These guidelines provide technical requirements for federal agencies implementing digital identity services and are not intended to constrain the development or use of standards outside of this purpose. The guidelines cover identity proofing and authentication of users (such as employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with government IT systems over open networks. They define technical requirements in each of the areas of identity proofing, registration, authenticators, management processes, authentication protocols, federation, and related assertions.
These guidelines describe the risk management process for selecting appropriate digital identity services and provide mitigations for the vulnerabilities inherent in being online. The guidelines cover identity proofing and authentication of users interacting with IT systems over open networks. Proof of identity establishes that subjects are who they claim to be. Digital identity verification is the process of determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to declare a digital identity. There are three assurance levels for each identity, authenticator, and joint authentication. Assurance level determinations are based only on transactions that are part of the digital system. In order to determine the appropriate level of assurance of a user’s claimed identity, an institution should assess potential risks and identify measures to minimize their impact.
Digital identity, also known as digital identity, is an electronic way of identifying an individual. It usually contains a certificate with a viewable “public key” and a “private key” that should be kept secret. A private key allows a signature to be used to sign an electronic document, and others can only use the public key to verify that signature. Similarly, private keys can be used to decrypt documents that were encrypted by someone else using the public key.
A valid digital identity needs to be trusted by the recipient, and in order to determine the authenticity of the digital identity, a certificate authority (CA) will provide a digital identity to the individual whose identity has been verified. The Digital Identity Guidelines provide technical requirements for federal agencies to implement digital identity services and are not intended to limit the development or use of standards beyond that purpose, including identification and authentication of interactions with users (e.g., employees, contractors, or private persons), defining technical requirements for each area of identification through government information technology systems. In today’s digital services, combining authentication, certification, and federation requirements into a single package can sometimes have unintended consequences and place an unnecessary enforcement burden on implementing agencies.
Digital identity guidelines can help individuals and organizations understand and manage their identities in the digital world, including usernames and passwords, personal information, email addresses, social media profiles, and digital payment information. Digital identities may be exposed to risks and threats such as identity theft, fraud, and privacy breaches, so it is important to manage and authenticate them. The main ways to do this are to use secure identity management solutions, implement strong authentication mechanisms, and so on, in order to protect individual privacy, organizational confidentiality, and property security. Digital identity can also be applied in different scenarios: such as financial services, e-commerce, social media, government services, etc., with appropriate guidance and advice.
Digital identity is the unique representation of a subject for an online transaction. These guidelines do not address the physical access authentication nor address device identity. It reflects the availability of technology and architecture of digital identify model. There are three levels of an ordinal measurement: AAL1, AAL2, and AAL3. These are the strength of the authentication process. AAL1 provides some assurance that authenticator tied to the subscriber account by using single-factor or multifactor authentication. AAL2 provides high confidence that authenticator tied to the subscriber account by using two-factor authentication and approved cryptographic techniques. AAL3 uses a hardware-based authenticator and an authenticator that provides verifier imitation resistance to bind the authenticator to the subscriber’s account, thereby providing a very high degree of confidence.
the Digital Identity Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for designing and implementing secure and user-friendly digital identity solutions, helping organizations establish trust, protect sensitive information, and meet regulatory requirements.
I think the key thing about Digital Identity Guidelines that is verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.”
Users tend to choose weaker memorized secrets when they know that they will have to change them in the near future. When those changes do occur, they often select a secret that is similar to their old memorized secret by applying a set of common transformations such as increasing a number in the password. This practice provides a false sense of security if any of the previous secrets has been compromised since attackers can apply these same common transformations. But if there is evidence that the memorized secret has been compromised, such as by a breach of the verifier’s hashed password database or observed fraudulent activity, subscribers should be required to change their memorized secrets. However, this event-based change should occur rarely, so that they are less motivated to choose a weak secret with the knowledge that it will only be used for a limited period of time.
These guidelines establish technical requirements for federal agencies implementing digital identity services, focusing on identity proofing and authentication for users interacting with government IT systems over open networks. While these guidelines are tailored for federal use, they do not constrain the development or utilization of standards beyond this context. They cover identity proofing, registration, authenticators, management processes, authentication protocols, federation, and related assertions.
