One key point from NIST Special Publication 800-63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” is the strong emphasis on Identity Assurance Levels (IAL), which dictate the rigor of the identity proofing process based on the risk of the transaction. The three levels of assurance—IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3—help organizations decide how thoroughly they need to verify the identity of users depending on the sensitivity of the system or data involved.
IAL1 requires no verification of real-world identity, making it suitable for low-risk activities, while IAL2 introduces verification of attributes, such as date of birth or address, using both remote and in-person techniques. The most stringent, IAL3, requires in-person verification of identity and is often used for high-risk transactions. This tiered approach ensures that resources are allocated efficiently: for lower-risk transactions, less verification is required, while for higher-risk transactions, stronger safeguards are applied, such as biometric data collection and robust security controls.
This framework not only helps in protecting users and systems by aligning identity proofing efforts with the level of risk but also aids in achieving a balance between security and user convenience. It allows organizations to select appropriate processes to establish trust while considering factors like privacy, usability, and cost.
One key point is the consideration of user experience in the process of identity verification and authentication. The document emphasizes that in order to minimize user burden and facilitate a smooth and proactive registration process, organizations need to be familiar with their users and ensure that the entire process is user-friendly. This includes designing each step of registration and identity verification to be easy for users to operate correctly, difficult to operate incorrectly, and easy to recover in case of errors. In addition, the document suggests conducting user experience assessments during the registration and identification process, using representative users, realistic goals and tasks, and appropriate usage contexts.
In NIST SP800-63a, a key point is the quality requirement for identification evidence. Identity service providers (CSPS), when processing identity evidence, must use a verification process that achieves the same strength as the evidence presented. For example, if two pieces of strong evidence are presented, each should be verified with the strength of strong evidence. In addition, it is emphasized that in the authentication process, the applicant’s binding to the identity evidence must be verified by a process capable of achieving strong strength. Another key point is that Knowledge-based authentication (KBV) should not be used for face-to-face (physical or supervised remote) authentication. These requirements ensure the rigor and security of the authentication process, help prevent identity fraud and ensure the accuracy of identity information.
Summary of the quality requirements of identity evidence in tabular form:
Type of identity evidence Verification strength requirement Verification process requirements KBV service restrictions
reinforcing evidence strong strong Not Applicable
Equitable evidence Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Through this table, we can clearly see the strength of the different types of identity evidence required during the verification process, and the limits of KBV during the authentication process. This helps to understand how to ensure the accuracy and security of identity information during authentication.
In NIST SP 800-63A, Digital Identity Guide: Registration and Authentication, “The stratification of authentication strength” is a key and thought-worthy point.
The document makes it clear that the strength of authentication should be layered according to the required level of security and risk tolerance. This layered approach means that different levels of authentication can be applied to different access requests or services. For example, for less sensitive information or services, only basic username and password authentication may be required; For highly sensitive information or services, such as financial transactions or access to medical records, a higher level of authentication, such as multi-factor authentication or biometrics, may be required.
The layering of authentication strength not only improves the security of the system, but also optimizes the user experience. It allows organizations to provide users with more convenient and flexible access while meeting security requirements. At the same time, this layered approach also helps organizations better manage risk, ensuring the right balance between different levels of authentication.
In addition, NIST SP 800-63A emphasizes the continuous monitoring and updating of the authentication process to ensure that it can adapt to changing security threats and business needs. This is essential to maintaining the integrity and reliability of the identity system.
In summary, the layering of authentication strength is a central and critical point in NIST SP 800-63A.
Data minimization and privacy considerations in the digital identity verification process.
Reasons:
1. Reducing Privacy Risk: By limiting the amount of PII collected, the potential for data breaches and identity theft is significantly reduced. This is especially important in the context of digital identity, where PII is stored and transmitted electronically.
2. Building Trust: Users are more likely to trust a digital identity service that is transparent about its data collection practices and takes steps to protect their privacy. This trust is essential for the adoption and success of digital identity solutions.
3. Legal Compliance: The document references various laws and regulations, such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and the E-Government Act of 2002, which require federal agencies to minimize the collection and use of PII. Adhering to these regulations is crucial for legal compliance and avoiding potential penalties.
One key takeaway from NIST Special Publication 800-63A: Digital Identity Guidelines – Enrollment and Identity Proofing is the importance of identity resolution, validation, and verification in the identity proofing process. These steps ensure that an applicant’s claimed identity is accurately linked to a real-world entity before granting digital access.
Identity resolution involves distinguishing an individual from others within a population using a minimal set of attributes, such as name and date of birth. Validation ensures that the identity evidence provided (e.g., passport, driver’s license) is genuine and issued by an authoritative source. Finally, verification confirms that the applicant presenting the evidence is the rightful owner, often using biometric comparison or in-person proofing. These steps collectively strengthen digital identity security by preventing fraudulent enrollments and identity theft.
The layered approach of resolution, validation, and verification ensures a risk-based identity proofing process, balancing security and usability. Organizations can apply different Identity Assurance Levels (IALs) depending on the sensitivity of the service being accessed. This methodology protects digital services from identity fraud while maintaining user convenience, making it a crucial component of secure digital identity management.
The document focuses on the enrollment and identity proofing of digital identities, and the setting of Identity Assurance Levels and related requirements is a key point. IALs are divided into three levels. IAL1 does not require associating the applicant with a real-life identity, IAL2 requires proving the authenticity of the identity and the association between the applicant and the identity, and IAL3 requires in-person proofing with more stringent requirements. Different levels have varying requirements in evidence collection, verification, and security controls. For example, IAL2 allows remote or in-person proofing, while IAL3 mandates in-person proofing and has higher requirements for evidence strength. This grading system provides clear standards for federal agencies, enabling them to select appropriate identity verification methods based on risks and business needs, and balancing security and efficiency. It also reflects the emphasis on accuracy, security, and privacy protection in digital identity management, ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of digital identity verification.
Provides federal agencies with technical requirements for registration and authentication in digital identity services. The document defines three levels of identity assurance (IAL), including IAL1 (no authentication required), IAL2 (remote or on-site identification), and IAL3 (on-site identification). IAL2 requires verification using high-quality identification evidence, while IAL3 requires face-to-face verification and collection of biometric data. There are also privacy and usability considerations, including data minimization, user notification, consent mechanisms, and how to optimize the user experience to reduce friction in the sign-up process.
