lot about how we consider these policies but also how we present them to the users who will be forced to interact with them and make sure that they are adequately informed of the needs and requirements for these systems
Andrew, I agree completely. SP 800-63B provides a valuable framework for managing authentication lifecycles and access controls. The tiered AAL system offers flexibility, and the password/certificate policy guidance, including handling expired or lost credentials by CSPs, is crucial. While NIST leaves expiration windows open, you rightly highlight the user experience aspect. Balancing strong security policies with user-friendliness is essential. Considering how these policies are presented and ensuring users are well-informed is key to minimizing frustration and maximizing adoption.
The NIST SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines, titled ‘Authentication and Lifecycle Management,’ offers recommendations on authentication processes and authenticator types suitable for various Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs). Each AAL is defined with specific requirements.AAL1 requires either a single or multi-factor authentication and security control for these are equivalent to those in low baseline in the SP 800-53, AAL2 requires two authentication factors over a secure authentication protocol which provides a high confidence compared to level one, and AAL3 requires proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol claimant must have a hardware-based authenticator and an authenticator that provides verifier impersonation resistance. The guide also explored different requirements criteria for each Authenticator assurance level such as reauthentication, authentication intent, replay resistance, and soon.
The guide also went through different types of authenticator attacks and went over different scenarios on how each authenticator attack can take place. For example, eavesdropping where an attacker A PIN captured from a PIN pad device or A hashed password is obtained and used by an attacker for another authentication (pass-the-hash attack) some of these are common and require robust authentication mechanisms to mitigate security risks.
NIST Special Publication 800-63B, referred to as the “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management,” delineates technical prerequisites for federal agencies implementing digital identity services. The publication encompasses various facets of authentication and lifecycle management, with a specific emphasis on authenticator assurance levels. These guidelines extend beyond federal government agencies to encompass industries such as healthcare, financial services, and cloud service providers. The document underscores the significance of robust, secure authentication methods and furnishes specific recommendations for attaining different assurance levels. NIST SP 800-63B defines three authenticator assurance levels—AAL1, AAL2, and AAL3—each with unique criteria for securely authenticating users accessing digital services. The guidance also addresses the adoption of hardware-based authenticators, cryptographic modules, and resistance to verifier impersonation. Additionally, the publication stresses the importance of aligning with FIPS 140 validation requirements for both authenticators and verifiers. Azure offers support for these NIST guidelines and delivers comprehensive guidance on achieving authenticator assurance levels to ensure compliance with the established standards.
This is another companion document in harmony with NIST 800 63 and NIST 800 63A. This document’s focus is more on lifecycle management. Section 6 Authenticator Lifecycle Management explains how authenticator binding works as it establishes a relationship between account and the authenticator, that may be in conjunction with other authenticators to authenticate that account.
NIST SP 800-63B is a document that provides technical requirements for federal agencies implementing digital identity services. Its primary focus is user authentication and verifying their identity when interacting with government IT systems. The document emphasizes managing the entire digital identity lifecycle, from initial registration to ongoing maintenance and eventual deactivation. The document recommends a risk-based approach where agencies assess the risks associated with their specific systems and user access needs. This helps them choose appropriate security controls for authentication methods, ensuring a balance between security and user experience. SP 800-63B defines three authentication assurance levels that reflect an agency’s confidence in the legitimacy of a user attempting to access their systems. The document details the technical requirements for achieving each level. For example, a low assurance level might involve simple password authentication, while a high assurance level might require multi-factor authentication with stronger credentials like biometrics. The document acknowledges the importance of managing the digital identity lifecycle throughout a user’s interaction with government systems. This includes secure registration procedures, credential management practices, and proper procedures for revoking access when necessary. SP 800-63B recognizes that user convenience plays a part alongside security. It explores potential privacy concerns associated with user authentication and emphasizes the need for agencies to strike a balance between robust security and user privacy. US federal agencies can establish secure and reliable digital identity services by following these guidelines. SP 800-63B promotes a risk-based approach, defines authentication assurance levels, and outlines technical requirements for secure authentication and effective digital identity lifecycle management. This can significantly strengthen user authentication and minimize the risk of unauthorized access to government IT systems.
5.1.4 intrigued me going into more detail about single-factor OTP device and Authenticators, because this is something that everyone has an account online uses. I found it interesting because it talked about how the secrets are independently and cryptographically generated by the authenticator and verifier, which is then compared to the verifier. As for Authenticators, they have two persistent values. Them being a nonce or symmetric key. The nonce can be either changed whenever the authenticator is being used or on a real time clock, while a symmetric key will persist for the lifetime of the device. being someone who doesn’t work in IT, they may not give it extra thought when they enter passwords online. But the truth is, even the most simple function on the computer can have more processes than we can imagine, as is evident with OTP.