Moreover, digital identity guidelines play a crucial role in assisting individuals and organizations in comprehending and managing their identities in the digital realm. This encompasses usernames and passwords, personal details, email addresses, social media profiles, and digital payment information. Given the potential risks and threats, such as identity theft, fraud, and privacy breaches, it is imperative to effectively manage and authenticate digital identities. Key strategies include the utilization of secure identity management solutions and the implementation of robust authentication mechanisms. This not only safeguards individual privacy but also preserves organizational confidentiality and property security.
The application of digital identity guidelines extends across various scenarios, such as financial services, e-commerce, social media, government services, and beyond, with tailored guidance and advice. By adhering to these guidelines, federal agencies, individuals, and organizations can ensure secure, efficient, and reliable digital identity management, enabling safe transactions and interactions in today’s digital landscape.
These NIST standards ensure that someone is who they say they are before granting them access to digital services. These digital identity standards and other cybersecurity frameworks are part of a larger government strategy to reduce identity theft and fraud. NIST 800-63-3 is divided into three sections: registration and identity proofing, authentication and lifecycle management, federation, and assertion.
The higher the risk that an individual will access an account they should not, the more confidence an organization must-have in the accuracy of the requester’s identity. Organizations garner increased confidence by adding further checks that individuals must pass before verifying their identity. Those checks are outlined in the levels of assurance defined by NIST: Identity Assurance Levels (IAL), Authenticator Assurance Levels (AAL), and Federation Assurance Levels (FAL).
Describing the assurance level of identity using three different IALs (Identity Assurance Levels) is an effective approach that helps ensure the security and reliability of digital identity services. This classification assists organizations in selecting the appropriate level of identity verification and authentication based on their specific security needs and risk considerations, ensuring that user identities are appropriately protected and mitigating the risk of potential authentication and identification errors as well as federation errors. Each level comes with different requirements and procedures to meet the needs of different environments and application scenarios, ranging from self-asserted authentication (IAL1) to in-person verification (IAL3). This classification also provides flexibility for users to choose the appropriate level of identity authentication based on specific transactions and requirements. Therefore, describing the assurance level of identity using three different IALs is an effective approach that contributes to enhancing the security and reliability of digital identity services.
NIST SP 800-63-3 provides guidelines for digital identity management, focusing on authentication and identity proofing. It is emphasis on multifactor authentication (MFA), which enhances security by requiring users to provide multiple forms of verification before granting access. This approach significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access, as it is much harder for attackers to compromise multiple factors than just a password. Additionally, the guidelines outline identity proofing processes, which help verify the identities of individuals before granting them access to systems or services. This is essential for ensuring that only legitimate users are granted access, improving overall security and trust in digital transactions.
Authentication is closely linked to lifecycle management, especially in the use of authenticators. Authentication is based on three main elements: knowledge, holdings and personal characteristics. Multi-factor authentication (MFA), on the other hand, combines one or more of these elements to confirm a user’s identity.
In the context of digital authentication, a person who wants to access a resource must possess or control at least one authenticator to prove his or her identity. These authenticators contain secret information known only to the true identity owner. Some authenticators take the form of asymmetric keys, which are combinations of public and private keys; while others use symmetric keys, such as ciphers or password binders.
In asymmetric authentication, the authenticator uses his or her own private key and verifies the identity by pairing it with the public key. In symmetric authentication, on the other hand, the shared key may be a memorized content such as a password or password folder. This means that only the person who knows the password or holds the password folder can be recognized as a legitimate requester.
In contrast to traditional authentication methods, such as the use of ID cards or biometrics, the authenticator in digital authentication remains confidential at all times and is known only to the user. This feature makes digital authentication more secure and effectively prevents unauthorized access and potential security risks.
An important takeaway from this reading is the understanding of the different digital identity assurance levels that must be selected by an organization, of which there are three. First is the identity assurance level, referring to the degree of confidence with which a user’s identity can be determined. Second is the authenticator assurance level, the degree of confidence with which the organization can verify a user’s authentication claim. Third is the federation assurance level, which is a measure of how secure that authentication claim is during data communication.