One key point that stands out from the assigned reading regarding usability considerations in digital identity enrollment and identity proofing is the importance of designing processes that are not only secure but also intuitive and user-friendly. This point is emphasized throughout the section on usability considerations in NIST SP 800-63A, particularly in the context of creating a smooth and positive user experience.
The document highlights that usability, as defined by ISO/IEC 9241-11, encompasses the “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” This definition underscores the need for a holistic approach that considers users, goals, and context when designing enrollment and identity proofing processes.
One key strategy mentioned in the document is the need for organizations to conduct usability evaluations with representative users, realistic goals and tasks, and appropriate contexts of use. This approach ensures that the enrollment and identity proofing process is designed and implemented in a way that makes it easy for users to do the right thing, hard to do the wrong thing, and easy to recover when mistakes happen.
Basis for Identity Assurance Level (IAL) Division：NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A strongly emphasizes Identity Assurance Levels (IALs), which are determined by the risk of the transaction. The three levels, IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3, assist organizations in deciding the degree of user identity verification based on the sensitivity of the system or data involved.
Characteristics of Different IAL Levels：IAL1, suitable for low – risk activities, requires no verification of real – world identity. IAL2 involves verifying attributes like date of birth or address through both remote and in – person methods. IAL3, the most stringent, demands in – person identity verification and is often used for high – risk transactions.
Advantages of the IAL Framework：This framework helps protect users and systems by matching identity proofing efforts to the level of risk. It also achieves a balance between security and user convenience, allowing organizations to choose appropriate processes to build trust while considering factors such as privacy, usability, and cost.
NIST SP800 – 63a highlights crucial aspects regarding identity evidence quality. Identity service providers (CSPs) must verify identity evidence with a process matching its strength. For instance, if two strong pieces of evidence are provided, each needs to be verified with strong – level procedures. Also, in authentication, the connection between the applicant and the identity evidence must be verified with a strong – strength process. Notably, Knowledge – based authentication (KBV) is prohibited for face – to – face (physical or supervised remote) authentication. A summary in tabular form shows that for reinforcing evidence, it demands strong verification strength and a strong verification process, while KBV has specific service restrictions. This framework ensures authentication rigor, guards against identity fraud, and maintains the accuracy of identity information.
NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A provides crucial guidelines for federal agencies on digital identity enrollment and proofing, centered around three Identity Assurance Levels (IALs).
1. Identity Assurance Levels：IAL1 allows self – asserted attributes without real – life identity verification. IAL2 requires evidence of a claimed identity’s real – world existence through remote or in – person proofing and supports pseudonymous identity. IAL3 mandates physical presence for proofing and stronger verification.
2. Proofing Requirements：IAL2 conventional proofing involves collecting specific evidence, validating and verifying it, and supporting different proofing methods. IAL3 has more rigorous evidence collection, validation, and verification requirements, and biometric collection is mandatory.
3. Identity – related Processes：Identity resolution helps uniquely identify individuals. The CSP collects and validates identity evidence and verifies the identity – subject linkage, with different methods for different IALs.
4. Derived Credentials：Derived credentials are based on proving possession of an existing authenticator bound to a proofed identity, reducing the need for repeated proofing.
5. Security, Privacy, and Usability：The CSP mitigates threats like impersonation, follows privacy – related rules such as data minimization, and focuses on usability throughout the enrollment process to enhance the user experience.
The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for digital authentication, including the process of registration and authentication, requirements for different levels of identity assurance (IAL), and privacy and usability considerations. It is designed to help federal agencies implement digital identity services that ensure reliable connection to real subjects in digital authentication.
I think the most profound point in the article is about the process of “trust building”. In digital authentication, the establishment of trust is the core. The article describes in detail how to ensure that the claimed identity matches the real individual through the collection, verification and verification of identity evidence. This establishment of trust is essential for the security of digital transactions and online services, as it ensures that only verified legitimate users have access to sensitive resources.
Building trust in the digital world is more complex and does not confirm identity as intuitively as face-to-face communication. The need to rely on technical means and processes to verify identity, including the collection and verification of personally identifiable information, the use of biometrics, etc. At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of data to protect the privacy of users.
Building this trust is not only a technical challenge, but also involves the user’s trust in the system. Users need to trust that their personal information is secure and will only be used for the purposes to which they have consented. This requires that the authentication system be designed with technical rigor, privacy protection, and user experience in mind. Only in this way can reliable trust relationships be established in the digital environment so that users are willing and able to use online services safely.
One key point that stood out from the NIST Special Publication 800-63A on “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing” is the emphasis on the importance of **minimizing the collection of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)** to only what is necessary for validating the existence of a claimed identity.
1. Purpose of Minimizing PII Collection:
– The document underscores the necessity of limiting the collection of PII to the minimum required for identity proofing. This ensures that the process is not overly invasive, which can lead to user distrust and potential loss of data due to unauthorized access.
– By focusing on collecting only essential information, organizations can reduce the risk of misuse and protect the applicant’s privacy.
2. Specific Requirements:
– Section 4.2(2) of the publication states that CSPs should collect “the minimum necessary to validate the existence of the claimed identity and associate the claimed identity with the applicant providing identity evidence for appropriate identity resolution, validation, and verification.”
– This approach helps in avoiding the collection of unnecessary PII, which can complicate the identity proofing process and create confusion about why certain data is being collected.
3. Data Minimization Benefits:
– Data minimization reduces the amount of sensitive information that is vulnerable to unauthorized access or use, thereby enhancing overall security and trustworthiness.
– It also encourages users to participate more willingly in the identity proofing process, as they are less concerned about their data being overly exposed.
The emphasis on minimizing PII collection highlights a critical aspect of digital identity management: ensuring that the process respects user privacy while maintaining the necessary level of security. This balanced approach helps in fostering trust and compliance among users, ultimately contributing to the effectiveness and usability of digital identity systems.
NIST SP800-63a highlights several key points regarding identity verification, authentication, and identity evidence quality.
