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. These guidelines focus on the authentication of subjects interacting with government information systems over networks, establishing that a given claimant is a subscriber who has been previously authenticated. The result of the authentication process may be used locally by the system performing the authentication or may be asserted elsewhere in a federated identity system. This document defines technical requirements for each of the three authenticator assurance levels.
This document provides technical guidance to organizations for implementing digital authentication. One of the differences is additional details on authenticator lifecycle management: there are many events that can occur during the lifecycle of a subscriber’s authenticator that can affect the use of that authenticator. Throughout the digital identity lifecycle, the CSP maintains a record of all authenticators associated or already associated with each identity. This record contains the date and time the authenticator was bound to the account. The record also includes information about the binding source of any device associated with the registration.
The guidance is intended to provide federal agencies with policies and procedures on how to implement and manage digital authentication to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of identity information.
NIST SP 800-63B covers all aspects of digital authentication, including:
1. Identity authentication principles;
2. Authentication type;
3. Authentication level;
4. Life cycle management;
5. Privacy and compliance;
The guide also provides specific steps and recommendations for implementing digital authentication and lifecycle management to help organizations develop and enforce policies.
This section defines the core principles and framework for authentication, including types of authentication (e.g., single sign-on, federated authentication, etc.), authentication methods (e.g., passwords, biometrics, tokens, etc.), and the choice of authentication protocols. Meanwhile, a variety of authentication techniques and mechanisms are introduced, such as password policy, multi-factor authentication (MFA), single sign-on (SSO), and federation. The selection of these techniques and mechanisms should be based on factors such as security requirements, user experience and cost-effectiveness. These guidelines and practices can be applied to all types of organizations and industries to ensure the security and effectiveness of digital identities.
During a subscriber’s authenticator lifecycle, there are different conditions. which might affect the authenticator’s use. Authenticator binding is the authenticators need to bound to subscriber accounts to establish the used to authenticate for that subscriber’s account. Authenticators should be bound to subscriber accounts in two options. One is as a part of enrollment that issuance by the credential service provider (CSP). Another one is it should associate a subscriber-provided authenticator that is acceptable to the credential service provider (CSP). CSPs SHALL maintain a record of all authenticators and determine compliance with requirements at each AAL during the digital identity lifecycle. It can ensure to protect against security attacks (e.g., man-in-the-middle attack）by using authenticated protected channels.
the Digital Identity Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for designing and implementing secure authentication and lifecycle management practices, helping organizations establish trust, protect sensitive information, and mitigate security risks associated with digital identities.The Digital Identity Guidelines, also known as NIST Special Publication 800-63, provides recommendations and best practices for authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities within federal information systems.
The guidance aims to equip federal agencies with policies and procedures for implementing and managing digital authentication, safeguarding the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of identity information. NIST SP 800-63B encompasses a comprehensive range of digital authentication considerations, including principles of identity authentication, types of authentication, assurance levels, lifecycle management, and privacy and compliance. It further offers specific steps and recommendations for implementing digital authentication and lifecycle management, assisting organizations in the development and enforcement of robust policies. By adhering to this guidance, federal agencies can ensure secure and effective digital authentication practices, enabling trusted transactions and interactions in today’s digital world.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication types restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
This reading provided an overview of the Digital Identity Guidelines for Authentication and Lifecycle Management. The reading defined Digital Authentication as determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to claim a digital identity, which results in an assertion of the identifier to a relying party. The reading outlined the different types of authentication required for the three levels of Authenticator Assurance. One of the key takeaways that I had was that Table 4-1 gave a very helpful summary of requirements for the three different levels based on a variety of factors. What stood out to me was that there is a good bit of overlap between permitted authenticator types between the three levels, but a lot of differences in the three levels as to how those are used, and the requirements for controls outlined in the table, particularly as you advance from AAL2 to AAL3.
The challenge of digital identity lies in its often open network verification of individuals and authentication of individuals over an open network, providing multiple opportunities for impersonation and other attacks that may lead to fraudulent claims of a subject’s digital identity. Ongoing authentication of subscribers is crucial for associating subscribers with their online activities. Successful authentication results in assertions of identifiers and optionally other identity information to relying parties.
This technical guideline offers recommendations on various authentication processes, including authenticator choices, and lifecycle management, including revocation in cases of loss or theft. It applies to digital authentication of subjects to systems over a network but does not cover physical access authentication. The strength of authentication transactions is characterized by an ordinal measurement known as AAL, with higher AALs requiring malicious actors to have better capabilities and expend more resources to successfully compromise the authentication process.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication types restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication types restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
NIST SP 800-63B provides guidelines for authentication and lifecycle management in digital identity management. It is focus on the use of adaptive authentication methods. These methods allow for the authentication process to adapt based on risk factors, such as the user’s location, device, or behavior patterns. This enhances security by providing a more dynamic and context-aware authentication process, reducing the risk of unauthorized access. Additionally, the guidelines emphasize the importance of secure lifecycle management practices, such as revoking access promptly when an individual’s role or status changes. This helps organizations maintain the integrity of their digital identity systems and protect against potential security threats.