This article talks about digital identity, which is an identifiable representation of an individual through digital information. It can also be understood as the real identity information condensed into a public or private key in the form of digital code, so as to bind, query and verify the real-time behavior information of individuals. Digital identity not only includes birth information, individual description, biological characteristics and other identity coding information, but also involves a variety of attributes such as personal behavior information. Nowadays, the Internet technology is becoming more and more mature, and everyone is likely to have access to the technology of digital identity, which will lead to problems, such as digital identity theft and fraud. Therefore, it is necessary for the effective management and verification of digital identity. There are three ways to ensure that a digital identity matches the person accessing it: Identity Assurance Level (IAL), Authenticator Assurance Level (AAL), and Federated Assurance Level (FAL).
Digital Identity (Digital Identity) is the real identity information condensed into digital code, forming a public key that can be queried and identified through the network, related devices, etc. Compared with the traditional identity system, this kind of identity helps to greatly improve the overall social efficiency, and maximize the release of economic potential and user value.
Guidelines on Digital Identity, which may vary by organization, industry, or country. Here are some examples of possible guiding principles that are designed to protect users’ privacy, security, and ensure effective management of digital identities:
Privacy protection: Ensure that users’ personal information is fully protected to avoid unnecessary disclosure or abuse.
Transparency: Users should understand how their data is collected, used and stored, and how their digital identity is verified and managed.
Security: Use strong encryption and security measures to protect digital identities and related information to prevent data breaches or identity theft.
User control: Users should have the right to control their digital identity, including choosing how their identity is shared and verified.
Portability: A user’s digital identity should be easily transferable between different platforms and services, and should not be locked into a particular service or provider.
Legality: Ensure that the generation, verification and use of digital identities comply with relevant laws and regulations and respect the rights and interests of users.
Education and training: Provide education and training to users to help them understand the importance of digital identity and how to manage and use their digital identity securely and effectively.
These guidelines aim to build a secure, reliable, transparent and user-friendly digital identity ecosystem. However, specific guidelines may vary depending on the context and needs. When developing digital identity guidelines, it is best to consult with experts in the relevant field to ensure the applicability and effectiveness of the guidelines.
This NIST document describes how a subject can have multiple digital identities for different services such as one for email and one for social media. It is important to identify the subject to make sure they are who they claim to be, especially in higher risk services like financial institutions. The guideline breaks down identity assurance into two components: Identity Assurance Level (identity proofing process) and Authenticator Assurance Level (authentication process). There is a third component called Federation Assurance Level (FAL), but this component is only used in federated systems. Each of these components have different assurance levels ranging from 1-3, which are based on risk.
Digital Identity guidelines gives a rundown of risk management processes for choosing appropriate digital identity services and the details for applying two non-federated levels called identity assurance (making sure the applicant’s identity is legitimate) and authenticator assurance (strength of the authentication process); and for a combined system, the federation assurance level (an assertion used to communicate authentication and feature information to a “Relying Party”) based on the threat. The authentication process drew my attention because it maintains privacy defense by alleviating the threats of unauthorized entry to a person’s information, and also includes privacy conditions to assist in lessening potential related privacy risks.
The Digital Identity Guide provides technical specifications for federal agencies to implement digital identity services designed to guide implementation rather than restrict the development or application of standards other than that purpose. This guide involves identification and certification in interaction with various users (such as employees, contractors or the public), as well as technical requirements for field identification determined through government information technology systems. In the current digital services environment, the integration of authentication,authentication, and joint requirements into a single package can have unforeseen consequences and impose unnecessary execution burdens on implementing agencies.
SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidance: Provides an overview of risk assessment methodologies and general identity frameworks. It also includes a risk-based process for selecting assurance levels. Digital identities are our basic credentials in the digital society and create significant economic and social value as the basis for many applications in personal life, work, socialising, etc.
Digital identity is the online persona of a subject, and a single definition is widely debated internationally. The term persona is apropos as a subject can represent themselves online in many ways. An individual may have a digital identity for email, and another for personal finances. A personal laptop can be someone’s streaming music server yet also be a worker-bot in a distributed network of computers performing complex genome calculations. Without context, it is difficult to land on a single definition that satisfies all.
Authentication, proofing, and federation errors with potentially worse consequences require higher levels of assurance. Business process, policy, and technology may help reduce risk.