Firstly, user experience is a crucial consideration in identity verification and authentication. Organizations need to be familiar with their users to minimize the user burden and ensure a smooth, proactive registration process. The steps of registration and identity verification should be designed to be user-friendly, easy to operate correctly, difficult to operate incorrectly, and allow for easy recovery in case of errors. Conducting user experience assessments with representative users, realistic goals, tasks, and appropriate usage contexts is also recommended.
Secondly, identity service providers (CSPS) have specific quality requirements for identity evidence. When processing identity evidence, the verification process must match the strength of the presented evidence. For example, strong evidence should be verified with strong verification strength. In the authentication process, the binding of the applicant to the identity evidence must be verified with a process of strong strength.
Finally, knowledge-based authentication (KBV) should not be used for face-to-face (physical or supervised remote) authentication. A table summarizing the quality requirements of identity evidence clearly shows the verification strength requirements for different types of evidence and the restrictions of KBV, which helps in understanding how to maintain the accuracy and security of identity information during authentication and in preventing identity fraud. Overall, these aspects work together to ensure the rigor, security, and user-friendliness of the identity verification and authentication processes.
one remarkable aspect is the detailed levels of odentity proofing.it clearly defines dofferents levels with specific requirements for verfying identities. this allow organizations to choose the appropriate level based on risk ,ensuring proper security for various applications. another impressive point is the focus on documents-based verfucation. it providers guidance on validating documents,reducing the chance of identity fraud during the enrollment process.
The document outlines the requirements for enrolling applicants and verifying their identities for digital authentication services. It emphasizes the importance of reliable identity proofing to ensure that individuals are who they claim to be, particularly in contexts where anonymity or pseudonymity are not acceptable.It provides comprehensive guidelines for federal agencies to implement secure and privacy-protective digital identity services. By defining clear requirements for enrollment and identity proofing, the document aims to enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of digital identities, ensuring that individuals can securely access online services while minimizing privacy risks.
NIST SP 800-63A emphasizes two key aspects of digital identity proofing: User Experience and Identity Proofing (Resolution, Validation, and Verification).
User Experience is critical in identity verification and authentication. To minimize user burden, organizations should design a smooth and user-friendly process, ensuring that each step is easy to complete correctly, hard to do incorrectly, and simple to recover from mistakes. Conducting user experience assessments with real users and scenarios helps refine the process for better usability.
Identity Proofing involves three key steps:
1. Resolution – Distinguishing an individual from others using basic attributes (e.g., name, date of birth).
2. Validation – Ensuring identity evidence (e.g., passport, ID) is legitimate and issued by a trusted source.
3. Verification – Confirming the applicant is the rightful owner, often using biometrics or in-person proofing.
This layered approach balances security and convenience, preventing identity fraud while maintaining ease of use. Organizations can adjust Identity Assurance Levels (IALs) based on risk, ensuring a flexible yet secure identity management framework.
A key point from NIST Special Publication 800-63A is the establishment of Identity Assurance Levels (IALs) to ensure the reliability of digital identity verification. The document outlines three levels of assurance (IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3), each with increasing rigor in identity proofing processes.
IAL1 requires no identity proofing, IAL2 requires remote or in-person proofing with validated evidence, and IAL3 mandates in-person proofing with superior evidence and biometric verification.
These levels help federal agencies and credential service providers (CSPs) determine the appropriate level of identity verification needed for secure access to digital services.
One key point from NIST Special Publication 800-63A is the importance of identity assurance levels (IALs) in digital identity verification. The document outlines three IALs (IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3), each representing a different level of confidence in an applicant’s identity. IAL1 allows self-asserted attributes and is suitable for low-risk transactions. IAL2 requires evidence of a real-world identity and verification, while IAL3 mandates physical presence, superior evidence, and biometric collection for high-risk scenarios.
This tiered approach ensures that identity proofing processes match the risk level of transactions, balancing security, usability, and privacy. For example, accessing a public website might only require IAL1, while sensitive transactions like financial services would need IAL3. Higher IALs can also support lower IAL transactions with user consent, providing flexibility in federated environments.
In summary, IALs are crucial for tailoring identity proofing to transaction risks, enhancing security while maintaining user trust and compliance.
NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A offers essential guidance to federal agencies regarding digital identity enrollment and proofing, with a focus on three Identity Assurance Levels (IALs). IAL1 permits self – declared attributes without actual real – world identity verification. IAL2 demands evidence of an identity’s real – world existence, which can be done remotely or in – person, and also enables pseudonymous identities. IAL3 necessitates physical presence for proofing and more robust verification. The proofing requirements vary across IALs; IAL2’s conventional proofing includes gathering, validating, and verifying specific evidence, and supports multiple methods, while IAL3 has more stringent criteria, with mandatory biometric collection. Identity – related processes like identity resolution are crucial for uniquely identifying individuals. The Credential Service Provider (CSP) is responsible for collecting, validating identity evidence, and verifying the connection to the identity subject, using different approaches for each IAL. Derived credentials, based on proving ownership of an existing authenticator linked to a verified identity, reduce the need for repeated proofing. Security, privacy, and usability are key considerations. The CSP works to counter threats such as impersonation, adheres to privacy rules like data minimization, and emphasizes usability during the enrollment process to improve the user experience.
NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A provides vital direction to federal agencies on digital identity enrollment and proofing, with a spotlight on three Identity Assurance Levels (IALs).
For IAL1, individuals can simply declare their attributes without any real – world identity verification. Moving up the scale, IAL2 requires evidence that an identity exists in the real world. This verification can occur either remotely or in – person, and it even allows for pseudonymous identities. At the highest level, IAL3 mandates physical presence for proofing and involves more rigorous verification procedures.
The proofing requirements differ significantly among the IALs. In IAL2, traditional proofing involves collecting, validating, and verifying particular evidence, and it supports multiple verification methods. In contrast, IAL3 has more exacting criteria, including the compulsory collection of biometrics.
Identity – resolution processes are of great importance as they are used to uniquely identify individuals. The Credential Service Provider (CSP) plays a crucial role. Its responsibilities include collecting and validating identity evidence and verifying the link to the identity subject. The CSP uses distinct approaches for each IAL.
Derived credentials, which are based on demonstrating ownership of an existing authenticator tied to a verified identity, help to decrease the need for repeated proofing.