The fascinating part of this guide is its in-depth look at validator lifecycle management. During this cycle, a series of events may be encountered that affect the use of the validator, such as binding, loss, theft, illegal copying, expiration, and revocation.
Among them, binding is the key step for the validator to start functioning. Once the binding is successful, a solid connection is established between the authenticator and the user account. It is worth noting that the binding process can be combined with other validators to form a complementary relationship, thus enhancing overall security. This means that even if there is a problem with the primary authenticator, the user can still complete authentication with the help of other authenticators.
In practice, a Certification Service Provider (CSP) binds at least two physical authenticators to a user’s online identity. This double-binding practice is intended to provide more reliable security for users. In particular, if the primary authenticator is inadvertently lost or stolen, the user can still quickly restore his or her online identity through the other authenticators, avoiding potential security risks.
The binding process usually takes place after the user has completed registration. At this point, the user will need to add an additional authenticator to their existing authentication level. For example, if the user is using a One-Time Password (OTP) based device, they may also need to provide another type of authenticator as a supplement. Additionally, if a user wishes to escalate their account privileges to a higher level, they may need to add additional authentication factors to their existing single-factor authentication account. This design not only improves the security of the account, but also provides users with more options and flexibility.
Digital authentication is the process of determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to claim digital identity. Authentication can help confirm the origin and integrity of data in electronic form. And reduce fraud. Authenticator assurance levels (AALAAL has three levels. In AAL1, it only needs to provide some assurance that the claimant is in control of the claim, with at least single-factor authentication required. In AAL2, it is required to provide high confidence that the declarant controls the claim for two different authentication factors (multi-factor authentication). In AAL3, a very high degree of confidence needs to be provided for claimants to control the authentication of claims based on proof of key possession through cryptographic protocols. I am also concerned that multiple events occur during the authenticator’s life cycle. These events include binding, loss, theft, unauthorized copying, expiration, and revocation. This document shows ways to mitigate some of these problems. Theft can be reduced by multi-factor authentication, copying can be stopped if the authenticator makes it difficult to extract the code, eavesdropping can be stopped by using a closed network, and failed attempts to guess online can be reduced by locking down after a certain number of times.
After reading the article ,I think authenticator threats and mitigations are an interesting lesson to be learned from this reading. These risks include fabricating or manipulating assertions, stealing, copying, eavesdropping, phishing, social engineering, and more. MFA, endpoint security, avoiding the use of authenticators that pose a risk of social engineering, employing authenticators that offer resistance against verifier impersonation, etc. By using these threat mitigation techniques, the likelihood of an attacker breaking into the authenticator and impersonating its owner will decrease.
Digital Identity Guidelines for Authentication and Lifecycle Management
When it comes to digital identity, authentication and lifecycle management are crucial aspects that need to be addressed. Authentication ensures that only legitimate users can access resources, while lifecycle management covers the entire process of creating, managing, and retiring digital identities. Here are some guidelines for authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities:
Authentication Guidelines:
Strong Authentication Methods: Implement strong authentication methods such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) or passwordless authentication to enhance the security of user accounts. This reduces the risk of unauthorized access due to weak or compromised passwords.
Regular Updates: Require users to update their authentication credentials, such as passwords or security questions, periodically. This helps mitigate the risk of credential theft or brute-force attacks.
Authentication Policies: Develop and enforce clear authentication policies that specify acceptable authentication methods, credential strength requirements, and account lockout mechanisms.
Education and Training: Provide education and training to users on the importance of secure authentication practices, such as avoiding common passwords, not sharing credentials, and enabling notifications for suspicious activities.
Lifecycle Management Guidelines:
Identity Creation: Establish a process for creating digital identities that verifies the identity of the user and assigns appropriate roles and privileges. This includes validating user information, such as email addresses or mobile phone numbers, and ensuring that access is granted based on business requirements.
Access Reviews: Conduct regular access reviews to ensure that users have the appropriate level of access based on their job functions and responsibilities. This helps identify and address any unauthorized access or privilege escalation.
Identity Monitoring: Implement systems to monitor digital identities for suspicious activities or unauthorized access attempts. This includes monitoring login attempts, access patterns, and any deviations from normal behavior.