Categories of harm and impact include:
1. Inconvenience, distress, or damage to standing or reputation;
2. Financial loss or agency liability;
3. Harm to agency programs or public interests;
4. Unauthorized release of sensitive information;
5. Personal safety;
6. Civil or criminal violations.
These guidelines provide a risk management framework for selecting suitable digital identity services and provide mitigation measures for security vulnerabilities inherent in online interactions. The guidance focuses on the identification and authentication of users interacting with IT systems in an open network environment. While authentication is a process used to prove a user’s true identity, digital authentication is the process of verifying the validity of one or more validators that a user’s claimed digital identity relies on.
In digital identity services, there are three levels of assurance for identity, validator, and federated authentication. These assurance levels are based on the types of transactions that are part of the digital system. In order to determine the appropriate level of assurance for the identity claimed by the user, the relevant authorities need to assess the potential risks and take appropriate measures to minimize their possible impact. In this way, organizations can ensure the authenticity and reliability of user identities, thus guaranteeing the safe and stable operation of digital systems.
NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” is a set of guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States. It provides recommendations and best practices for digital identity authentication and management, with the aim of ensuring the security, trustworthiness, and usability of digital identities.
NIST SP 800-63-3 is divided into three parts:
1. Part A: This section provides a foundational guide to digital identity authentication. It outlines the technical requirements and methods for determining and verifying user identities, including password authentication, multi-factor authentication, and mobile device authentication. It also includes best practices for managing user credentials, such as password policies and credential management recommendations.
2. Part B: This section focuses on the trust framework for digital identity management and authentication processes. It covers authoritative frameworks for establishing and maintaining trust in digital identities, including identity proofing, digital certificates, and identity provider verification. It also includes best practices for areas such as user logout, account recovery, and federated authentication.
3. Part C: This section provides guidance for digital identity authentication in specific scenarios. It offers guidance for scenarios such as federal government digital identity authentication, large-scale online service providers, and network service providers.
The objective of NIST SP 800-63-3 is to provide organizations with a common framework to ensure the security, usability, and interoperability of digital identity systems. It provides guidance and best practices for organizations and individuals in designing, implementing, and managing digital identity authentication and management systems to achieve a high level of security and confidentiality. The guidelines have a broad impact in the field of digital identity and are widely adopted as a reference standard by many organizations and industries.
NIST SP 800-63-3 is a digital identity guide published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide guidance and recommendations to federal government agencies and other organizations on digital identity management and authentication. The guidelines cover the lifecycle management of digital identities, including identity creation, verification, authorization, management and revocation, with the aim of ensuring the security and reliability of digital identities.
NIST SP 800-63-3 provides a digital identity framework to guide organizations on how to design, implement, and manage digital identity systems. The framework includes key aspects such as identity creation, authentication, authorization, management and revocation, and emphasizes the confidentiality, integrity and availability of identity information.
The NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” provide comprehensive guidance and recommendations for digital identity management and authentication. The guide covers the lifecycle management of digital identities, including identity creation, verification, authorization, management, and revocation. By following these guidelines, organizations can ensure the security and reliability of digital identities and protect user identity information and resources from unauthorized access and disclosure. These guidelines are important for federal government agencies, private businesses, and organizations.
In this reading, I spent more time to focus on SP 800-63A Enrollment and Identity Proofing. NIST SP 800-63-A addresses how applicants can prove their identities and become enrolled as valid subscribers within an identity system. It provides requirements by which applicants can both identity proof and enroll at one of three different levels of risk mitigation in both remote and physically-present scenarios. SP 800-63A sets requirements to achieve a given IAL. The three IALs reflect the options
agencies may select from based on their risk profile and the potential harm caused by an attacker
making a successful false claim of an identity. IAL1(There is no requirement to link the applicant to a specific real-life identity.), IAL2(Evidence supports the real-world existence of the claimed identity and verifies that the applicant is appropriately associated with this real-world identity.) and IAL3(Physical presence is required for identity proofing.).
Proof of identity establishes that the subject is who they claim to be. Digital identity verification establishes that a subject attempting to access a digital service can control one or more valid authenticators associated with the subject’s digital identity. For services to which return access applies, successful authentication can provide reasonable risk-based assurance that the subject accessing the service today is the same as the subject who accessed the service previously. Digital authentication supports privacy protection by reducing the risk of unauthorized access to personal information. There are three levels: IAL, AAL and FAL.