Security, privacy, and usability are central considerations. The CSP endeavors to combat threats like impersonation, complies with privacy regulations such as data minimization, and focuses on usability during the enrollment process to enhance the overall user experience.
NIST SP 800-63A “Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing” establishes requirements for federal agencies to securely verify identities during enrollment, ensuring appropriate confidence levels (Identity Assurance Levels, IALs) for digital services. The document emphasizes data minimization, limiting PII collection to what is necessary for verification, and privacy protections, including explicit notice, consent, and redress mechanisms. It also outlines security controls (e.g., cryptographic validation, biometric use) and usability guidelines to streamline processes while mitigating risks like fraud and impersonation. Agencies must align proofing methods with risk assessments, ensuring compliance with FISMA, the Privacy Act, and other federal regulations. By separating identity proofing from authentication (covered in SP 800-63B), the guidelines enable flexible, risk-based implementations that balance security, privacy, and user experience.
The emphasis on the level of Identity Assurance (IAL) is a key point in NIST special publication 800-63A, Digital Identity Guide: Registration and Authentication. IAL determines the severity of the authentication process based on the transaction risk. The IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3 levels help organizations determine how thoroughly a user’s identity needs to be verified based on the sensitivity of the system or data involved.
IAL1: This level does not require authentication of real-world identities and is suitable for low-risk activities. For example, some websites that provide public information browsing, users only need to simply register an account, without complex identity verification can be accessed, which greatly improves the convenience of user access, and also meets the needs of such low-risk scenarios.
IAL2: Introduces verification of attributes, such as date of birth or address, using a combination of remote and on-site technology. Take the online government service platform as an example, when the user handles some non-core business but still requires some identity verification, the address information provided by the user can be remotely verified, and the user’s identity attributes can be confirmed on the spot (such as the offline government hall self-service terminal), which can not only ensure the reliability of identity verification, but also take into account the convenience of business handling.
IAL3: The most stringent, requiring on-site authentication, is often used for high-risk transactions. In scenarios such as large bank transfers and important contract signing, identity verification is carried out face-to-face, and biometric data, such as fingerprints and facial recognition, may also be collected, with strict security control measures to ensure that the identity of the transaction subject is authentic and credible, effectively reducing the risk of fraud in high-risk transactions. This layered approach enables efficient allocation of resources, with low-risk transactions requiring less verification and higher-risk transactions equipped with stronger safeguards that balance security and user convenience while protecting user and system security, enabling organizations to consider privacy, availability, and cost when building trust.
The section on “Enrollment and Identity Proofing” emphasizes the importance of the identity proofing and registration processes. Identity proofing is the starting point of the digital identity lifecycle, and its strength directly affects the security and user trust of the system. The registration process must ensure the authenticity and security of identity information while recording key events for auditing purposes. The tiered approach of Authentication Assurance Levels (AAL) provides flexibility for systems to choose the appropriate verification strength based on actual needs. Privacy protection and continuous assessment are key to ensuring the security and compliance of the system.
A key point from this reading is the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) in the identity proofing process. The document defines three levels of identity assurance: IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3. Each level corresponds to a different degree of confidence in an individual’s identity, ranging from self-asserted information (IAL1) to in-person verification with biometrics (IAL3). These levels are critical for ensuring that digital identities are accurately linked to real-life individuals, and the process of identity proofing must be rigorous enough to meet the required assurance level.
IAL1 allows for minimal identity evidence, while IAL2 and IAL3 require more comprehensive and verified evidence, with IAL3 demanding in-person proofing and biometric verification. These guidelines aim to balance security, privacy, and usability, ensuring that identities are sufficiently verified while minimizing the risk of identity theft and fraud. This structured approach helps agencies and organizations determine the appropriate level of trust needed for different types of digital interactions.
A key concept from NIST Special Publication 800-63A, Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing is the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) in determining the rigor of identity verification based on the risk associated with a transaction. The three levels—IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3—help organizations decide how thoroughly a user’s identity must be verified depending on the sensitivity of the system or data being accessed.
IAL1 requires no real-world identity verification, making it suitable for low-risk transactions.
IAL2 involves verification of identity attributes (e.g., date of birth, address) through remote or in-person methods to establish a stronger level of trust.
IAL3 is the most stringent level, requiring in-person identity verification and is typically used for high-risk activities, incorporating measures like biometric verification and enhanced security controls.
This tiered approach ensures that identity proofing efforts match the level of risk, allowing organizations to allocate resources efficiently. Lower-risk activities require less verification, while higher-risk transactions demand stronger security safeguards. The framework strikes a balance between security, privacy, usability, and cost, enabling organizations to establish trusted identities while minimizing unnecessary burdens on users.
NIST Special Publication 800-63A highlights the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) to determine the rigor of identity proofing based on transaction risk. There are three levels: IAL1 requires no real-world identity verification and is suitable for low-risk activities; IAL2 adds verification of attributes like date of birth or address using remote or in-person methods; and IAL3, the most stringent, mandates in-person identity verification for high-risk transactions. This tiered approach efficiently allocates resources by requiring more verification for higher-risk activities while keeping the process simpler for lower-risk ones. It balances security with user convenience, privacy, usability, and cost, helping organizations establish trust based on risk levels.
According to NIST’s Special Publication 800-63A, A Guide to Digital Identity: Registration and Attestation, this document emphasizes the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) that determine the rigor of the identification process based on the amount of risk involved in the transaction. There are three levels of IALs: IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3, which help organizations decide how thoroughly they need to authenticate users based on the sensitivity of the system or data.
IAL1 does not require verification of real-world identity information and is suitable for low-risk activities. IAL2 introduces verification of attributes, such as date of birth or address, using remote and face-to-face technology. The strictest IAL3 requires face-to-face identity verification and is often used for high-risk transactions. This tiered approach ensures an efficient allocation of resources: for low-risk transactions, less validation is required; For high-risk transactions, stronger security measures such as biometric data collection and strong security controls are applied.
This framework not only helps protect users and systems by aligning identity attestation efforts with risk levels, but also helps strike a balance between security and user convenience. It allows organizations to choose the appropriate process to build trust, taking into account factors such as privacy, availability, and cost.