Identity Retirement: Establish a process for retiring digital identities when users leave the organization or change their roles. This includes revoking access privileges, deactivating accounts, and ensuring that any sensitive information associated with the identity is securely deleted or archived.
Audit and Compliance: Maintain audit logs and reports to track digital identity activities and ensure compliance with relevant regulations and policies. This helps in identifying any security breaches or unauthorized access attempts.
By following these guidelines for authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities, organizations can ensure secure and effective management of user access and minimize the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches.
The authenticator lifecycle management section stood out to me in this reading. The reading noted, many events can occur over the lifecycle of an authenticator that can affect that authenticator’s use. These events include binding, loss, theft, unauthorized duplication,expiration, and revocation. Binding refers to the establishment of an association between a specific authenticator and a subscriber’s account. Loss, theft, and unauthorized duplication refer to authenticators that have been compromised. Expiration refers to authenticators that have been issued with an expiration date, and lastly, revocation refers to authenticators removal of the binding between an authenticator and a credential the CSP maintains.
An often overlooked component of securing the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data is records retention. In my organization, one of my audit areas of purview is Records and Information management including Data Privacy. Therefore, I was happy to see the records retention requirements sections noted for all of the Authenticator Assurance levels. The requirements are the same, regardless of the authentication level, which include compliance with the organization’s own record retention policies which should consider applicable laws, regulations and policies including any applicable National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) retention schedules. In addition, there is a requirement to perform a risk management process for records which includes determining the privacy and security risks to help identify the appropriate retention requirements which must be disclosed to the subscriber in the event the CSP opts to retain
records in the absence of any mandatory requirements. It is important to be transparent to the subscriber in not only the type of data, the manner in which the data is used, and who will have access to the data, but also how long the data will be maintained as well as the method of destruction. Also, listed under the data privacy section is the requirement for the CSP to perform a privacy risk assessment for records retention, which includes the likelihood that records retention could create an issue for the subscriber such as unauthorized access to the information and the impact if this risk is realized.
1. The complexity of a password is the number of character types it contains. An eight-character password that uses uppercase characters, lowercase characters, symbols, and numbers is much stronger than an eight-character password that uses only numbers.NIST SP 800-63B states that the authentication system should support the use of any printable ASCII characters and space characters.
2. Different computers have different computing power and multiple computers can be used for parallel processing, which allows for faster password cracking. However, the point is that longer passwords are more difficult to crack than shorter passwords NIST SP 800-63B specifies that passwords should be at least 8 characters long, and the system should support passwords up to 64 characters long. Many organisations require longer passwords for privileged accounts, such as at least 15 characters.
Many organisations require passwords for privileged accounts to be longer, for example, at least 15 characters long.
3. NIST SP 800-63B recommends comparing a user’s password to a list of well-known simple passwords and rejecting commonly used passwords; overly complex rules are not recommended. It also recommends salting passwords using random values, hashing the results and storing the hash.
4.NIST SP 800-63B recommends that SMS verification codes should not be visible until the user has unlocked the phone. However, the CAPTCHA is almost always displayed as a notification without unlocking the phone.
Digital identity is the unique representation of a subject engaged in an online transaction. A digital identity is always unique in the context of a digital service, but does not necessarily need to be traceable back to a specific real-life subject. In other words, accessing a digital service may not mean that the underlying subject’s real-life representation is known.
Identity proofing establishes that a subject is actually who they claim to be. Digital authentication is the process of determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to claim a digital identity.
Authentication establishes that a subject attempting to access a digital service is in control of the technologies used to authenticate. For services in which return visits are applicable, successfully authenticating provides reasonable risk-based assurances that the subject accessing the service today is the same as the one who accessed the service previously. Digital identity presents a technical challenge because it often involves the proofing of individuals over an open network and always involves the authentication of individuals over an open network. This presents multiple opportunities for impersonation and other attacks which can lead to fraudulent claims of a subject’s digital identity.
The out-of-band authenticator SHALL uniquely authenticate itself in one of the following ways when communicating with the verifier:
• Establish an authenticated protected channel to the verifier using approved cryptography. The key used SHALL be stored in suitably secure storage available to the authenticator application (e.g., keychain storage, TPM, TEE, secure element).
• Authenticate to a public mobile telephone network using a SIM card or equivalent that uniquely identifies the device. This method SHALL only be used if a secret is being sent from the verifier to the out-of-band device via the PSTN (SMS or voice).
The Digital Identity Guide provides comprehensive guidance for organizations in the design and implementation of secure authentication and lifecycle management practices, helping to build trust, protect sensitive information, and reduce security risks related to digital identity. This guide, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) special publication 800-63, provides recommendations and best practices for digital authentication and lifecycle management of federal information systems.