This document is all about authentication and how to manage the lifecycle of authenticators, it first focuses on authenticator assurance levels and the confidence associated with them.
Section 4 goes on to summarize the requirements for each of the AALs, and the table is very convenient in storing this information for each of the sections including permitted authenticator types, reauthentication procedures, appropriate security controls, and what resistances and controls are required. The next section is all about requirements for the authenticator and verifiers, going in-depth by type, as well as a general requirements for most authenticators. Section 6 deals with the lifecycle aspect describing binding, replacement, renewal, loss, theft, damage, unauthorized duplication, revocation, and termination.
Michael Obiukwu says
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800 63B, titled “Digital Identity Guidelines Authentication and Lifecycle Management,” is a significant document that outlines the best practices for digital identity management. The guidelines emphasize the importance of strong authentication mechanisms, providing an in-depth analysis of various authentication methods, their strengths, and potential weaknesses.
The document underscores the importance of password security, promoting the use of longer, complex passwords and discouraging frequent password changes. This approach reflects a shift in understanding of user behavior and the actual risks involved in password-based authentication.
Furthermore, the guidelines suggest a lifecycle management approach to digital identities, ensuring that they remain secure and effective throughout their existence. This includes provisioning, de-provisioning, and periodic review processes.
Generally, NIST SP 800 63B is a comprehensive guide for organizations aiming to develop robust, secure digital identity systems. It offers a balanced perspective, considering both technological and human factors in its recommendations. This document marks a significant step forward in the field of digital identity management, providing a solid foundation for future developments.
Jeffrey Sullivan says
NIST Special Publication 800-63BThis publication homes in on authentication and lifecycle management. It also provides recommendations on types of authentications, choice of authentication that may be used by various authenticator assurance levels AAL’s. It shows recommendations on the lifecycle of authenticators. The assurance levels show the strength of the transaction. Same as the two other publications we are covering this week the levels are AAL1,2 and 3. What I did notice though is that in section three approved cryptographic techniques are required and its shows on table 2-1 how you can categorize as normative or informative sections of SP 800-63B. What stood out for me in this info packed publication was section 8on authenticator threats. It shows how an attacker that gains control of the authenticator will be able to act like the authenticator’s owner and when the authenticator’s secrets shared, the attacker could gain access to the CSP or verifier and obtain the secret value or perform a dictionary attack on a hash of that value. This is illustrated in section 8.1 pg.41. There are also other threats listed in this publication which include phishing, credential stuffing and replay attacks. It recommends security controls and best practices to mitigate these threats. Overall, it is aimed at helping organizations have secure authentication systems that protect against unauthorized access while accommodating the needs of users. By following these guidelines, you can strengthen and protect sensitive information and services.
Ikenna Alajemba says
Absolutely Jeff, NIST SP 800-63B offers comprehensive insights into authentication and lifecycle management, including recommended authenticator assurance levels (AALs) and their respective strengths. It emphasizes approved cryptographic techniques, and highlights potential threats such as phishing and replay attacks. Also, the publication provides security controls and best practices to counter these threats, aiming to enhance organizational security while meeting user needs.
Samuel Omotosho says
Hi Jeffery,
Great summary of NIST SP 800-63B! The emphasis on authentication and lifecycle management, as well as the categorization of cryptographic techniques, adds depth to its relevance. The insights into authenticator threats and the recommended security controls are noteworthy. One question I have: How do you think the chapter addresses the balance between enhancing security and ensuring user convenience in authentication systems?
Ikenna Alajemba says
NIST SP 800-63B, titled “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management,” is another publication by (NIST) that provides recommendations for managing digital identities, specifically focusing on authentication and lifecycle management.
This guideline serves as a comprehensive resource for organizations seeking to establish secure authentication processes and effectively manage the lifecycle of digital identities. It outlines best practices and recommendations for various aspects of authentication, including password management, multi-factor authentication, and the selection of appropriate authentication mechanisms based on risk factors. Additionally, NIST SP 800-63B addresses the lifecycle management of digital identities, covering processes such as account creation, maintenance, suspension, and termination. It provides guidance on ensuring the integrity and security of identity data throughout its lifecycle, including measures for secure storage, transmission, and disposal of identity-related information. Overall, NIST SP 800-63B is used by organizations to enhance the security and reliability of their digital identity management systems, mitigate the risk of unauthorized access and identity theft, and ensure compliance with industry standards and regulations. It serves as a valuable resource for designing, implementing, and maintaining robust authentication and identity lifecycle management processes in today’s digital landscape.
Kenneth Saltisky says
Hi Ikenna,
I like your summary of the document as well as the purpose it serves towards enhancing the security and reliability of digital identity management systems. Having written requirements to comply with, especially with something as important as identity management, helps to not only safeguard the assets that require accessing but also the information stored by CSPs so that subscribers can safely use these identity management systems.