One key point from NIST Special Publication 800-63A, “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing,” is the strong emphasis on Identity Assurance Levels (IAL), which dictate the rigor of the identity proofing process based on the risk of the transaction. The three levels of assurance—IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3—help organizations decide how thoroughly they need to verify the identity of users depending on the sensitivity of the system or data involved.
IAL1 requires no verification of real-world identity, making it suitable for low-risk activities, while IAL2 introduces verification of attributes, such as date of birth or address, using both remote and in-person techniques. The most stringent, IAL3, requires in-person verification of identity and is often used for high-risk transactions. This tiered approach ensures that resources are allocated efficiently: for lower-risk transactions, less verification is required, while for higher-risk transactions, stronger safeguards are applied, such as biometric data collection and robust security controls.
This framework not only helps in protecting users and systems by aligning identity proofing efforts with the level of risk but also aids in achieving a balance between security and user convenience. It allows organizations to select appropriate processes to establish trust while considering factors like privacy, usability, and cost.
One key point is the consideration of user experience in the process of identity verification and authentication. The document emphasizes that in order to minimize user burden and facilitate a smooth and proactive registration process, organizations need to be familiar with their users and ensure that the entire process is user-friendly. This includes designing each step of registration and identity verification to be easy for users to operate correctly, difficult to operate incorrectly, and easy to recover in case of errors. In addition, the document suggests conducting user experience assessments during the registration and identification process, using representative users, realistic goals and tasks, and appropriate usage contexts.
In NIST SP800-63a, a key point is the quality requirement for identification evidence. Identity service providers (CSPS), when processing identity evidence, must use a verification process that achieves the same strength as the evidence presented. For example, if two pieces of strong evidence are presented, each should be verified with the strength of strong evidence. In addition, it is emphasized that in the authentication process, the applicant’s binding to the identity evidence must be verified by a process capable of achieving strong strength. Another key point is that Knowledge-based authentication (KBV) should not be used for face-to-face (physical or supervised remote) authentication. These requirements ensure the rigor and security of the authentication process, help prevent identity fraud and ensure the accuracy of identity information.
Summary of the quality requirements of identity evidence in tabular form:
Type of identity evidence Verification strength requirement Verification process requirements KBV service restrictions
reinforcing evidence strong strong Not Applicable
Equitable evidence Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Through this table, we can clearly see the strength of the different types of identity evidence required during the verification process, and the limits of KBV during the authentication process. This helps to understand how to ensure the accuracy and security of identity information during authentication.
In NIST SP 800-63A, Digital Identity Guide: Registration and Authentication, “The stratification of authentication strength” is a key and thought-worthy point.
The document makes it clear that the strength of authentication should be layered according to the required level of security and risk tolerance. This layered approach means that different levels of authentication can be applied to different access requests or services. For example, for less sensitive information or services, only basic username and password authentication may be required; For highly sensitive information or services, such as financial transactions or access to medical records, a higher level of authentication, such as multi-factor authentication or biometrics, may be required.
The layering of authentication strength not only improves the security of the system, but also optimizes the user experience. It allows organizations to provide users with more convenient and flexible access while meeting security requirements. At the same time, this layered approach also helps organizations better manage risk, ensuring the right balance between different levels of authentication.
In addition, NIST SP 800-63A emphasizes the continuous monitoring and updating of the authentication process to ensure that it can adapt to changing security threats and business needs. This is essential to maintaining the integrity and reliability of the identity system.
In summary, the layering of authentication strength is a central and critical point in NIST SP 800-63A.
Data minimization and privacy considerations in the digital identity verification process.
Reasons:
1. Reducing Privacy Risk: By limiting the amount of PII collected, the potential for data breaches and identity theft is significantly reduced. This is especially important in the context of digital identity, where PII is stored and transmitted electronically.
2. Building Trust: Users are more likely to trust a digital identity service that is transparent about its data collection practices and takes steps to protect their privacy. This trust is essential for the adoption and success of digital identity solutions.
3. Legal Compliance: The document references various laws and regulations, such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and the E-Government Act of 2002, which require federal agencies to minimize the collection and use of PII. Adhering to these regulations is crucial for legal compliance and avoiding potential penalties.
One key takeaway from NIST Special Publication 800-63A: Digital Identity Guidelines – Enrollment and Identity Proofing is the importance of identity resolution, validation, and verification in the identity proofing process. These steps ensure that an applicant’s claimed identity is accurately linked to a real-world entity before granting digital access.
Identity resolution involves distinguishing an individual from others within a population using a minimal set of attributes, such as name and date of birth. Validation ensures that the identity evidence provided (e.g., passport, driver’s license) is genuine and issued by an authoritative source. Finally, verification confirms that the applicant presenting the evidence is the rightful owner, often using biometric comparison or in-person proofing. These steps collectively strengthen digital identity security by preventing fraudulent enrollments and identity theft.
The layered approach of resolution, validation, and verification ensures a risk-based identity proofing process, balancing security and usability. Organizations can apply different Identity Assurance Levels (IALs) depending on the sensitivity of the service being accessed. This methodology protects digital services from identity fraud while maintaining user convenience, making it a crucial component of secure digital identity management.
The document focuses on the enrollment and identity proofing of digital identities, and the setting of Identity Assurance Levels and related requirements is a key point. IALs are divided into three levels. IAL1 does not require associating the applicant with a real-life identity, IAL2 requires proving the authenticity of the identity and the association between the applicant and the identity, and IAL3 requires in-person proofing with more stringent requirements. Different levels have varying requirements in evidence collection, verification, and security controls. For example, IAL2 allows remote or in-person proofing, while IAL3 mandates in-person proofing and has higher requirements for evidence strength. This grading system provides clear standards for federal agencies, enabling them to select appropriate identity verification methods based on risks and business needs, and balancing security and efficiency. It also reflects the emphasis on accuracy, security, and privacy protection in digital identity management, ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of digital identity verification.
Provides federal agencies with technical requirements for registration and authentication in digital identity services. The document defines three levels of identity assurance (IAL), including IAL1 (no authentication required), IAL2 (remote or on-site identification), and IAL3 (on-site identification). IAL2 requires verification using high-quality identification evidence, while IAL3 requires face-to-face verification and collection of biometric data. There are also privacy and usability considerations, including data minimization, user notification, consent mechanisms, and how to optimize the user experience to reduce friction in the sign-up process.
