NIST SP 800-63-3 Review: Digital Identity Guidelines Overview

Evolution from 800-63-2 to 800-63-3

The NIST SP 800-63 guidelines are dynamic, constantly adapting to evolving technological advancements and threats. The latest iteration, NIST SP 800-63-3, represents a crucial evolution from its predecessor, 800-63-2, incorporating significant improvements to address emerging vulnerabilities and provide stronger security measures.

A key update resides within NIST 800-63B, a core component of the 800-63-3 guidelines, which focuses intently on authentication methods. Notably, email one-time passwords (OTPs) have been explicitly placed in a limited scope. This decision directly acknowledges their inherent susceptibility to widespread phishing at the workplace, where email is easily compromised.

Similarly, SMS-based authentication has been formally downgraded as a viable authenticator for high-assurance scenarios. While SMS was initially considered a significant step forward for two-factor authentication, we found through the years, mobile providers and even the SS7 network itself was compromised.

These pivotal revisions in NIST 800-63-3 unequivocally signal a strategic shift towards prioritizing stronger, more phishing-resistant authentication protocols. NIST actively encourages organizations to adopt resilient authentication mechanisms that genuinely protect against unauthorized access and prevent identity fraud.

Key Concepts and Processes of Identity Proofing and Authentication

The guidelines introduce a significant shift by retiring the concept of a "level of assurance (LOA)" as a single, all-encompassing ordinal that dictates implementation-specific requirements. Instead, NIST 800-63-3 emphasizes that agencies (and by extension, organizations) should select.

IAL (Identity Assurance Level), AAL (Authenticator Assurance Level), and FAL (Federated Assurance Level) as distinct, independent options. This selection process is driven by appropriate business and privacy risk management considerations, alongside specific mission needs. While many systems might coincidentally have the same numerical level for each of IAL, AAL, and FAL, this is not a mandatory requirement, and agencies should avoid assuming they will always be identical within any given system.

The distinct components of identity assurance detailed in these guidelines are as follows:

• IAL refers to the identity proofing process, which validates the real-world identity of the applicant.
• AAL refers to the authentication process, which verifies the user's claimed identity during a transaction.
• FAL refers to the strength of an assertion in a federated environment, specifically used to communicate authentication and attribute information (if applicable) to a relying party (RP).

This explicit separation of categories provides organizations with greater flexibility in choosing identity solutions and significantly enhances the ability to embed privacy-enhancing techniques as fundamental elements of identity systems, regardless of the chosen assurance level.

Beyond these foundational assurance concepts, the guidelines meticulously elaborate on the crucial roles played by various key actors within the sophisticated digital identity ecosystem:

• Credential Service Providers (CSPs): These entities bear the significant responsibility for issuing and meticulously managing authenticators (digital credentials) for users.Their role ensures the secure storage of the unique digital representation of the individual and its secure use for authentication. Their meticulous handling of these credentials is vital for the entire chain of trust.
• Relying Parties (Verifiers): These are the diverse services, applications, or systems that judiciously consume the authenticated identity to grant appropriate access to specific resources or services. They inherently rely on the assertions provided by the CSPs to verify the user's identity before extending trust or access. The important parts of their role involve verifying identity, often by confirming the user's authentication complies with specified Authentication Assurance Levels (AALs).

The Digital Identity Model: NIST's Vision for Online Presence

NIST defines a sophisticated and nuanced concept of digital identity that extends far beyond the simplistic notion of a username and password. This comprehensive model fundamentally emphasizes the unique and verifiable nature of an individual's digital representation and its pivotal role in facilitating secure online transactions and interactions across diverse platforms.

The Digital Identity Model, as conceptualized by NIST, illustrates a clear and sequential flow for establishing and utilizing a secure digital identity, moving from an applicant's initial request to their engagement in online transactions. This model involves several interconnected key stages:

• Applicant: This initial stage represents the individual requesting access or registration for a digital service. At this point, the applicant may submit personal data such as their name, email, or an ID photo to initiate the process.
• Enrollment: Here, the identity is rigorously verified using various identity proofing methods. Once verification is successful, credentials or authenticators are issued to the individual for future use.
• Digital Identity: Once the enrollment process is complete and verified, a unique digital representation of the individual is created. This digital identity is then stored securely and subsequently used for authentication purposes in various online contexts.
• Online Transaction: In the final stage of the model, the user leverages their established digital identity to authenticate and gain access to a service. During this process, the system actively verifies the user's identity, ensuring compliance with predefined Authentication Assurance Levels (AALs) to secure the transaction.

This model provides a clear visual and conceptual framework for understanding the lifecycle of a digital identity within the NIST guidelines, emphasizing the progression from initial proofing to ongoing authentication.