NIST SP 800-63B “Digital Identity Guide: Authentication and Lifecycle Management” is a guide on digital identity authentication and lifecycle management published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The guide is part of the Digital Identity Guide series and is designed to provide guidance to organizations implementing digital identity solutions.
The guide highlights the importance of identity in protecting systems and data security, and provides recommendations on how to implement and manage digital identity. It covers a variety of authentication methods and techniques, including cryptography, multi-factor authentication, biometrics, and more, and provides guidance on how to select and configure these methods to suit different security needs.
In addition, NIST SP 800-63B focuses on the lifecycle management of digital identities, including the creation, maintenance, renewal, and termination of identities. It provides recommendations on how to manage the life cycle of a digital identity to ensure its security and effectiveness, including aspects such as storage, access control, auditing and monitoring of identity information.
Overall, NIST SP 800-63B is an important guide on digital identity and lifecycle management that provides organizations with a framework and recommendations for implementing and managing digital identity solutions that help protect the security and integrity of systems and data. By following this guide, organizations can manage digital identities more effectively, reduce security risks, and improve the efficiency and ease of user access and control of resources.
NIST SP 800-63B “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management” is a set of guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States. It focuses on digital identity authentication and lifecycle management and provides best practices and guidance.
NIST SP 800-63B covers the following topics:
1. Authentication: The guideline provides information on different authentication methods and technologies. It includes traditional single-factor authentication methods like usernames and passwords, as well as stronger multi-factor authentication methods like SMS verification codes, biometrics, and hardware tokens. The guideline offers authentication recommendations for different security levels and user experience requirements, highlighting the importance of multi-factor authentication.
2. Password Management: The guideline offers best practices and recommendations for password management. It includes password policies, password complexity requirements, and advice on password storage and transmission security. The guideline emphasizes the use of password management technologies, such as password hashing and secure storage, and encourages users to use password management tools to enhance password security.
3. Account Lifecycle Management: The guideline provides best practices for account lifecycle management. It includes recommendations for account registration, account lock and unlock, account deactivation, and account recovery. The guideline offers advice to ensure the security and operability of accounts and provides guidance for specific scenarios in account management.
NIST SP 800-63B is part of the Digital Identity guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and focuses on two aspects: Authentication and Lifecycle Management. This guidance is intended to provide technical requirements for organizations implementing digital identity solutions, particularly those working with federal agencies. It ensures the security, reliability and compliance of digital identity systems.
The NIST SP 800-63B provides important technical requirements and guidance for organizations implementing digital identity solutions. Organizations working with federal agencies, in particular, need to follow these requirements to ensure the security, reliability, and compliance of digital identity systems. By following the guidelines, organizations can build more secure, efficient, and compliant digital identity systems that protect user identity information and resources from unauthorized access and disclosure. It highlights the importance of authentication and lifecycle management in digital identity systems and provides detailed recommendations on how to implement these capabilities.
I noticed the strength of an authentication transaction is characterized by an ordinal measurement known as the AAL. Stronger authentication (a higher AAL) requires malicious actors to have better
capabilities and expend greater resources in order to successfully subvert the authentication
process. Authentication at higher AALs can effectively reduce the risk of attacks. A high-level
summary of the technical requirements for each of the AALs is provided below.
Authenticator Assurance Level 1: AAL1 provides some assurance that the claimant controls an
authenticator bound to the subscriber’s account. AAL1 requires either single-factor or multifactor authentication using a wide range of available authentication technologies.
Authenticator Assurance Level 2: AAL2 provides high confidence that the claimant controls
authenticator(s) bound to the subscriber’s account. Approved cryptographic techniques are required at AAL2 and above.
Authenticator Assurance Level 3: AAL3 provides very high confidence that the claimant
controls authenticator(s) bound to the subscriber’s account. Authentication at AAL3 is based on
proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol.
AAL1 provides a degree of assurance that the claimant controls the authenticator bound to the subscriber’s account.AAL1 requires single- or multi-factor authentication using a variety of available authentication techniques.
AAL2 Provides a high degree of confidence that the claimant controls the authenticator bound to the subscriber account. Requires a secure authentication protocol to demonstrate possession and control of two different authentication factors.
AAL3 provides a very high level of confidence that the claimant controls the authenticator bound to the subscriber’s account.AAL3 authentication is based on proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol.
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. These guidelines focus on the authentication of subjects interacting with government information systems over networks, establishing that a given claimant is a subscriber who has been previously authenticated. The result of the authentication process may be used locally by the system performing the authentication or may be asserted elsewhere in a federated identity system. This document defines technical requirements for each of the three authenticator assurance levels.