One key point that stands out from the assigned reading regarding usability considerations in digital identity enrollment and identity proofing is the importance of designing processes that are not only secure but also intuitive and user-friendly. This point is emphasized throughout the section on usability considerations in NIST SP 800-63A, particularly in the context of creating a smooth and positive user experience.
The document highlights that usability, as defined by ISO/IEC 9241-11, encompasses the “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” This definition underscores the need for a holistic approach that considers users, goals, and context when designing enrollment and identity proofing processes.
One key strategy mentioned in the document is the need for organizations to conduct usability evaluations with representative users, realistic goals and tasks, and appropriate contexts of use. This approach ensures that the enrollment and identity proofing process is designed and implemented in a way that makes it easy for users to do the right thing, hard to do the wrong thing, and easy to recover when mistakes happen.
Basis for Identity Assurance Level (IAL) Division：NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A strongly emphasizes Identity Assurance Levels (IALs), which are determined by the risk of the transaction. The three levels, IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3, assist organizations in deciding the degree of user identity verification based on the sensitivity of the system or data involved.
Characteristics of Different IAL Levels：IAL1, suitable for low – risk activities, requires no verification of real – world identity. IAL2 involves verifying attributes like date of birth or address through both remote and in – person methods. IAL3, the most stringent, demands in – person identity verification and is often used for high – risk transactions.
Advantages of the IAL Framework：This framework helps protect users and systems by matching identity proofing efforts to the level of risk. It also achieves a balance between security and user convenience, allowing organizations to choose appropriate processes to build trust while considering factors such as privacy, usability, and cost.
NIST SP800 – 63a highlights crucial aspects regarding identity evidence quality. Identity service providers (CSPs) must verify identity evidence with a process matching its strength. For instance, if two strong pieces of evidence are provided, each needs to be verified with strong – level procedures. Also, in authentication, the connection between the applicant and the identity evidence must be verified with a strong – strength process. Notably, Knowledge – based authentication (KBV) is prohibited for face – to – face (physical or supervised remote) authentication. A summary in tabular form shows that for reinforcing evidence, it demands strong verification strength and a strong verification process, while KBV has specific service restrictions. This framework ensures authentication rigor, guards against identity fraud, and maintains the accuracy of identity information.
NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A provides crucial guidelines for federal agencies on digital identity enrollment and proofing, centered around three Identity Assurance Levels (IALs).
1. Identity Assurance Levels：IAL1 allows self – asserted attributes without real – life identity verification. IAL2 requires evidence of a claimed identity’s real – world existence through remote or in – person proofing and supports pseudonymous identity. IAL3 mandates physical presence for proofing and stronger verification.
2. Proofing Requirements：IAL2 conventional proofing involves collecting specific evidence, validating and verifying it, and supporting different proofing methods. IAL3 has more rigorous evidence collection, validation, and verification requirements, and biometric collection is mandatory.
3. Identity – related Processes：Identity resolution helps uniquely identify individuals. The CSP collects and validates identity evidence and verifies the identity – subject linkage, with different methods for different IALs.
4. Derived Credentials：Derived credentials are based on proving possession of an existing authenticator bound to a proofed identity, reducing the need for repeated proofing.
5. Security, Privacy, and Usability：The CSP mitigates threats like impersonation, follows privacy – related rules such as data minimization, and focuses on usability throughout the enrollment process to enhance the user experience.
The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for digital authentication, including the process of registration and authentication, requirements for different levels of identity assurance (IAL), and privacy and usability considerations. It is designed to help federal agencies implement digital identity services that ensure reliable connection to real subjects in digital authentication.
I think the most profound point in the article is about the process of “trust building”. In digital authentication, the establishment of trust is the core. The article describes in detail how to ensure that the claimed identity matches the real individual through the collection, verification and verification of identity evidence. This establishment of trust is essential for the security of digital transactions and online services, as it ensures that only verified legitimate users have access to sensitive resources.
Building trust in the digital world is more complex and does not confirm identity as intuitively as face-to-face communication. The need to rely on technical means and processes to verify identity, including the collection and verification of personally identifiable information, the use of biometrics, etc. At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of data to protect the privacy of users.
Building this trust is not only a technical challenge, but also involves the user’s trust in the system. Users need to trust that their personal information is secure and will only be used for the purposes to which they have consented. This requires that the authentication system be designed with technical rigor, privacy protection, and user experience in mind. Only in this way can reliable trust relationships be established in the digital environment so that users are willing and able to use online services safely.
One key point that stood out from the NIST Special Publication 800-63A on “Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing” is the emphasis on the importance of **minimizing the collection of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)** to only what is necessary for validating the existence of a claimed identity.
1. Purpose of Minimizing PII Collection:
– The document underscores the necessity of limiting the collection of PII to the minimum required for identity proofing. This ensures that the process is not overly invasive, which can lead to user distrust and potential loss of data due to unauthorized access.
– By focusing on collecting only essential information, organizations can reduce the risk of misuse and protect the applicant’s privacy.
2. Specific Requirements:
– Section 4.2(2) of the publication states that CSPs should collect “the minimum necessary to validate the existence of the claimed identity and associate the claimed identity with the applicant providing identity evidence for appropriate identity resolution, validation, and verification.”
– This approach helps in avoiding the collection of unnecessary PII, which can complicate the identity proofing process and create confusion about why certain data is being collected.
3. Data Minimization Benefits:
– Data minimization reduces the amount of sensitive information that is vulnerable to unauthorized access or use, thereby enhancing overall security and trustworthiness.
– It also encourages users to participate more willingly in the identity proofing process, as they are less concerned about their data being overly exposed.
The emphasis on minimizing PII collection highlights a critical aspect of digital identity management: ensuring that the process respects user privacy while maintaining the necessary level of security. This balanced approach helps in fostering trust and compliance among users, ultimately contributing to the effectiveness and usability of digital identity systems.
NIST SP800-63a highlights several key points regarding identity verification, authentication, and identity evidence quality.
Firstly, user experience is a crucial consideration in identity verification and authentication. Organizations need to be familiar with their users to minimize the user burden and ensure a smooth, proactive registration process. The steps of registration and identity verification should be designed to be user-friendly, easy to operate correctly, difficult to operate incorrectly, and allow for easy recovery in case of errors. Conducting user experience assessments with representative users, realistic goals, tasks, and appropriate usage contexts is also recommended.