Samuel Omotosho says
This guideline describes the various forms of authentication mechanisms. This is referred to as the Authentic Assurance Level (AAL). AAL, like NIST SP 800-63A, includes three stages: AAL1 (some assurance), AAL2 (high confidence), and AAL3 (very high confidence), with each level indicating the claimant’s level of trust in the control and possession of their authentication. Basically, the stronger the authentication, the lower the chance of attack. Level 1 requires a single or multi-factor authentication, level 2 requires proof of possession and control of two separate authentication factors, and level 3 requires hardware-based authentication and an authenticator that prevents verifier impersonation.
Kenneth Saltisky says
Hi Samuel,
I like your summary of the different Authentic Assurance Levels as well as the necessary authentication and authenticators necessary for assets evaluated at each level. When an asset requires a higher level of assurance, the authentication necessary also increases to safeguard the asset. The table in section 4 summarizes the necessary requirements to safeguard, such as an AAL3 requiring Level 2, Level 1, and Level 3 physical security for all authenticators. Comparatively, both AAL1 only requires Level 1 government agency verifiers while AAL2 requires Level 1 government agency authenticators and verifiers.
Kenneth Saltisky says
NIST 800-63B is an updated addition to 800-63 that provides more information on authentication and digital authentication mechanisms. This includes more information on Authenticator Assurance Levels, Authenticator and Verifier Requirements, Lifecycle Management, Session Management, Threats and Security Considerations, Privacy Considerations, and Usability Considerations. One specific section that interested me is the section on Privacy Considerations, section 9.
The Privacy Considerations section supplements the section regarding authenticator assurance levels. CSPs need to conduct a privacy risk assessment for records retention including the likelihood that the records that are retained will cause issues for subscribers or the impact if a problem occurred such as unauthorized access to the records. Subscriber consent can count as sharing risk, but subscribers need to have a reasonable expectation that their records can be assessed and, therefore, can accept sharing the risk. Additionally, appropriate privacy controls must be in place when using authentication mechanisms and the information processed should be limited with PII gathered as a mechanism for authentication be appropriately protected. There are also some specific compliance obligations that exist depending on organization/agency such as the Privacy Act of 1974 or the E-Government Act of 2002 in the United States.
Nicholas Nirenberg says
NIST SP 800-63B is a set of guidelines focused on the authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities, which is part of a larger framework that includes guidelines on enrollment, identity proofing, and federation. It explains how digital identities work for online transactions and emphasizes that not all digital identities need to be linked back to a real person. The document details the process of digital authentication, which verifies if a user really controls the identifiers (like passwords or security tokens) they claim to have. This is important for ensuring that users accessing a service are who they say they are, especially when returning to the service later on.
Alex Ruiz says
Good overview of the document, you highlighted its crucial role in guiding authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities. The emphasis on understanding how digital identities function in online transactions is key, especially with the acknowledgment that not all identities need a direct link to a real person. The explanation of the digital authentication process helps ensure users genuinely control claimed identifiers, it also underscores the importance of verifying identities, particularly for returning users. Looking ahead, how do you think the guidelines in this document will change in say 5 years?
Hashem Alsharif says
Hello Nicholas,
An interesting point you mentioned is that not all digital identities have to be connected to a person. I do agree that it’s important to ensure that people are who they say they are, but I wonder what can be done in the future. Since it’s evident technology is ever-changing, I assume digital authentication must be going through testing stages of ways to reinvent authentication. As with everything, a vulnerability would be discovered. But, I would think if this is a new method, it would be harder to break through.
Andrew Young says
NIST SP 800 63B covers the general outline for the lifecycle of authentication and access controls. Like the previous NIST articles this paper creates three authenticator assurance levels or AALs, but also outlines important info regarding password and certificate policy as it pertains to expired or lost password info. CSPs are instructed by NIST to have stringent guidelines in regard to how to handle expired or lost passwords, but the expiration window or decisions on expirations is left up to an organization. What stood out to me was specifically how these policies often bump into user expectations and can cause issues or frustration from a user end. I thought a lot about how we consider these policies but also how we present them to the users who will be forced to interact with them and make sure that they are adequately informed of the needs and requirements for these systems
Kelly Conger says
Andrew, I agree completely. SP 800-63B provides a valuable framework for managing authentication lifecycles and access controls. The tiered AAL system offers flexibility, and the password/certificate policy guidance, including handling expired or lost credentials by CSPs, is crucial. While NIST leaves expiration windows open, you rightly highlight the user experience aspect. Balancing strong security policies with user-friendliness is essential. Considering how these policies are presented and ensuring users are well-informed is key to minimizing frustration and maximizing adoption.