This document provides technical guidance to organizations for implementing digital authentication. One of the differences is additional details on authenticator lifecycle management: there are many events that can occur during the lifecycle of a subscriber’s authenticator that can affect the use of that authenticator. Throughout the digital identity lifecycle, the CSP maintains a record of all authenticators associated or already associated with each identity. This record contains the date and time the authenticator was bound to the account. The record also includes information about the binding source of any device associated with the registration.
The guidance is intended to provide federal agencies with policies and procedures on how to implement and manage digital authentication to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of identity information.
NIST SP 800-63B covers all aspects of digital authentication, including:
1. Identity authentication principles;
2. Authentication type;
3. Authentication level;
4. Life cycle management;
5. Privacy and compliance;
The guide also provides specific steps and recommendations for implementing digital authentication and lifecycle management to help organizations develop and enforce policies.
This section defines the core principles and framework for authentication, including types of authentication (e.g., single sign-on, federated authentication, etc.), authentication methods (e.g., passwords, biometrics, tokens, etc.), and the choice of authentication protocols. Meanwhile, a variety of authentication techniques and mechanisms are introduced, such as password policy, multi-factor authentication (MFA), single sign-on (SSO), and federation. The selection of these techniques and mechanisms should be based on factors such as security requirements, user experience and cost-effectiveness. These guidelines and practices can be applied to all types of organizations and industries to ensure the security and effectiveness of digital identities.
During a subscriber’s authenticator lifecycle, there are different conditions. which might affect the authenticator’s use. Authenticator binding is the authenticators need to bound to subscriber accounts to establish the used to authenticate for that subscriber’s account. Authenticators should be bound to subscriber accounts in two options. One is as a part of enrollment that issuance by the credential service provider (CSP). Another one is it should associate a subscriber-provided authenticator that is acceptable to the credential service provider (CSP). CSPs SHALL maintain a record of all authenticators and determine compliance with requirements at each AAL during the digital identity lifecycle. It can ensure to protect against security attacks (e.g., man-in-the-middle attack）by using authenticated protected channels.
the Digital Identity Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for designing and implementing secure authentication and lifecycle management practices, helping organizations establish trust, protect sensitive information, and mitigate security risks associated with digital identities.The Digital Identity Guidelines, also known as NIST Special Publication 800-63, provides recommendations and best practices for authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities within federal information systems.
The guidance aims to equip federal agencies with policies and procedures for implementing and managing digital authentication, safeguarding the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of identity information. NIST SP 800-63B encompasses a comprehensive range of digital authentication considerations, including principles of identity authentication, types of authentication, assurance levels, lifecycle management, and privacy and compliance. It further offers specific steps and recommendations for implementing digital authentication and lifecycle management, assisting organizations in the development and enforcement of robust policies. By adhering to this guidance, federal agencies can ensure secure and effective digital authentication practices, enabling trusted transactions and interactions in today’s digital world.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication types restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
This reading provided an overview of the Digital Identity Guidelines for Authentication and Lifecycle Management. The reading defined Digital Authentication as determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to claim a digital identity, which results in an assertion of the identifier to a relying party. The reading outlined the different types of authentication required for the three levels of Authenticator Assurance. One of the key takeaways that I had was that Table 4-1 gave a very helpful summary of requirements for the three different levels based on a variety of factors. What stood out to me was that there is a good bit of overlap between permitted authenticator types between the three levels, but a lot of differences in the three levels as to how those are used, and the requirements for controls outlined in the table, particularly as you advance from AAL2 to AAL3.
The challenge of digital identity lies in its often open network verification of individuals and authentication of individuals over an open network, providing multiple opportunities for impersonation and other attacks that may lead to fraudulent claims of a subject’s digital identity. Ongoing authentication of subscribers is crucial for associating subscribers with their online activities. Successful authentication results in assertions of identifiers and optionally other identity information to relying parties.
This technical guideline offers recommendations on various authentication processes, including authenticator choices, and lifecycle management, including revocation in cases of loss or theft. It applies to digital authentication of subjects to systems over a network but does not cover physical access authentication. The strength of authentication transactions is characterized by an ordinal measurement known as AAL, with higher AALs requiring malicious actors to have better capabilities and expend more resources to successfully compromise the authentication process.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication types restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication types restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
NIST 800-63B includes the recommendations for the authentication process. There are three levels of Authenticator Assurance Levels (AALs) are mentioned within the NIST 800-63B.
AAL1: Allows single-factor or multi-factor authentication with little to no restrictions on the type of authenticator accepted.
AAL2: authentication shall occur using either a multi-factor authenticator or a combination of two single-factor authenticators.