Secondly, identity service providers (CSPS) have specific quality requirements for identity evidence. When processing identity evidence, the verification process must match the strength of the presented evidence. For example, strong evidence should be verified with strong verification strength. In the authentication process, the binding of the applicant to the identity evidence must be verified with a process of strong strength.
Finally, knowledge-based authentication (KBV) should not be used for face-to-face (physical or supervised remote) authentication. A table summarizing the quality requirements of identity evidence clearly shows the verification strength requirements for different types of evidence and the restrictions of KBV, which helps in understanding how to maintain the accuracy and security of identity information during authentication and in preventing identity fraud. Overall, these aspects work together to ensure the rigor, security, and user-friendliness of the identity verification and authentication processes.
one remarkable aspect is the detailed levels of odentity proofing.it clearly defines dofferents levels with specific requirements for verfying identities. this allow organizations to choose the appropriate level based on risk ,ensuring proper security for various applications. another impressive point is the focus on documents-based verfucation. it providers guidance on validating documents,reducing the chance of identity fraud during the enrollment process.
The document outlines the requirements for enrolling applicants and verifying their identities for digital authentication services. It emphasizes the importance of reliable identity proofing to ensure that individuals are who they claim to be, particularly in contexts where anonymity or pseudonymity are not acceptable.It provides comprehensive guidelines for federal agencies to implement secure and privacy-protective digital identity services. By defining clear requirements for enrollment and identity proofing, the document aims to enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of digital identities, ensuring that individuals can securely access online services while minimizing privacy risks.
NIST SP 800-63A emphasizes two key aspects of digital identity proofing: User Experience and Identity Proofing (Resolution, Validation, and Verification).
User Experience is critical in identity verification and authentication. To minimize user burden, organizations should design a smooth and user-friendly process, ensuring that each step is easy to complete correctly, hard to do incorrectly, and simple to recover from mistakes. Conducting user experience assessments with real users and scenarios helps refine the process for better usability.
Identity Proofing involves three key steps:
1. Resolution – Distinguishing an individual from others using basic attributes (e.g., name, date of birth).
2. Validation – Ensuring identity evidence (e.g., passport, ID) is legitimate and issued by a trusted source.
3. Verification – Confirming the applicant is the rightful owner, often using biometrics or in-person proofing.
This layered approach balances security and convenience, preventing identity fraud while maintaining ease of use. Organizations can adjust Identity Assurance Levels (IALs) based on risk, ensuring a flexible yet secure identity management framework.
A key point from NIST Special Publication 800-63A is the establishment of Identity Assurance Levels (IALs) to ensure the reliability of digital identity verification. The document outlines three levels of assurance (IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3), each with increasing rigor in identity proofing processes.
IAL1 requires no identity proofing, IAL2 requires remote or in-person proofing with validated evidence, and IAL3 mandates in-person proofing with superior evidence and biometric verification.
These levels help federal agencies and credential service providers (CSPs) determine the appropriate level of identity verification needed for secure access to digital services.
One key point from NIST Special Publication 800-63A is the importance of identity assurance levels (IALs) in digital identity verification. The document outlines three IALs (IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3), each representing a different level of confidence in an applicant’s identity. IAL1 allows self-asserted attributes and is suitable for low-risk transactions. IAL2 requires evidence of a real-world identity and verification, while IAL3 mandates physical presence, superior evidence, and biometric collection for high-risk scenarios.
This tiered approach ensures that identity proofing processes match the risk level of transactions, balancing security, usability, and privacy. For example, accessing a public website might only require IAL1, while sensitive transactions like financial services would need IAL3. Higher IALs can also support lower IAL transactions with user consent, providing flexibility in federated environments.
In summary, IALs are crucial for tailoring identity proofing to transaction risks, enhancing security while maintaining user trust and compliance.
NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A offers essential guidance to federal agencies regarding digital identity enrollment and proofing, with a focus on three Identity Assurance Levels (IALs). IAL1 permits self – declared attributes without actual real – world identity verification. IAL2 demands evidence of an identity’s real – world existence, which can be done remotely or in – person, and also enables pseudonymous identities. IAL3 necessitates physical presence for proofing and more robust verification. The proofing requirements vary across IALs; IAL2’s conventional proofing includes gathering, validating, and verifying specific evidence, and supports multiple methods, while IAL3 has more stringent criteria, with mandatory biometric collection. Identity – related processes like identity resolution are crucial for uniquely identifying individuals. The Credential Service Provider (CSP) is responsible for collecting, validating identity evidence, and verifying the connection to the identity subject, using different approaches for each IAL. Derived credentials, based on proving ownership of an existing authenticator linked to a verified identity, reduce the need for repeated proofing. Security, privacy, and usability are key considerations. The CSP works to counter threats such as impersonation, adheres to privacy rules like data minimization, and emphasizes usability during the enrollment process to improve the user experience.
NIST Special Publication 800 – 63A provides vital direction to federal agencies on digital identity enrollment and proofing, with a spotlight on three Identity Assurance Levels (IALs).
For IAL1, individuals can simply declare their attributes without any real – world identity verification. Moving up the scale, IAL2 requires evidence that an identity exists in the real world. This verification can occur either remotely or in – person, and it even allows for pseudonymous identities. At the highest level, IAL3 mandates physical presence for proofing and involves more rigorous verification procedures.
The proofing requirements differ significantly among the IALs. In IAL2, traditional proofing involves collecting, validating, and verifying particular evidence, and it supports multiple verification methods. In contrast, IAL3 has more exacting criteria, including the compulsory collection of biometrics.
Identity – resolution processes are of great importance as they are used to uniquely identify individuals. The Credential Service Provider (CSP) plays a crucial role. Its responsibilities include collecting and validating identity evidence and verifying the link to the identity subject. The CSP uses distinct approaches for each IAL.
Derived credentials, which are based on demonstrating ownership of an existing authenticator tied to a verified identity, help to decrease the need for repeated proofing.
Security, privacy, and usability are central considerations. The CSP endeavors to combat threats like impersonation, complies with privacy regulations such as data minimization, and focuses on usability during the enrollment process to enhance the overall user experience.