These guidelines provide technical requirements for federal agencies implementing digital identity services and are not intended to constrain the development or use of standards outside of this purpose. The guidelines cover identity proofing and authentication of users (such as employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with government IT systems over open networks. They define technical requirements in each of the areas of identity proofing, registration, authenticators, management processes, authentication protocols, federation, and related assertions.
These guidelines describe the risk management process for selecting appropriate digital identity services and provide mitigations for the vulnerabilities inherent in being online. The guidelines cover identity proofing and authentication of users interacting with IT systems over open networks. Proof of identity establishes that subjects are who they claim to be. Digital identity verification is the process of determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to declare a digital identity. There are three assurance levels for each identity, authenticator, and joint authentication. Assurance level determinations are based only on transactions that are part of the digital system. In order to determine the appropriate level of assurance of a user’s claimed identity, an institution should assess potential risks and identify measures to minimize their impact.
Digital identity, also known as digital identity, is an electronic way of identifying an individual. It usually contains a certificate with a viewable “public key” and a “private key” that should be kept secret. A private key allows a signature to be used to sign an electronic document, and others can only use the public key to verify that signature. Similarly, private keys can be used to decrypt documents that were encrypted by someone else using the public key.
A valid digital identity needs to be trusted by the recipient, and in order to determine the authenticity of the digital identity, a certificate authority (CA) will provide a digital identity to the individual whose identity has been verified. The Digital Identity Guidelines provide technical requirements for federal agencies to implement digital identity services and are not intended to limit the development or use of standards beyond that purpose, including identification and authentication of interactions with users (e.g., employees, contractors, or private persons), defining technical requirements for each area of identification through government information technology systems. In today’s digital services, combining authentication, certification, and federation requirements into a single package can sometimes have unintended consequences and place an unnecessary enforcement burden on implementing agencies.
Digital identity guidelines can help individuals and organizations understand and manage their identities in the digital world, including usernames and passwords, personal information, email addresses, social media profiles, and digital payment information. Digital identities may be exposed to risks and threats such as identity theft, fraud, and privacy breaches, so it is important to manage and authenticate them. The main ways to do this are to use secure identity management solutions, implement strong authentication mechanisms, and so on, in order to protect individual privacy, organizational confidentiality, and property security. Digital identity can also be applied in different scenarios: such as financial services, e-commerce, social media, government services, etc., with appropriate guidance and advice.
Digital identity is the unique representation of a subject for an online transaction. These guidelines do not address the physical access authentication nor address device identity. It reflects the availability of technology and architecture of digital identify model. There are three levels of an ordinal measurement: AAL1, AAL2, and AAL3. These are the strength of the authentication process. AAL1 provides some assurance that authenticator tied to the subscriber account by using single-factor or multifactor authentication. AAL2 provides high confidence that authenticator tied to the subscriber account by using two-factor authentication and approved cryptographic techniques. AAL3 uses a hardware-based authenticator and an authenticator that provides verifier imitation resistance to bind the authenticator to the subscriber’s account, thereby providing a very high degree of confidence.
the Digital Identity Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for designing and implementing secure and user-friendly digital identity solutions, helping organizations establish trust, protect sensitive information, and meet regulatory requirements.
I think the key thing about Digital Identity Guidelines that is verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.”
Users tend to choose weaker memorized secrets when they know that they will have to change them in the near future. When those changes do occur, they often select a secret that is similar to their old memorized secret by applying a set of common transformations such as increasing a number in the password. This practice provides a false sense of security if any of the previous secrets has been compromised since attackers can apply these same common transformations. But if there is evidence that the memorized secret has been compromised, such as by a breach of the verifier’s hashed password database or observed fraudulent activity, subscribers should be required to change their memorized secrets. However, this event-based change should occur rarely, so that they are less motivated to choose a weak secret with the knowledge that it will only be used for a limited period of time.
These guidelines establish technical requirements for federal agencies implementing digital identity services, focusing on identity proofing and authentication for users interacting with government IT systems over open networks. While these guidelines are tailored for federal use, they do not constrain the development or utilization of standards beyond this context. They cover identity proofing, registration, authenticators, management processes, authentication protocols, federation, and related assertions.
Moreover, digital identity guidelines play a crucial role in assisting individuals and organizations in comprehending and managing their identities in the digital realm. This encompasses usernames and passwords, personal details, email addresses, social media profiles, and digital payment information. Given the potential risks and threats, such as identity theft, fraud, and privacy breaches, it is imperative to effectively manage and authenticate digital identities. Key strategies include the utilization of secure identity management solutions and the implementation of robust authentication mechanisms. This not only safeguards individual privacy but also preserves organizational confidentiality and property security.
The application of digital identity guidelines extends across various scenarios, such as financial services, e-commerce, social media, government services, and beyond, with tailored guidance and advice. By adhering to these guidelines, federal agencies, individuals, and organizations can ensure secure, efficient, and reliable digital identity management, enabling safe transactions and interactions in today’s digital landscape.
These NIST standards ensure that someone is who they say they are before granting them access to digital services. These digital identity standards and other cybersecurity frameworks are part of a larger government strategy to reduce identity theft and fraud. NIST 800-63-3 is divided into three sections: registration and identity proofing, authentication and lifecycle management, federation, and assertion.
The higher the risk that an individual will access an account they should not, the more confidence an organization must-have in the accuracy of the requester’s identity. Organizations garner increased confidence by adding further checks that individuals must pass before verifying their identity. Those checks are outlined in the levels of assurance defined by NIST: Identity Assurance Levels (IAL), Authenticator Assurance Levels (AAL), and Federation Assurance Levels (FAL).
Describing the assurance level of identity using three different IALs (Identity Assurance Levels) is an effective approach that helps ensure the security and reliability of digital identity services. This classification assists organizations in selecting the appropriate level of identity verification and authentication based on their specific security needs and risk considerations, ensuring that user identities are appropriately protected and mitigating the risk of potential authentication and identification errors as well as federation errors. Each level comes with different requirements and procedures to meet the needs of different environments and application scenarios, ranging from self-asserted authentication (IAL1) to in-person verification (IAL3). This classification also provides flexibility for users to choose the appropriate level of identity authentication based on specific transactions and requirements. Therefore, describing the assurance level of identity using three different IALs is an effective approach that contributes to enhancing the security and reliability of digital identity services.
NIST SP 800-63-3 provides guidelines for digital identity management, focusing on authentication and identity proofing. It is emphasis on multifactor authentication (MFA), which enhances security by requiring users to provide multiple forms of verification before granting access. This approach significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access, as it is much harder for attackers to compromise multiple factors than just a password. Additionally, the guidelines outline identity proofing processes, which help verify the identities of individuals before granting them access to systems or services. This is essential for ensuring that only legitimate users are granted access, improving overall security and trust in digital transactions.
Authentication is closely linked to lifecycle management, especially in the use of authenticators. Authentication is based on three main elements: knowledge, holdings and personal characteristics. Multi-factor authentication (MFA), on the other hand, combines one or more of these elements to confirm a user’s identity.
In the context of digital authentication, a person who wants to access a resource must possess or control at least one authenticator to prove his or her identity. These authenticators contain secret information known only to the true identity owner. Some authenticators take the form of asymmetric keys, which are combinations of public and private keys; while others use symmetric keys, such as ciphers or password binders.
In asymmetric authentication, the authenticator uses his or her own private key and verifies the identity by pairing it with the public key. In symmetric authentication, on the other hand, the shared key may be a memorized content such as a password or password folder. This means that only the person who knows the password or holds the password folder can be recognized as a legitimate requester.
In contrast to traditional authentication methods, such as the use of ID cards or biometrics, the authenticator in digital authentication remains confidential at all times and is known only to the user. This feature makes digital authentication more secure and effectively prevents unauthorized access and potential security risks.
An important takeaway from this reading is the understanding of the different digital identity assurance levels that must be selected by an organization, of which there are three. First is the identity assurance level, referring to the degree of confidence with which a user’s identity can be determined. Second is the authenticator assurance level, the degree of confidence with which the organization can verify a user’s authentication claim. Third is the federation assurance level, which is a measure of how secure that authentication claim is during data communication.
This article talks about digital identity, which is an identifiable representation of an individual through digital information. It can also be understood as the real identity information condensed into a public or private key in the form of digital code, so as to bind, query and verify the real-time behavior information of individuals. Digital identity not only includes birth information, individual description, biological characteristics and other identity coding information, but also involves a variety of attributes such as personal behavior information. Nowadays, the Internet technology is becoming more and more mature, and everyone is likely to have access to the technology of digital identity, which will lead to problems, such as digital identity theft and fraud. Therefore, it is necessary for the effective management and verification of digital identity. There are three ways to ensure that a digital identity matches the person accessing it: Identity Assurance Level (IAL), Authenticator Assurance Level (AAL), and Federated Assurance Level (FAL).
Digital Identity (Digital Identity) is the real identity information condensed into digital code, forming a public key that can be queried and identified through the network, related devices, etc. Compared with the traditional identity system, this kind of identity helps to greatly improve the overall social efficiency, and maximize the release of economic potential and user value.
Guidelines on Digital Identity, which may vary by organization, industry, or country. Here are some examples of possible guiding principles that are designed to protect users’ privacy, security, and ensure effective management of digital identities:
Privacy protection: Ensure that users’ personal information is fully protected to avoid unnecessary disclosure or abuse.
Transparency: Users should understand how their data is collected, used and stored, and how their digital identity is verified and managed.
Security: Use strong encryption and security measures to protect digital identities and related information to prevent data breaches or identity theft.
User control: Users should have the right to control their digital identity, including choosing how their identity is shared and verified.
Portability: A user’s digital identity should be easily transferable between different platforms and services, and should not be locked into a particular service or provider.
Legality: Ensure that the generation, verification and use of digital identities comply with relevant laws and regulations and respect the rights and interests of users.
Education and training: Provide education and training to users to help them understand the importance of digital identity and how to manage and use their digital identity securely and effectively.
These guidelines aim to build a secure, reliable, transparent and user-friendly digital identity ecosystem. However, specific guidelines may vary depending on the context and needs. When developing digital identity guidelines, it is best to consult with experts in the relevant field to ensure the applicability and effectiveness of the guidelines.
This NIST document describes how a subject can have multiple digital identities for different services such as one for email and one for social media. It is important to identify the subject to make sure they are who they claim to be, especially in higher risk services like financial institutions. The guideline breaks down identity assurance into two components: Identity Assurance Level (identity proofing process) and Authenticator Assurance Level (authentication process). There is a third component called Federation Assurance Level (FAL), but this component is only used in federated systems. Each of these components have different assurance levels ranging from 1-3, which are based on risk.
Digital Identity guidelines gives a rundown of risk management processes for choosing appropriate digital identity services and the details for applying two non-federated levels called identity assurance (making sure the applicant’s identity is legitimate) and authenticator assurance (strength of the authentication process); and for a combined system, the federation assurance level (an assertion used to communicate authentication and feature information to a “Relying Party”) based on the threat. The authentication process drew my attention because it maintains privacy defense by alleviating the threats of unauthorized entry to a person’s information, and also includes privacy conditions to assist in lessening potential related privacy risks.
The Digital Identity Guide provides technical specifications for federal agencies to implement digital identity services designed to guide implementation rather than restrict the development or application of standards other than that purpose. This guide involves identification and certification in interaction with various users (such as employees, contractors or the public), as well as technical requirements for field identification determined through government information technology systems. In the current digital services environment, the integration of authentication,authentication, and joint requirements into a single package can have unforeseen consequences and impose unnecessary execution burdens on implementing agencies.
SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidance: Provides an overview of risk assessment methodologies and general identity frameworks. It also includes a risk-based process for selecting assurance levels. Digital identities are our basic credentials in the digital society and create significant economic and social value as the basis for many applications in personal life, work, socialising, etc.
Digital identity is the online persona of a subject, and a single definition is widely debated internationally. The term persona is apropos as a subject can represent themselves online in many ways. An individual may have a digital identity for email, and another for personal finances. A personal laptop can be someone’s streaming music server yet also be a worker-bot in a distributed network of computers performing complex genome calculations. Without context, it is difficult to land on a single definition that satisfies all.
Authentication, proofing, and federation errors with potentially worse consequences require higher levels of assurance. Business process, policy, and technology may help reduce risk.
Categories of harm and impact include:
1. Inconvenience, distress, or damage to standing or reputation;
2. Financial loss or agency liability;
3. Harm to agency programs or public interests;
4. Unauthorized release of sensitive information;
5. Personal safety;
6. Civil or criminal violations.
These guidelines provide a risk management framework for selecting suitable digital identity services and provide mitigation measures for security vulnerabilities inherent in online interactions. The guidance focuses on the identification and authentication of users interacting with IT systems in an open network environment. While authentication is a process used to prove a user’s true identity, digital authentication is the process of verifying the validity of one or more validators that a user’s claimed digital identity relies on.
In digital identity services, there are three levels of assurance for identity, validator, and federated authentication. These assurance levels are based on the types of transactions that are part of the digital system. In order to determine the appropriate level of assurance for the identity claimed by the user, the relevant authorities need to assess the potential risks and take appropriate measures to minimize their possible impact. In this way, organizations can ensure the authenticity and reliability of user identities, thus guaranteeing the safe and stable operation of digital systems.
NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” is a set of guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States. It provides recommendations and best practices for digital identity authentication and management, with the aim of ensuring the security, trustworthiness, and usability of digital identities.
NIST SP 800-63-3 is divided into three parts:
1. Part A: This section provides a foundational guide to digital identity authentication. It outlines the technical requirements and methods for determining and verifying user identities, including password authentication, multi-factor authentication, and mobile device authentication. It also includes best practices for managing user credentials, such as password policies and credential management recommendations.
2. Part B: This section focuses on the trust framework for digital identity management and authentication processes. It covers authoritative frameworks for establishing and maintaining trust in digital identities, including identity proofing, digital certificates, and identity provider verification. It also includes best practices for areas such as user logout, account recovery, and federated authentication.
3. Part C: This section provides guidance for digital identity authentication in specific scenarios. It offers guidance for scenarios such as federal government digital identity authentication, large-scale online service providers, and network service providers.
The objective of NIST SP 800-63-3 is to provide organizations with a common framework to ensure the security, usability, and interoperability of digital identity systems. It provides guidance and best practices for organizations and individuals in designing, implementing, and managing digital identity authentication and management systems to achieve a high level of security and confidentiality. The guidelines have a broad impact in the field of digital identity and are widely adopted as a reference standard by many organizations and industries.
NIST SP 800-63-3 is a digital identity guide published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide guidance and recommendations to federal government agencies and other organizations on digital identity management and authentication. The guidelines cover the lifecycle management of digital identities, including identity creation, verification, authorization, management and revocation, with the aim of ensuring the security and reliability of digital identities.
NIST SP 800-63-3 provides a digital identity framework to guide organizations on how to design, implement, and manage digital identity systems. The framework includes key aspects such as identity creation, authentication, authorization, management and revocation, and emphasizes the confidentiality, integrity and availability of identity information.
The NIST SP 800-63-3 “Digital Identity Guidelines” provide comprehensive guidance and recommendations for digital identity management and authentication. The guide covers the lifecycle management of digital identities, including identity creation, verification, authorization, management, and revocation. By following these guidelines, organizations can ensure the security and reliability of digital identities and protect user identity information and resources from unauthorized access and disclosure. These guidelines are important for federal government agencies, private businesses, and organizations.
In this reading, I spent more time to focus on SP 800-63A Enrollment and Identity Proofing. NIST SP 800-63-A addresses how applicants can prove their identities and become enrolled as valid subscribers within an identity system. It provides requirements by which applicants can both identity proof and enroll at one of three different levels of risk mitigation in both remote and physically-present scenarios. SP 800-63A sets requirements to achieve a given IAL. The three IALs reflect the options
agencies may select from based on their risk profile and the potential harm caused by an attacker
making a successful false claim of an identity. IAL1(There is no requirement to link the applicant to a specific real-life identity.), IAL2(Evidence supports the real-world existence of the claimed identity and verifies that the applicant is appropriately associated with this real-world identity.) and IAL3(Physical presence is required for identity proofing.).
Proof of identity establishes that the subject is who they claim to be. Digital identity verification establishes that a subject attempting to access a digital service can control one or more valid authenticators associated with the subject’s digital identity. For services to which return access applies, successful authentication can provide reasonable risk-based assurance that the subject accessing the service today is the same as the subject who accessed the service previously. Digital authentication supports privacy protection by reducing the risk of unauthorized access to personal information. There are three levels: IAL, AAL and FAL.