AAL3: Only multiple authentications, with strict authentication restrictions, are allowed. Two authenticator categories must be represented: something you know, have, and something you are. The “something you have” authenticator must be a hardware key, and the “something you are” authenticator must be anti-forgery.
NIST SP 800-63B provides guidelines for authentication and lifecycle management in digital identity management. It is focus on the use of adaptive authentication methods. These methods allow for the authentication process to adapt based on risk factors, such as the user’s location, device, or behavior patterns. This enhances security by providing a more dynamic and context-aware authentication process, reducing the risk of unauthorized access. Additionally, the guidelines emphasize the importance of secure lifecycle management practices, such as revoking access promptly when an individual’s role or status changes. This helps organizations maintain the integrity of their digital identity systems and protect against potential security threats.
The fascinating part of this guide is its in-depth look at validator lifecycle management. During this cycle, a series of events may be encountered that affect the use of the validator, such as binding, loss, theft, illegal copying, expiration, and revocation.
Among them, binding is the key step for the validator to start functioning. Once the binding is successful, a solid connection is established between the authenticator and the user account. It is worth noting that the binding process can be combined with other validators to form a complementary relationship, thus enhancing overall security. This means that even if there is a problem with the primary authenticator, the user can still complete authentication with the help of other authenticators.
In practice, a Certification Service Provider (CSP) binds at least two physical authenticators to a user’s online identity. This double-binding practice is intended to provide more reliable security for users. In particular, if the primary authenticator is inadvertently lost or stolen, the user can still quickly restore his or her online identity through the other authenticators, avoiding potential security risks.
The binding process usually takes place after the user has completed registration. At this point, the user will need to add an additional authenticator to their existing authentication level. For example, if the user is using a One-Time Password (OTP) based device, they may also need to provide another type of authenticator as a supplement. Additionally, if a user wishes to escalate their account privileges to a higher level, they may need to add additional authentication factors to their existing single-factor authentication account. This design not only improves the security of the account, but also provides users with more options and flexibility.
Digital authentication is the process of determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to claim digital identity. Authentication can help confirm the origin and integrity of data in electronic form. And reduce fraud. Authenticator assurance levels (AALAAL has three levels. In AAL1, it only needs to provide some assurance that the claimant is in control of the claim, with at least single-factor authentication required. In AAL2, it is required to provide high confidence that the declarant controls the claim for two different authentication factors (multi-factor authentication). In AAL3, a very high degree of confidence needs to be provided for claimants to control the authentication of claims based on proof of key possession through cryptographic protocols. I am also concerned that multiple events occur during the authenticator’s life cycle. These events include binding, loss, theft, unauthorized copying, expiration, and revocation. This document shows ways to mitigate some of these problems. Theft can be reduced by multi-factor authentication, copying can be stopped if the authenticator makes it difficult to extract the code, eavesdropping can be stopped by using a closed network, and failed attempts to guess online can be reduced by locking down after a certain number of times.
After reading the article ,I think authenticator threats and mitigations are an interesting lesson to be learned from this reading. These risks include fabricating or manipulating assertions, stealing, copying, eavesdropping, phishing, social engineering, and more. MFA, endpoint security, avoiding the use of authenticators that pose a risk of social engineering, employing authenticators that offer resistance against verifier impersonation, etc. By using these threat mitigation techniques, the likelihood of an attacker breaking into the authenticator and impersonating its owner will decrease.
Digital Identity Guidelines for Authentication and Lifecycle Management
When it comes to digital identity, authentication and lifecycle management are crucial aspects that need to be addressed. Authentication ensures that only legitimate users can access resources, while lifecycle management covers the entire process of creating, managing, and retiring digital identities. Here are some guidelines for authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities:
Authentication Guidelines:
Strong Authentication Methods: Implement strong authentication methods such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) or passwordless authentication to enhance the security of user accounts. This reduces the risk of unauthorized access due to weak or compromised passwords.
Regular Updates: Require users to update their authentication credentials, such as passwords or security questions, periodically. This helps mitigate the risk of credential theft or brute-force attacks.
Authentication Policies: Develop and enforce clear authentication policies that specify acceptable authentication methods, credential strength requirements, and account lockout mechanisms.
Education and Training: Provide education and training to users on the importance of secure authentication practices, such as avoiding common passwords, not sharing credentials, and enabling notifications for suspicious activities.
Lifecycle Management Guidelines:
Identity Creation: Establish a process for creating digital identities that verifies the identity of the user and assigns appropriate roles and privileges. This includes validating user information, such as email addresses or mobile phone numbers, and ensuring that access is granted based on business requirements.
Access Reviews: Conduct regular access reviews to ensure that users have the appropriate level of access based on their job functions and responsibilities. This helps identify and address any unauthorized access or privilege escalation.