NIST SP 800-63A “Digital Identity Guidelines Enrollment and Identity Proofing” establishes requirements for federal agencies to securely verify identities during enrollment, ensuring appropriate confidence levels (Identity Assurance Levels, IALs) for digital services. The document emphasizes data minimization, limiting PII collection to what is necessary for verification, and privacy protections, including explicit notice, consent, and redress mechanisms. It also outlines security controls (e.g., cryptographic validation, biometric use) and usability guidelines to streamline processes while mitigating risks like fraud and impersonation. Agencies must align proofing methods with risk assessments, ensuring compliance with FISMA, the Privacy Act, and other federal regulations. By separating identity proofing from authentication (covered in SP 800-63B), the guidelines enable flexible, risk-based implementations that balance security, privacy, and user experience.
The emphasis on the level of Identity Assurance (IAL) is a key point in NIST special publication 800-63A, Digital Identity Guide: Registration and Authentication. IAL determines the severity of the authentication process based on the transaction risk. The IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3 levels help organizations determine how thoroughly a user’s identity needs to be verified based on the sensitivity of the system or data involved.
IAL1: This level does not require authentication of real-world identities and is suitable for low-risk activities. For example, some websites that provide public information browsing, users only need to simply register an account, without complex identity verification can be accessed, which greatly improves the convenience of user access, and also meets the needs of such low-risk scenarios.
IAL2: Introduces verification of attributes, such as date of birth or address, using a combination of remote and on-site technology. Take the online government service platform as an example, when the user handles some non-core business but still requires some identity verification, the address information provided by the user can be remotely verified, and the user’s identity attributes can be confirmed on the spot (such as the offline government hall self-service terminal), which can not only ensure the reliability of identity verification, but also take into account the convenience of business handling.
IAL3: The most stringent, requiring on-site authentication, is often used for high-risk transactions. In scenarios such as large bank transfers and important contract signing, identity verification is carried out face-to-face, and biometric data, such as fingerprints and facial recognition, may also be collected, with strict security control measures to ensure that the identity of the transaction subject is authentic and credible, effectively reducing the risk of fraud in high-risk transactions. This layered approach enables efficient allocation of resources, with low-risk transactions requiring less verification and higher-risk transactions equipped with stronger safeguards that balance security and user convenience while protecting user and system security, enabling organizations to consider privacy, availability, and cost when building trust.
The section on “Enrollment and Identity Proofing” emphasizes the importance of the identity proofing and registration processes. Identity proofing is the starting point of the digital identity lifecycle, and its strength directly affects the security and user trust of the system. The registration process must ensure the authenticity and security of identity information while recording key events for auditing purposes. The tiered approach of Authentication Assurance Levels (AAL) provides flexibility for systems to choose the appropriate verification strength based on actual needs. Privacy protection and continuous assessment are key to ensuring the security and compliance of the system.
A key point from this reading is the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) in the identity proofing process. The document defines three levels of identity assurance: IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3. Each level corresponds to a different degree of confidence in an individual’s identity, ranging from self-asserted information (IAL1) to in-person verification with biometrics (IAL3). These levels are critical for ensuring that digital identities are accurately linked to real-life individuals, and the process of identity proofing must be rigorous enough to meet the required assurance level.
IAL1 allows for minimal identity evidence, while IAL2 and IAL3 require more comprehensive and verified evidence, with IAL3 demanding in-person proofing and biometric verification. These guidelines aim to balance security, privacy, and usability, ensuring that identities are sufficiently verified while minimizing the risk of identity theft and fraud. This structured approach helps agencies and organizations determine the appropriate level of trust needed for different types of digital interactions.
A key concept from NIST Special Publication 800-63A, Digital Identity Guidelines: Enrollment and Identity Proofing is the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) in determining the rigor of identity verification based on the risk associated with a transaction. The three levels—IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3—help organizations decide how thoroughly a user’s identity must be verified depending on the sensitivity of the system or data being accessed.
IAL1 requires no real-world identity verification, making it suitable for low-risk transactions.
IAL2 involves verification of identity attributes (e.g., date of birth, address) through remote or in-person methods to establish a stronger level of trust.
IAL3 is the most stringent level, requiring in-person identity verification and is typically used for high-risk activities, incorporating measures like biometric verification and enhanced security controls.
This tiered approach ensures that identity proofing efforts match the level of risk, allowing organizations to allocate resources efficiently. Lower-risk activities require less verification, while higher-risk transactions demand stronger security safeguards. The framework strikes a balance between security, privacy, usability, and cost, enabling organizations to establish trusted identities while minimizing unnecessary burdens on users.
NIST Special Publication 800-63A highlights the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) to determine the rigor of identity proofing based on transaction risk. There are three levels: IAL1 requires no real-world identity verification and is suitable for low-risk activities; IAL2 adds verification of attributes like date of birth or address using remote or in-person methods; and IAL3, the most stringent, mandates in-person identity verification for high-risk transactions. This tiered approach efficiently allocates resources by requiring more verification for higher-risk activities while keeping the process simpler for lower-risk ones. It balances security with user convenience, privacy, usability, and cost, helping organizations establish trust based on risk levels.
According to NIST’s Special Publication 800-63A, A Guide to Digital Identity: Registration and Attestation, this document emphasizes the importance of Identity Assurance Levels (IAL) that determine the rigor of the identification process based on the amount of risk involved in the transaction. There are three levels of IALs: IAL1, IAL2, and IAL3, which help organizations decide how thoroughly they need to authenticate users based on the sensitivity of the system or data.
IAL1 does not require verification of real-world identity information and is suitable for low-risk activities. IAL2 introduces verification of attributes, such as date of birth or address, using remote and face-to-face technology. The strictest IAL3 requires face-to-face identity verification and is often used for high-risk transactions. This tiered approach ensures an efficient allocation of resources: for low-risk transactions, less validation is required; For high-risk transactions, stronger security measures such as biometric data collection and strong security controls are applied.
This framework not only helps protect users and systems by aligning identity attestation efforts with risk levels, but also helps strike a balance between security and user convenience. It allows organizations to choose the appropriate process to build trust, taking into account factors such as privacy, availability, and cost.