Key Processes in Digital Identity Management

NIST SP 800-63-3 breaks down digital identity management into three key, interconnected processes:

• Identity Proofing: The foundational step of verifying an individual's identity, ensuring it exists and belongs to the claimant. This prevents fraudulent account creation and initial unauthorized access.
• Digital Authentication: The ongoing process of verifying a user's claimed identity each time they attempt an online transaction or access a resource. It ensures the legitimate holder is performing the action.
• Federated Identity Management: A mechanism for linking identities across different organizations, allowing users to authenticate once and gain access to multiple relying parties without repeated authentication.

Understanding NIST Assurance Levels (IALs, AALs, FALs)

NIST defines Identity Assurance Levels (IALs), indicating the certainty that a claimed identity corresponds to a real-world identity. These are part of NIST 800-63-3 and provide a tiered approach to evaluating identity proofing strength.

• IAL1 (Low Assurance): No requirement to link the individual to a real-world identity; information is self-asserted.
• IAL2 (Medium Assurance): Uses digital documents as evidence to support the claimed identity's real-world existence and verifies the person's association.
• IAL3 (High Assurance): Requires an authorized and trained representative to verify the individual in person, often with biometrics, for the highest certainty.

IALs primarily measure assurance at a single point in time, during enrollment or initial identity proofing, and do not cover ongoing authentication.

Authentication Assurance Levels (AALs) quantify authentication mechanism strength during login:

• AAL1: Typically single-factor (e.g., username/password), generally discouraged for sensitive data.
• AAL2: Requires at least two distinct authentication factors, designed to resist replay attacks, though SMS OTPs are now less secure.
• AAL3: The highest level, requiring strong cryptographic device-based authentication (e.g., FIDO security key, device-bound passkeys), highly resistant to phishing and man-in-the-middle attacks.

Enrollment and Identity Proofing (SP 800-63-A)

NIST 800-63-A provides practical and prescriptive examples of proofing methods that can be judiciously utilized to meet these varying assurance levels. These methods are designed to collectively minimize the risk of fraudulent identity creation and unauthorized access:

• Document Verification: This involves examining official documents (e.g., passport, driver’s license) either in person or digitally, with technology capable of detecting forgeries or alterations.
• Facial Recognition with Liveness Detection: This cutting-edge method uses facial biometrics to confirm the person matches the claimed identity. Crucially, liveness detection is integrated to detect and thwart spoofing attempts using photos, videos, or masks.
• Live Video Verification: This adds a significant layer of human-centric security by facilitating a face-to-face verification session over a secure video conference. An authorized agent engages directly with the individual to confirm liveness and detect signs of coercion.
• Chat Verification: For lower-risk scenarios or as a preliminary step, chat verification can be employed, often combining AI and human interaction.
• Location Detection: Verifying the geographical location of the individual during the proofing process can be important, though it must strictly adhere to all privacy regulations.
• Attestation: A critical component providing an auditable trail, attestation involves a responsible party formally confirming and documenting the results of the identity proofing process, retaining results but not sensitive PII.

The strategic integration of these diverse methods, as meticulously outlined in NIST 800-63-A, culminates in a comprehensive, multi-layered identity proofing ecosystem.

Authentication and Lifecycle Management (SP 800-63-B)

NIST Special Publication 800-63-B delves into the critical area of Authentication and Lifecycle Management, placing significant emphasis on "verifier impersonation resistance," directly acknowledging the widespread and persistent threat of phishing attacks. This mandate means that authentication methods must be meticulously designed to prevent attackers from successfully impersonating legitimate relying parties (e.g., websites, applications) in order to trick unsuspecting users into revealing their credentials or authentication factors.

The decisive move to deprecate email OTP and significantly downgrade SMS-based authentication in NIST 800-63B directly reflects the understanding that these methods, while once considered helpful, are no longer sufficient to provide adequate assurance against modern, targeted threats.

Federation and Assertions (SP 800-63-C)

The core concept elaborated in 800-63-C is the precise definition of Federated Assurance Levels (FALs). FALs are designed to quantify the confidence that can be placed in the assertions or claims made by one identity provider (often acting as a Credential Service Provider or CSP) to a distinct relying party (or verifier) about a user's identity and their authentication event.

• FAL1 (Low Assurance): Corresponds to the lowest level of confidence in the assertion, often linked to an AAL1 authentication event.
• FAL2 (Medium Assurance): Reflects a moderate level of confidence, typically corresponding to an AAL2 authentication event.
• FAL3 (High Assurance): Denotes the highest level of confidence in the assertion, corresponding to an AAL3 authentication event.

These levels are crucial because they enable a relying party to understand and trust the level of rigor and security that was applied by the identity provider in establishing and authenticating that user's identity. This allows for informed risk decisions when granting access based on a federated assertion.

The process of conveying authentication and attribute information in a federated environment typically involves several key elements:

• Assertions: Cryptographically signed digital statements made by a trusted identity provider about a user's identity or authentication event.
• Protocols: Standardized technical protocols (e.g., SAML, OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect) used to securely exchange these assertions.
• Trust Frameworks: Established frameworks defining policies, procedures, and technical agreements between participating entities to ensure interoperability and security.

Federated identity management significantly improves user experience via single sign-on (SSO) and enhances security by centralizing identity management with trusted providers.

Implementation Guidelines for Identity and Authentication Assurance Levels

Implementing NIST 800-63-3 involves selecting suitable assurance levels and addressing challenges. A common error is only verifying identity at hire; a robust strategy must cover the entire employee lifecycle.

Critical scenarios requiring secure identity proofing and strong authentication include:

• Employee Onboarding: Ensuring new hires are legitimate before granting system access, preventing interview fraud.
• Credential Resets: Protecting against social engineering that exploits reset processes, as seen in the MGM Resorts attack.
• Changing Roles or Elevated Privileges: Re-verifying identity before granting new access levels.
• Elevated Detected Risk: Prompting re-proofing when monitoring systems detect suspicious activity (e.g., unusual login locations).

Role of HYPR in Compliance and Assurance

HYPR's solutions are strategically engineered to not just meet but exceed NIST 800-63-3 requirements, significantly enhancing identity assurance. Our unique value proposition is a commitment to true passwordless security; eliminating passwords entirely, not just offering them as an option. This comprehensive approach integrates phishing-resistant passwordless authentication, continuous risk monitoring, and automated identity verification into a unified platform.

HYPR specifically contributes to NIST 800-63-3 compliance and security enhancement by:

• Elevating AALs: HYPR is singularly focused on enabling organizations to meet and exceed AAL3 requirements. Our FIDO Certified passwordless authentication directly aligns with NIST's most stringent recommendations for AAL3. By eliminating passwords, HYPR removes the primary attack vector for phishing and credential theft, securing OS-level access and consumer interactions.
• Strengthening IALs: HYPR Affirm is our comprehensive identity verification solution, tailored for workforce identity proofing throughout the full employee lifecycle. It helps achieve IAL2 and IAL3 compliance using chat, video, facial recognition with liveness detection, document authentication, and supports step-up re-proofing based on risk. This ensures continuous identity assurance beyond a single point-in-time check, aligning with the spirit of NIST.

By integrating NIST 800-63-3 with solutions like HYPR, organizations bridge business and security objectives. This approach can lead to reduced cyber liability insurance and operational cost savings from fewer password resets. Ultimately, it drastically minimizes the attack surface, creating a more resilient and secure digital environment.

Conclusion: Embracing a Secure Digital Identity Future

The NIST SP 800-63-3 Digital Identity Guidelines is crucial for modern digital identity management, emphasizing extensive identity proofing, strong phishing-resistant authentication, and secure federated identity practices. Their evolution highlights NIST's responsiveness to emerging threats like phishing, advocating for cryptographic authenticators.

Adhering to these guidelines is a critical strategic imperative, enhancing cybersecurity, reducing fraud, and improving user experience. NIST SP 800-63-3 remains vital for fostering trust in digital identities.

Organizations that proactively embrace and diligently implement these guidelines, especially by leveraging advanced and comprehensive identity assurance platforms like HYPR, are well-positioned to protect their invaluable digital assets and empower their users securely into a more productive digital future, where identity security truly starts here.

FAQs

Q: What is NIST SP 800-63-3? A: NIST SP 800-63-3 refers to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Digital Identity Guidelines, which provide a comprehensive framework for digital identity management, including identity proofing, authentication, and federated identity management.

Q: What are Identity Assurance Levels (IALs)? A: IALs are a critical part of the NIST Digital Identity Guidelines that signify the degree of certainty that a claimed digital identity corresponds to a real-world identity, with levels ranging from IAL1 (self-asserted) to IAL3 (requiring in-person verification).

Q: How does HYPR help with NIST compliance? A: HYPR's solutions, such as its FIDO Certified passwordless authentication and comprehensive identity verification platform (HYPR Affirm), directly assist organizations in achieving compliance with NIST 800-63-3 guidelines by providing high assurance levels (specifically AAL3 and IAL2 capabilities) and eliminating vulnerable, password-based authentication methods.

Related Resources:

• What Is Identity Assurance?
• Best Practices for Identity Proofing in the Workplace
• Understanding NIST-800-63: What is it? What to know

GET A DEMO >>>