Identity Monitoring: Implement systems to monitor digital identities for suspicious activities or unauthorized access attempts. This includes monitoring login attempts, access patterns, and any deviations from normal behavior.
Identity Retirement: Establish a process for retiring digital identities when users leave the organization or change their roles. This includes revoking access privileges, deactivating accounts, and ensuring that any sensitive information associated with the identity is securely deleted or archived.
Audit and Compliance: Maintain audit logs and reports to track digital identity activities and ensure compliance with relevant regulations and policies. This helps in identifying any security breaches or unauthorized access attempts.
By following these guidelines for authentication and lifecycle management of digital identities, organizations can ensure secure and effective management of user access and minimize the risk of unauthorized access or data breaches.
The authenticator lifecycle management section stood out to me in this reading. The reading noted, many events can occur over the lifecycle of an authenticator that can affect that authenticator’s use. These events include binding, loss, theft, unauthorized duplication,expiration, and revocation. Binding refers to the establishment of an association between a specific authenticator and a subscriber’s account. Loss, theft, and unauthorized duplication refer to authenticators that have been compromised. Expiration refers to authenticators that have been issued with an expiration date, and lastly, revocation refers to authenticators removal of the binding between an authenticator and a credential the CSP maintains.
An often overlooked component of securing the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data is records retention. In my organization, one of my audit areas of purview is Records and Information management including Data Privacy. Therefore, I was happy to see the records retention requirements sections noted for all of the Authenticator Assurance levels. The requirements are the same, regardless of the authentication level, which include compliance with the organization’s own record retention policies which should consider applicable laws, regulations and policies including any applicable National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) retention schedules. In addition, there is a requirement to perform a risk management process for records which includes determining the privacy and security risks to help identify the appropriate retention requirements which must be disclosed to the subscriber in the event the CSP opts to retain
records in the absence of any mandatory requirements. It is important to be transparent to the subscriber in not only the type of data, the manner in which the data is used, and who will have access to the data, but also how long the data will be maintained as well as the method of destruction. Also, listed under the data privacy section is the requirement for the CSP to perform a privacy risk assessment for records retention, which includes the likelihood that records retention could create an issue for the subscriber such as unauthorized access to the information and the impact if this risk is realized.
1. The complexity of a password is the number of character types it contains. An eight-character password that uses uppercase characters, lowercase characters, symbols, and numbers is much stronger than an eight-character password that uses only numbers.NIST SP 800-63B states that the authentication system should support the use of any printable ASCII characters and space characters.
2. Different computers have different computing power and multiple computers can be used for parallel processing, which allows for faster password cracking. However, the point is that longer passwords are more difficult to crack than shorter passwords NIST SP 800-63B specifies that passwords should be at least 8 characters long, and the system should support passwords up to 64 characters long. Many organisations require longer passwords for privileged accounts, such as at least 15 characters.
Many organisations require passwords for privileged accounts to be longer, for example, at least 15 characters long.
3. NIST SP 800-63B recommends comparing a user’s password to a list of well-known simple passwords and rejecting commonly used passwords; overly complex rules are not recommended. It also recommends salting passwords using random values, hashing the results and storing the hash.
4.NIST SP 800-63B recommends that SMS verification codes should not be visible until the user has unlocked the phone. However, the CAPTCHA is almost always displayed as a notification without unlocking the phone.
Digital identity is the unique representation of a subject engaged in an online transaction. A digital identity is always unique in the context of a digital service, but does not necessarily need to be traceable back to a specific real-life subject. In other words, accessing a digital service may not mean that the underlying subject’s real-life representation is known.
Identity proofing establishes that a subject is actually who they claim to be. Digital authentication is the process of determining the validity of one or more authenticators used to claim a digital identity.
Authentication establishes that a subject attempting to access a digital service is in control of the technologies used to authenticate. For services in which return visits are applicable, successfully authenticating provides reasonable risk-based assurances that the subject accessing the service today is the same as the one who accessed the service previously. Digital identity presents a technical challenge because it often involves the proofing of individuals over an open network and always involves the authentication of individuals over an open network. This presents multiple opportunities for impersonation and other attacks which can lead to fraudulent claims of a subject’s digital identity.
The out-of-band authenticator SHALL uniquely authenticate itself in one of the following ways when communicating with the verifier:
• Establish an authenticated protected channel to the verifier using approved cryptography. The key used SHALL be stored in suitably secure storage available to the authenticator application (e.g., keychain storage, TPM, TEE, secure element).
• Authenticate to a public mobile telephone network using a SIM card or equivalent that uniquely identifies the device. This method SHALL only be used if a secret is being sent from the verifier to the out-of-band device via the PSTN (SMS or voice).