Mariam Hazali says
The NIST SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines, titled ‘Authentication and Lifecycle Management,’ offers recommendations on authentication processes and authenticator types suitable for various Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs). Each AAL is defined with specific requirements.AAL1 requires either a single or multi-factor authentication and security control for these are equivalent to those in low baseline in the SP 800-53, AAL2 requires two authentication factors over a secure authentication protocol which provides a high confidence compared to level one, and AAL3 requires proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol claimant must have a hardware-based authenticator and an authenticator that provides verifier impersonation resistance. The guide also explored different requirements criteria for each Authenticator assurance level such as reauthentication, authentication intent, replay resistance, and soon.
The guide also went through different types of authenticator attacks and went over different scenarios on how each authenticator attack can take place. For example, eavesdropping where an attacker A PIN captured from a PIN pad device or A hashed password is obtained and used by an attacker for another authentication (pass-the-hash attack) some of these are common and require robust authentication mechanisms to mitigate security risks.
Chidiebere Okafor says
NIST Special Publication 800-63B, referred to as the “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management,” delineates technical prerequisites for federal agencies implementing digital identity services. The publication encompasses various facets of authentication and lifecycle management, with a specific emphasis on authenticator assurance levels. These guidelines extend beyond federal government agencies to encompass industries such as healthcare, financial services, and cloud service providers. The document underscores the significance of robust, secure authentication methods and furnishes specific recommendations for attaining different assurance levels. NIST SP 800-63B defines three authenticator assurance levels—AAL1, AAL2, and AAL3—each with unique criteria for securely authenticating users accessing digital services. The guidance also addresses the adoption of hardware-based authenticators, cryptographic modules, and resistance to verifier impersonation. Additionally, the publication stresses the importance of aligning with FIPS 140 validation requirements for both authenticators and verifiers. Azure offers support for these NIST guidelines and delivers comprehensive guidance on achieving authenticator assurance levels to ensure compliance with the established standards.
Erskine Payton says
This is another companion document in harmony with NIST 800 63 and NIST 800 63A. This document’s focus is more on lifecycle management. Section 6 Authenticator Lifecycle Management explains how authenticator binding works as it establishes a relationship between account and the authenticator, that may be in conjunction with other authenticators to authenticate that account.
Kelly Conger says
NIST SP 800-63B is a document that provides technical requirements for federal agencies implementing digital identity services. Its primary focus is user authentication and verifying their identity when interacting with government IT systems. The document emphasizes managing the entire digital identity lifecycle, from initial registration to ongoing maintenance and eventual deactivation. The document recommends a risk-based approach where agencies assess the risks associated with their specific systems and user access needs. This helps them choose appropriate security controls for authentication methods, ensuring a balance between security and user experience. SP 800-63B defines three authentication assurance levels that reflect an agency’s confidence in the legitimacy of a user attempting to access their systems. The document details the technical requirements for achieving each level. For example, a low assurance level might involve simple password authentication, while a high assurance level might require multi-factor authentication with stronger credentials like biometrics. The document acknowledges the importance of managing the digital identity lifecycle throughout a user’s interaction with government systems. This includes secure registration procedures, credential management practices, and proper procedures for revoking access when necessary. SP 800-63B recognizes that user convenience plays a part alongside security. It explores potential privacy concerns associated with user authentication and emphasizes the need for agencies to strike a balance between robust security and user privacy. US federal agencies can establish secure and reliable digital identity services by following these guidelines. SP 800-63B promotes a risk-based approach, defines authentication assurance levels, and outlines technical requirements for secure authentication and effective digital identity lifecycle management. This can significantly strengthen user authentication and minimize the risk of unauthorized access to government IT systems.
Hashem Alsharif says
5.1.4 intrigued me going into more detail about single-factor OTP device and Authenticators, because this is something that everyone has an account online uses. I found it interesting because it talked about how the secrets are independently and cryptographically generated by the authenticator and verifier, which is then compared to the verifier. As for Authenticators, they have two persistent values. Them being a nonce or symmetric key. The nonce can be either changed whenever the authenticator is being used or on a real time clock, while a symmetric key will persist for the lifetime of the device. being someone who doesn’t work in IT, they may not give it extra thought when they enter passwords online. But the truth is, even the most simple function on the computer can have more processes than we can imagine, as is evident with OTP.
Alex Ruiz says
This document is all about authentication and how to manage the lifecycle of authenticators, it first focuses on authenticator assurance levels and the confidence associated with them.
Section 4 goes on to summarize the requirements for each of the AALs, and the table is very convenient in storing this information for each of the sections including permitted authenticator types, reauthentication procedures, appropriate security controls, and what resistances and controls are required. The next section is all about requirements for the authenticator and verifiers, going in-depth by type, as well as a general requirements for most authenticators. Section 6 deals with the lifecycle aspect describing binding, replacement, renewal, loss, theft, damage, unauthorized duplication, revocation, and termination.