The Digital Identity Guide provides comprehensive guidance for organizations in the design and implementation of secure authentication and lifecycle management practices, helping to build trust, protect sensitive information, and reduce security risks related to digital identity. This guide, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) special publication 800-63, provides recommendations and best practices for digital authentication and lifecycle management of federal information systems.
NIST SP 800-63B “Digital Identity Guide: Authentication and Lifecycle Management” is a guide on digital identity authentication and lifecycle management published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The guide is part of the Digital Identity Guide series and is designed to provide guidance to organizations implementing digital identity solutions.
The guide highlights the importance of identity in protecting systems and data security, and provides recommendations on how to implement and manage digital identity. It covers a variety of authentication methods and techniques, including cryptography, multi-factor authentication, biometrics, and more, and provides guidance on how to select and configure these methods to suit different security needs.
In addition, NIST SP 800-63B focuses on the lifecycle management of digital identities, including the creation, maintenance, renewal, and termination of identities. It provides recommendations on how to manage the life cycle of a digital identity to ensure its security and effectiveness, including aspects such as storage, access control, auditing and monitoring of identity information.
Overall, NIST SP 800-63B is an important guide on digital identity and lifecycle management that provides organizations with a framework and recommendations for implementing and managing digital identity solutions that help protect the security and integrity of systems and data. By following this guide, organizations can manage digital identities more effectively, reduce security risks, and improve the efficiency and ease of user access and control of resources.
NIST SP 800-63B “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Lifecycle Management” is a set of guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States. It focuses on digital identity authentication and lifecycle management and provides best practices and guidance.
NIST SP 800-63B covers the following topics:
1. Authentication: The guideline provides information on different authentication methods and technologies. It includes traditional single-factor authentication methods like usernames and passwords, as well as stronger multi-factor authentication methods like SMS verification codes, biometrics, and hardware tokens. The guideline offers authentication recommendations for different security levels and user experience requirements, highlighting the importance of multi-factor authentication.
2. Password Management: The guideline offers best practices and recommendations for password management. It includes password policies, password complexity requirements, and advice on password storage and transmission security. The guideline emphasizes the use of password management technologies, such as password hashing and secure storage, and encourages users to use password management tools to enhance password security.
3. Account Lifecycle Management: The guideline provides best practices for account lifecycle management. It includes recommendations for account registration, account lock and unlock, account deactivation, and account recovery. The guideline offers advice to ensure the security and operability of accounts and provides guidance for specific scenarios in account management.
NIST SP 800-63B is part of the Digital Identity guidelines published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and focuses on two aspects: Authentication and Lifecycle Management. This guidance is intended to provide technical requirements for organizations implementing digital identity solutions, particularly those working with federal agencies. It ensures the security, reliability and compliance of digital identity systems.
The NIST SP 800-63B provides important technical requirements and guidance for organizations implementing digital identity solutions. Organizations working with federal agencies, in particular, need to follow these requirements to ensure the security, reliability, and compliance of digital identity systems. By following the guidelines, organizations can build more secure, efficient, and compliant digital identity systems that protect user identity information and resources from unauthorized access and disclosure. It highlights the importance of authentication and lifecycle management in digital identity systems and provides detailed recommendations on how to implement these capabilities.
I noticed the strength of an authentication transaction is characterized by an ordinal measurement known as the AAL. Stronger authentication (a higher AAL) requires malicious actors to have better
capabilities and expend greater resources in order to successfully subvert the authentication
process. Authentication at higher AALs can effectively reduce the risk of attacks. A high-level
summary of the technical requirements for each of the AALs is provided below.
Authenticator Assurance Level 1: AAL1 provides some assurance that the claimant controls an
authenticator bound to the subscriber’s account. AAL1 requires either single-factor or multifactor authentication using a wide range of available authentication technologies.
Authenticator Assurance Level 2: AAL2 provides high confidence that the claimant controls
authenticator(s) bound to the subscriber’s account. Approved cryptographic techniques are required at AAL2 and above.
Authenticator Assurance Level 3: AAL3 provides very high confidence that the claimant
controls authenticator(s) bound to the subscriber’s account. Authentication at AAL3 is based on
proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol.
AAL1 provides a degree of assurance that the claimant controls the authenticator bound to the subscriber’s account.AAL1 requires single- or multi-factor authentication using a variety of available authentication techniques.
AAL2 Provides a high degree of confidence that the claimant controls the authenticator bound to the subscriber account. Requires a secure authentication protocol to demonstrate possession and control of two different authentication factors.
AAL3 provides a very high level of confidence that the claimant controls the authenticator bound to the subscriber’s account.AAL3 authentication is based on proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol.