Archived NIST Technical Series Publication 

The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. 

It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). 

Archived Publication 

Series/Number: 

Title: 

Publication Date(s): 

Withdrawal Date: 

Withdrawal Note: 

Superseding Publication(s) 

The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): 

Series/Number: 

Title: 

Author(s): 

Publication Date(s): 

URL/DOI: 

 

Additional Information (if applicable) 

Contact:

Latest revision of the 

attached publication: 

Related information: 

Withdrawal 

announcement (link): 

Date updated: ƵŐƵƐƚς, 2015 

NIST Special Publication 800-63-1

Electronic Authentication Guideline

December 2011

August 2013

SP 800-63-1 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of

SP 800-63-2 (August 2013).

NIST Special Publication 800-63-2

Electronic Authentication Guideline

William E. Burr, Donna F. Dodson, Elaine M. Newton, Ray A. Perlner,

W. Timothy Polk, Sarbari Gupta, Emad A. Nabbus

August 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2

Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab)

SP 800-63-2 (as of August 6, 2015)

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/eauthentication/

N/A
NIST Announces the Release of Special Publication (SP) 800-63-2, Electronic 

Authentication Guideline

September 4, 2013 

NIST has released Special Publication 800-63-2, Electronic Authentication 

Guideline. This recommendation provides technical guidelines for Federal 

agencies implementing electronic authentication and is not intended to constrain 

the development or use of standards outside of this purpose. The 

recommendation covers remote authentication of users (such as employees, 

contractors, or private individuals) interacting with government IT systems over 

open networks. It defines technical requirements for each of four levels of 

assurance in the areas of identity proofing, registration, tokens, management 

processes, authentication protocols and related assertions. This publication 

supersedes NIST Special Publication 800-63-1. 

This revision is a limited update of Special Publication 800-63-1 and 

substantive changes are made only in section 5. Registration and Issuance 

Processes. The substantive changes made to section 5 are intended to facilitate 

the use of professional credentials in the identity proofing process, and to reduce 

the need to use postal mail to an address of record to issue credentials for level 3 

remote registration.
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

NIST Special Publication 800-63-1 

Electronic Authentication 

Guideline 

Recommendations of the 

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

William E. Burr 

Donna F. Dodson 

Elaine M. Newton 

Ray A. Perlner 

W. Timothy Polk 

Sarbari Gupta 

Emad A. Nabbus 

I N F O R M A T I O N S E C U R I T Y 

Computer Security Division 

Information Technology Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930 

December 2011 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

John E. Bryson, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary for Standards and Technology and 

Director 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Reports on Computer Systems Technology 

The Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) promotes the U.S. economy and public welfare by providing technical 

leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure. ITL develops tests, test 

methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations, and technical analyses to advance the 

development and productive use of information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the 

development of management, administrative, technical, and physical standards and guidelines for 

the cost-effective security and privacy of other than national security-related information in 

federal information systems. The Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s research, 

guidelines, and outreach efforts in information system security, and its collaborative activities 

with industry, government, and academic organizations. 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Authority 

This publication has been developed by NIST to further its statutory responsibilities under the 

Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), Public Law (P.L.) 107-347. NIST is 

responsible for developing information security standards and guidelines, including minimum 

requirements for federal information systems, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to 

national security systems without the express approval of appropriate federal officials exercising 

policy authority over such systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Section 8b(3), Securing Agency 

Information Systems, as analyzed in Circular A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. 

Supplemental information is provided in Circular A-130, Appendix III, Security of Federal 

Automated Information Resources. 

Nothing in this publication should be taken to contradict the standards and guidelines made 

mandatory and binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory 

authority. Nor should these guidelines be interpreted as altering or superseding the existing 

authorities of the Secretary of Commerce, Director of the OMB, or any other federal official. 

This publication may be used by nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not 

subject to copyright in the United States. Attribution would, however, be appreciated by NIST. 

NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, 121 pages 

(December 2011) 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to 

describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply 

recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or 

equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

There may be references in this publication to other publications currently under development by NIST 

in accordance with its assigned statutory responsibilities. The information in this publication, including 

concepts and methodologies, may be used by federal agencies even before the completion of such 

companion publications. Thus, until each publication is completed, current requirements, guidelines, 

and procedures, where they exist, remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal 

agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new publications by NIST. 

Organizations are encouraged to review all draft publications during public comment periods and 

provide feedback to NIST, per the instructions provided for the draft document at 

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html. All NIST publications, other than the ones noted 

above, are available at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications. 

iii 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Abstract 

This recommendation provides technical guidelines for Federal agencies implementing 

electronic authentication and is not intended to constrain the development or use of 

standards outside of this purpose. The recommendation covers remote authentication of 

users (such as employees, contractors, or private individuals) interacting with government 

IT systems over open networks. It defines technical requirements for each of four levels 

of assurance in the areas of identity proofing, registration, tokens, management processes, 

authentication protocols and related assertions. This publication supersedes NIST SP 

800-63. 

KEY WORDS: Authentication, Authentication Assurance, Credential Service Provider, 

Cryptography, Electronic Authentication, Electronic Credentials, Electronic Transactions, 

Electronic Government, Identity Proofing, Passwords, PKI, Public Key Infrastructure, 

Tokens. 

iv 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Acknowledgments 

The authors, William Burr, Donna Dodson, Elaine Newton, Ray Perlner, Tim Polk of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Sarbari Gupta, and Emad 

Nabbus of Electrosoft, would like to acknowledge the contributions of our many 

reviewers, including Jim Fenton from Cisco, Hildegard Ferrailo from NIST, and Erika 

McCallister from NIST, as well as those from Enspier, Orion Security, and Mitre. 

v 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Executive Summary 

Electronic authentication (e-authentication) is the process of establishing confidence in 

user identities electronically presented to an information system. E-authentication 

presents a technical challenge when this process involves the remote authentication of 

individual people over an open network, for the purpose of electronic government and 

commerce. The guidelines in this document assume the authentication and transaction 

take place across an open network such as the Internet. In cases where the authentication 

and transaction take place over a controlled network, agencies may take these security 

controls into account as part of their risk assessment. 

This recommendation provides technical guidelines to agencies to allow an individual to 

remotely authenticate his or her identity to a Federal IT system. This document may 

inform but does not restrict or constrain the development or use of standards for 

application outside of the Federal government, such as e-commerce transactions. These 

guidelines address only traditional, widely implemented methods for remote 

authentication based on secrets. With these methods, the individual to be authenticated 

proves that he or she knows or possesses some secret information. 

Current government systems do not separate functions related to identity proofing in 

registration from credential issuance. In some applications, credentials (used in 

authentication) and attribute information (established through identity proofing) could be 

provided by different parties. While a simpler model is used in this document, it does not 

preclude agencies from separating these functions. 

These technical guidelines supplement OMB guidance, E-Authentication Guidance for 

Federal Agencies [OMB M-04-04] and supersede NIST SP 800-63. OMB M-04-04 

defines four levels of assurance, Levels 1 to 4, in terms of the consequences of 

authentication errors and misuse of credentials. Level 1 is the lowest assurance level, and 

Level 4 is the highest. The OMB guidance defines the required level of authentication 

assurance in terms of the likely consequences of an authentication error. As the 

consequences of an authentication error become more serious, the required level of 

assurance increases. The OMB guidance provides agencies with the criteria for 

determining the level of e-authentication assurance required for specific applications and 

transactions, based on the risks and their likelihood of occurrence of each application or 

transaction. 

OMB guidance outlines a 5-step process by which agencies should meet their eauthentication assurance requirements: 

1. Conduct a risk assessment of the government system. 

2. Map identified risks to the appropriate assurance level. 

3. Select technology based on e-authentication technical guidance. 

vi 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

4.	 Validate that the implemented system has met the required assurance level. 

5.	 Periodically reassess the information system to determine technology refresh 

requirements. 

This document provides guidelines for implementing the third step of the above process. 

After completing a risk assessment and mapping the identified risks to the required 

assurance level, agencies can select appropriate technology that, at a minimum, meets the 

technical requirements for the required level of assurance. In particular, the document 

states specific technical requirements for each of the four levels of assurance in the 

following areas: 

•	 Identity proofing and registration of Applicants (covered in Section 5), 

•	 Tokens (typically a cryptographic key or password) for authentication 

(covered in Section 6), 

•	 Token and credential management mechanisms used to establish and maintain 

token and credential information (covered in Section 7), 

•	 Protocols used to support the authentication mechanism between the Claimant 

and the Verifier (covered in Section 8), 

•	 Assertion mechanisms used to communicate the results of a remote 

authentication if these results are sent to other parties (covered in Section 9). 

A summary of the technical requirements for each of the four levels is provided below. 

Level 1 - Although there is no identity proofing requirement at this level, the 

authentication mechanism provides some assurance that the same Claimant who 

participated in previous transactions is accessing the protected transaction or data. It 

allows a wide range of available authentication technologies to be employed and permits 

the use of any of the token methods of Levels 2, 3, or 4. Successful authentication 

requires that the Claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that he or she 

possesses and controls the token. 

Plaintext passwords or secrets are not transmitted across a network at Level 1. However 

this level does not require cryptographic methods that block offline attacks by 

eavesdroppers. For example, simple password challenge-response protocols are allowed. 

In many cases an eavesdropper, having intercepted such a protocol exchange, will be able 

to find the password with a straightforward dictionary attack. 

At Level 1, long-term shared authentication secrets may be revealed to Verifiers. At 

Level 1, assertions and assertion references require protection from 

manufacture/modification and reuse attacks. 

Level 2 – Level 2 provides single factor remote network authentication. At Level 2, 

identity proofing requirements are introduced, requiring presentation of identifying 

materials or information. A wide range of available authentication technologies can be 

employed at Level 2. For single factor authentication, Memorized Secret Tokens, PreRegistered Knowledge Tokens, Look-up Secret Tokens, Out of Band Tokens, and Single 

vii 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Factor One-Time Password Devices are allowed at Level 2. Level 2 also permits any of 

the token methods of Levels 3 or 4. Successful authentication requires that the Claimant 

prove through a secure authentication protocol that he or she controls the token. Online 

guessing, replay, session hijacking, and eavesdropping attacks are resisted. Protocols are 

also required to be at least weakly resistant to man-in-the middle attacks as defined in 

Section 8.2.2. 

Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any other party 

except Verifiers operated by the Credential Service Provider (CSP); however, session 

(temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. In 

addition to Level 1 requirements, assertions are resistant to disclosure, redirection, 

capture and substitution attacks. Approved cryptographic techniques are required for all 

assertion protocols used at Level 2 and above. 

Level 3 – Level 3 provides multi-factor remote network authentication. At least two 

authentication factors are required. At this level, identity proofing procedures require 

verification of identifying materials and information. Level 3 authentication is based on 

proof of possession of the allowed types of tokens through a cryptographic protocol. 

Multi-factor Software Cryptographic Tokens are allowed at Level 3. Level 3 also permits 

any of the token methods of Level 4. Level 3 authentication requires cryptographic 

strength mechanisms that protect the primary authentication token against compromise by 

the protocol threats for all threats at Level 2 as well as verifier impersonation attacks. 

Various types of tokens may be used as described in Section 6. 

Authentication requires that the Claimant prove, through a secure authentication protocol, 

that he or she controls the token. The Claimant unlocks the token with a password or 

biometric, or uses a secure multi-token authentication protocol to establish two-factor 

authentication (through proof of possession of a physical or software token in 

combination with some memorized secret knowledge). Long-term shared authentication 

secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Verifiers 

operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be 

provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. In addition to Level 2 requirements, 

assertions are protected against repudiation by the Verifier. 

Level 4 – Level 4 is intended to provide the highest practical remote network 

authentication assurance. Level 4 authentication is based on proof of possession of a key 

through a cryptographic protocol. At this level, in-person identity proofing is required. 

Level 4 is similar to Level 3 except that only “hard” cryptographic tokens are allowed. 

The token is required to be a hardware cryptographic module validated at Federal 

Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at least 

FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. Level 4 token requirements can be met by using 

the PIV authentication key of a FIPS 201 compliant Personal Identity Verification (PIV) 

Card. 

Level 4 requires strong cryptographic authentication of all communicating parties and all 

sensitive data transfers between the parties. Either public key or symmetric key 

technology may be used. Authentication requires that the Claimant prove through a 

viii 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

secure authentication protocol that he or she controls the token. All protocol threats at 

Level 3 are required to be prevented at Level 4. Protocols shall also be strongly resistant 

to man-in-the-middle attacks. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never 

revealed to any party except the Claimant and Verifiers operated directly by the CSP; 

however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by 

the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. All sensitive 

data transfers are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication 

process. 

At Level 4, “bearer” assertions (as defined in Section 9) are not used to establish the 

identity of the Claimant to the Relying Party (RP). “Holder-of-key” assertions (as defined 

in Section 9) may be used, provided that the assertion contains a reference to a key that is 

possessed by the Subscriber and is cryptographically linked to the Level 4 token used to 

authenticate to the Verifier. The RP should maintain records of the assertions it receives, 

to support detection of a compromised verifier impersonating the subscriber. 

ix 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table of Contents 

1. Purpose........................................................................................................................ 1
 

2. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
 

3. Definitions and Abbreviations .................................................................................... 6
 

4. E-Authentication Model............................................................................................ 16
 

4.1. Overview........................................................................................................... 16
 

4.2. Subscribers, Registration Authorities and Credential Service Providers .......... 19
 

4.3. Tokens............................................................................................................... 20
 

4.4. Credentials ........................................................................................................ 22
 

4.5. Authentication Process...................................................................................... 23
 

4.6. Assertions.......................................................................................................... 24
 

4.7. Relying Parties.................................................................................................. 25
 

4.8. Calculating the Overall Authentication Assurance Level ................................. 25
 

5. Registration and Issuance Processes......................................................................... 27
 

5.1. Overview........................................................................................................... 27
 

5.2. Registration and Issuance Threats .................................................................... 28
 

5.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies ..................................................................... 29
 

5.3. Registration and Issuance Assurance Levels .................................................... 30
 

5.3.1. General Requirements per Assurance Level ............................................. 31
 

5.3.2. Requirements for Educational and Financial Institutions and Employers 36
 

5.3.3. Requirements for PKI Certificates Issued under FPKI and Mapped 

Policies 38
 

5.3.4. Requirements for One-Time Use .............................................................. 38
 

5.3.5. Requirements for Derived Credentials ...................................................... 39
 

6. Tokens....................................................................................................................... 40
 

6.1. Overview........................................................................................................... 40
 

6.1.1. Single-factor versus Multi-factor Tokens ................................................. 41
 

6.1.2. Token Types.............................................................................................. 41
 

6.1.3. Token Usage ............................................................................................. 43
 

6.1.4. Multi-Stage Authentication Using Tokens ............................................... 44
 

6.1.5. Assurance Level Escalation ...................................................................... 44
 

6.2. Token Threats ................................................................................................... 45
 

6.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies ..................................................................... 47
 

6.3. Token Assurance Levels................................................................................... 48
 

6.3.1. Requirements per Assurance Level .......................................................... 48
 

7. Token and Credential Management .......................................................................... 55
 

7.1. Overview........................................................................................................... 55
 

7.1.1. Categorizing Credentials........................................................................... 55
 

7.1.2. Token and Credential Management Activities ......................................... 56
 

7.2. Token and Credential Management Threats ..................................................... 58
 

7.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies ..................................................................... 60
 

7.3. Token and Credential Management Assurance Levels ..................................... 60
 

7.3.1. Requirements per Assurance Level .......................................................... 60
 

7.3.2. Relationship of PKI Policies to E-Authentication Assurance Levels ....... 66
 

x 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

8. Authentication Process.............................................................................................. 67
 

8.1. Overview........................................................................................................... 67
 

8.2. Authentication Process Threats......................................................................... 68
 

8.2.1. Other Threats ............................................................................................ 69
 

8.2.2. Threat Mitigation Strategies ..................................................................... 70
 

8.2.3. Throttling Mechanisms ............................................................................. 73
 

8.2.4. Phishing and Pharming (Verifier Impersonation): Supplementary 

Countermeasures ....................................................................................................... 75
 

8.3. Authentication Process Assurance Levels ........................................................ 77
 

8.3.1. Threat Resistance per Assurance Level .................................................... 77
 

8.3.2. Requirements per Assurance Level .......................................................... 78
 

9. Assertions.................................................................................................................. 81
 

9.1. Overview........................................................................................................... 81
 

9.1.1. Cookies ..................................................................................................... 85
 

9.1.2. Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Assertions ...................... 86
 

9.1.3. Kerberos Tickets ....................................................................................... 86
 

9.2. Assertion Threats .............................................................................................. 87
 

9.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies ..................................................................... 89
 

9.3. Assertion Assurance Levels .............................................................................. 92
 

9.3.1. Threat Resistance per Assurance Level .................................................... 92
 

9.3.2. Requirements per Assurance Level .......................................................... 93
 

10. References............................................................................................................. 97
 

10.1. General References ........................................................................................... 97
 

10.2. NIST Special Publications ................................................................................ 98
 

10.3. Federal Information Processing Standards ....................................................... 99
 

10.4. Certificate Policies ............................................................................................ 99
 

Appendix A: Estimating Entropy and Strength .............................................................. 101
 

Password Entropy ....................................................................................................... 101
 

A.1 Randomly Selected Passwords ....................................................................... 102
 

A.2 User Selected Passwords................................................................................. 103
 

A.3 Other Types of Passwords .............................................................................. 106
 

Appendix B: Mapping of Federal PKI Certificate Policies to E-authentication Assurance 

Levels.............................................................................................................................. 109
 

xi 
 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

1. Purpose 

This recommendation provides technical guidelines to agencies for the implementation of 

electronic authentication (e-authentication). 

2. Introduction 

Electronic authentication (e-authentication) is the process of establishing confidence in 

user identities electronically presented to an information system. E-authentication 

presents a technical challenge when this process involves the remote authentication of 

individual people over a network. This recommendation provides technical guidelines to 

agencies to allow an individual person to remotely authenticate his/her identity to a 

Federal Information Technology (IT) system. This recommendation also provides 

guidelines for Registration Authorities (RAs), Verifiers, Relying Parties (RPs) and 

Credential Service Providers (CSPs). 

Current government systems do not separate the functions of authentication and attribute 

providers. In some applications, these functions are provided by different parties. While a 

combined authentication and attribute provider model is used in this document, it does 

not preclude agencies from separating these functions. 

These technical guidelines supplement OMB guidance, E-Authentication Guidance for 

Federal Agencies [OMB M-04-04] and supersede NIST SP 800-63. OMB M-04-04 

defines four levels of assurance, Levels 1 to 4, in terms of the consequences of 

authentication errors and misuse of credentials. Level 1 is the lowest assurance level and 

Level 4 is the highest. The guidance defines the required level of authentication assurance 

in terms of the likely consequences of an authentication error. As the consequences of an 

authentication error become more serious, the required level of assurance increases. The 

OMB guidance provides agencies with criteria for determining the level of eauthentication assurance required for specific electronic transactions and systems, based 

on the risks and their likelihood of occurrence. 

OMB guidance outlines a 5 step process by which agencies should meet their eauthentication assurance requirements: 

1.	 Conduct a risk assessment of the government system – No specific risk 

assessment methodology is prescribed for this purpose, however the e-RA 

tool1

 at <http://www.idmanagement.gov/> is an example of a suitable tool and 

methodology, while NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-30 [SP 800-30] offers 

a general process for Risk Assessment and Risk Mitigation. 

1

 At the time of publication, the specific URL for this tool is at 

<http://www.idmanagement.gov/drilldown.cfm?action=era>. Alternatively, the tool can be found by
 

searching for “Electronic Risk and Requirements Assessment (e-RA)” at 

<http://www.idmanagement.gov/>. 

1
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

2.	 Map identified risks to the appropriate assurance level – Section 2.2 of OMB 

M-04-04 provides the guidance necessary for agencies to perform this 

mapping. 

3.	 Select technology based on e-authentication technical guidance – After the 

appropriate assurance level has been determined, OMB guidance states that 

agencies should select technologies that meet the corresponding technical 

requirements, as specified by this document. Some agencies may possess 

existing e-authentication technology. Agencies should verify that any existing 

technology meets the requirements specified in this document. 

4.	 Validate that the implemented system has met the required assurance level – 

As some implementations may create or compound particular risks, agencies 

should conduct a final validation to confirm that the system achieves the 

required assurance level for the user-to-agency process. NIST SP 800-53A 

[SP 800-53A] provides guidelines for the assessment of the implemented 

system during the validation process. Validation should be performed as part 

of a security authorization process as described in NIST SP 800-37, Revision 

1 [SP 800-37]. 

5.	 Periodically reassess the information system to determine technology refresh 

requirements – The agency shall periodically reassess the information system 

to ensure that the identity authentication requirements continue to be satisfied. 

NIST SP 800-37, Revision 1 [SP 800-37] provides guidelines on the 

frequency, depth and breadth of periodic reassessments. As with the initial 

validation process, agencies should follow the assessment guidelines specified 

in SP 800-53A [SP 800-53A] for conducting the security assessment. 

This document provides guidelines for implementing the third step of the above process. 

In particular, this document states specific technical requirements for each of the four 

levels of assurance in the following areas: 

•	 Registration and identity proofing of Applicants (covered in Section 5); 

•	 Tokens (typically a cryptographic key or password) for authentication 

(covered in Section 6); 

•	 Token and credential management mechanisms used to establish and maintain 

token and credential information (covered in Section 7); 

•	 Protocols used to support the authentication mechanism between the Claimant 

and the Verifier (covered in Section 8); 

•	 Assertion mechanisms used to communicate the results of a remote 

authentication, if these results are sent to other parties (covered in Section 9). 

The overall authentication assurance level is determined by the lowest assurance level 

achieved in any of the areas listed above. 

Agencies may adjust the level of assurance using additional risk mitigation measures. 

Easing credential assurance level requirements may increase the size of the enabled 

customer pool, but agencies shall ensure that this does not corrupt the system’s choice of 

2
 
 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

the appropriate assurance level. Alternatively, agencies may consider partitioning the 

functionality of an e-authentication enabled application to allow less sensitive functions 

to be available at a lower level of authentication and attribute assurance, while more 

sensitive functions are available only at a higher level of assurance. 

These technical guidelines cover remote electronic authentication of human users to IT 

systems over a network. They do not address the authentication of a person who is 

physically present, for example, for access to buildings, although some credentials and 

tokens that are used remotely may also be used for local authentication. These technical 

guidelines establish requirements that Federal IT systems and service providers 

participating in authentication protocols be authenticated to Subscribers. However, these 

guidelines do not specifically address machine-to-machine (such as router-to-router) 

authentication, or establish specific requirements for issuing authentication credentials 

and tokens to machines and servers when they are used in e-authentication protocols with 

people. 

The paradigm of this document is that individuals are enrolled and undergo a registration 

process in which their identity is bound to a token. Thereafter, the individuals are 

remotely authenticated to systems and applications over a network, using the token in an 

authentication protocol. The authentication protocol allows an individual to demonstrate 

to a Verifier that he or she has possession and control of the token2

, in a manner that 

protects the token secret from compromise by different kinds of attacks. Higher 

authentication assurance levels require use of stronger tokens, better protection of the 

token and related secrets from attacks, and stronger registration procedures. 

This document focuses on tokens that are difficult to forge because they contain some 

type of secret information that is not available to unauthorized parties and that is 

preferably not used in unrelated contexts. Certain authentication technologies, 

particularly biometrics and knowledge based authentication, use information that is 

private rather than secret. While they are discussed to a limited degree, they are largely 

avoided because their security is often weak or difficult to quantify3

, especially in the 

remote situations that are the primary scope of this document. 

Knowledge based authentication achieves authentication by testing the personal 

knowledge of the individual against information obtained from public databases. As this 

information is considered private but not actually secret, confidence in the identity of an 

individual can be hard to achieve. In addition, the complexity and interdependencies of 

knowledge based authentication systems are difficult to quantify. However, knowledge 

based authentication techniques are included as part of registration in this document. In 

addition, pre-registered knowledge techniques are accepted as an alternative to passwords 

at lower levels of assurance. 

2

 See Section 3 for the definition of “token” as used in this document, which is consistent with the original 

version of SP 800-63, but there are a variety of definitions used in the area of authentication. 

3

 For example, see article by V. Griffith and M. Jakobsson, entitled “Messin’ with Texas – Deriving 

Mother’s Maiden Names Using Public Records,” in RSA CryptoBytes, Winter 2007. 

3
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Biometric characteristics do not constitute secrets suitable for use in the conventional 

remote authentication protocols addressed in this document either. In the local 

authentication case, where the Claimant is observed by an attendant and uses a capture 

device controlled by the Verifier, authentication does not require that biometrics be kept 

secret. This document supports the use of biometrics to “unlock” conventional 

authentication tokens, to prevent repudiation of registration, and to verify that the same 

individual participates in all phases of the registration process. 

This document identifies minimum technical requirements for remotely authenticating 

identity. Agencies may determine based on their risk analysis that additional measures 

are appropriate in certain contexts. In particular, privacy requirements and legal risks may 

lead agencies to determine that additional authentication measures or other process 

safeguards are appropriate. When developing e-authentication processes and systems, 

agencies should consult OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the 

E-Government Act of 2002 [OMB M-03-22]. See the Guide to Federal Agencies on 

Implementing Electronic Processes [DOJ 2000] for additional information on legal risks, 

especially those that are related to the need to satisfy legal standards of proof and prevent 

repudiation, as well as Use of Electronic Signatures in Federal Organization 

Transactions [GSA ESIG]. 

Additionally, Federal agencies implementing these guidelines should adhere to the 

requirements of Title III of the E-Government Act, entitled the Federal Information 

Security Management Act [FISMA], and the related NIST standards and guidelines. 

FISMA directs Federal agencies to develop, document, and implement agency-wide 

programs to provide information security for the information and information systems 

that support the operations and assets of the agency. This includes the security 

authorization of IT systems that support e-authentication. It is recommended that nonFederal entities implementing these guidelines follow equivalent standards of security 

management, certification and accreditation to ensure the secure operations of their eauthentication systems. 

This document has been updated to reflect current (token) technologies and has been 

restructured to provide a better understanding of the e-authentication architectural model 

used here. Additional (minimum) technical requirements have been specified for the 

CSP, protocols utilized to transport authentication information, and assertions if 

implemented within the e-authentication model. Other changes since NIST SP 800-63 

was originally published include: 

•	 Recognition of more types of tokens, including pre-registered knowledge token, lookup secret token, out-of-band token, as well as some terminology changes for more 

conventional token types; 

•	 Detailed requirements for assertion protocols and Kerberos; 

•	 A new section on token and credential management; 

•	 Simplification of guidelines for password entropy and throttling; 

•	 Emphasis that the document is aimed at Federal IT systems; 

•	 Recognition of different models, including a broader e-authentication model (in 

contrast to the simpler model common among Federal IT systems shown in Figure 1) 

4
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

and an additional assertion model, the Proxy Model, presented in Figure 6; 

•	 Clarification of differences between Levels 3 and 4 in Table 12; and 

•	 New guidelines that permit leveraging existing credentials to issue derived 

credentials. 

The subsequent sections present a series of recommendations for the secure 

implementation of RAs, CSPs, Verifiers, and RPs. It should be noted that secure 

implementation of any one of these can only provide the desired level of assurance if the 

others are also implemented securely. Therefore, the following assumptions have been 

made in this guideline: 

• RAs, CSPs, and Verifiers are trusted entities. Agencies implementing any of 

the above trusted entities have some assurance that all other trusted entities 

with which the agency interacts are also implemented appropriately for the 

desired security level. 

•	 The RP is not considered a trusted entity. However, in some authentication 

systems the Verifier maintains a relationship with the RP to facilitate secure 

communications and may employ security controls which only attain their full 

value when the RP acts responsibly. The Subscriber also trusts the RP to 

properly perform the requested service and to follow all relevant privacy 

policy. 

•	 It is assumed that there exists a process of certification through which 

agencies can obtain the above assurance for trusted entities which they do not 

implement themselves. 

•	 A trusted entity is considered to be implemented appropriately if it complies 

with the recommendations in this document and does not behave maliciously. 

•	 While it is generally assumed that trusted entities will not behave maliciously, 

this document does contain some recommendations to reduce and isolate any 

damage done by a malicious or negligent trusted entity. 

5
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

3. Definitions and Abbreviations 

There are a variety of definitions used in the area of authentication. We have kept terms 

consistent with the original version of SP 800-63. Pay careful attention to how the terms 

are defined here. 

Active Attack An attack on the authentication protocol where the Attacker transmits 

data to the Claimant, Credential Service Provider, Verifier, or Relying 

Party. Examples of active attacks include man-in-the-middle, 

impersonation, and session hijacking. 

Address of Record The official location where an individual can be found. The address of 

record always includes the residential street address of an individual 

and may also include the mailing address of the individual. In very 

limited circumstances, an Army Post Office box number, Fleet Post 

Office box number or the street address of next of kin or of another 

contact individual can be used when a residential street address for the 

individual is not available. 

Approved Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) approved or NIST 

recommended. An algorithm or technique that is either 1) specified in a 

FIPS or NIST Recommendation, or 2) adopted in a FIPS or NIST 

Recommendation. 

Applicant A party undergoing the processes of registration and identity proofing. 

Assertion A statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains 

identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain 

verified attributes. 

Assertion Reference A data object, created in conjunction with an assertion, which identifies 

the Verifier and includes a pointer to the full assertion held by the 

Verifier. 

Assurance In the context of OMB M-04-04 and this document, assurance is 

defined as 1) the degree of confidence in the vetting process used to 

establish the identity of an individual to whom the credential 

was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who 

uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. 

Asymmetric Keys Two related keys, a public key and a private key that are used to 

perform complementary operations, such as encryption and decryption 

or signature generation and signature verification. 

Attack An attempt by an unauthorized individual to fool a Verifier or a 

Relying Party into believing that the unauthorized individual in 

question is the Subscriber. 

Attacker A party who acts with malicious intent to compromise an information 

system. 

Attribute A claim of a named quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to 

someone or something. (See term in [ICAM] for more information.) 

Authentication The process of establishing confidence in the identity of users or 

information systems. 

6
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Authentication 

Protocol 

A defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that 

demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid 

token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the 

Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. 

Authentication 

Protocol Run 

An exchange of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that 

results in authentication (or authentication failure) between the two 

parties. 

Authentication Secret A generic term for any secret value that could be used by an Attacker to 

impersonate the Subscriber in an authentication protocol. 

These are further divided into short-term authentication secrets, which 

are only useful to an Attacker for a limited period of time, and longterm authentication secrets, which allow an Attacker to impersonate 

the Subscriber until they are manually reset. The token secret is the 

canonical example of a long term authentication secret, while the token 

authenticator, if it is different from the token secret, is usually a short 

term authentication secret. 

Authenticity The property that data originated from its purported source. 

Bearer Assertion An assertion that does not provide a mechanism for the Subscriber to 

prove that he or she is the rightful owner of the assertion. The RP has to 

assume that the assertion was issued to the Subscriber who presents the 

assertion or the corresponding assertion reference to the RP. 

Bit A binary digit: 0 or 1. 

Biometrics Automated recognition of individuals based on their behavioral and 

biological characteristics. 

In this document, biometrics may be used to unlock authentication 

tokens and prevent repudiation of registration. 

Certificate Authority 

(CA) 

A trusted entity that issues and revokes public key certificates. 

Certificate Revocation 

List (CRL) 

A list of revoked public key certificates created and digitally signed by 

a Certificate Authority. See [RFC 5280]. 

Challenge-Response 

Protocol 

An authentication protocol where the Verifier sends the Claimant a 

challenge (usually a random value or a nonce) that the Claimant 

combines with a secret (such as by hashing the challenge and a shared 

secret together, or by applying a private key operation to the challenge) 

to generate a response that is sent to the Verifier. The Verifier can 

independently verify the response generated by the Claimant (such as 

by re-computing the hash of the challenge and the shared secret and 

comparing to the response, or performing a public key operation on the 

response) and establish that the Claimant possesses and controls the 

secret. 

Claimant A party whose identity is to be verified using an authentication 

protocol. 

7
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Claimed Address The physical location asserted by an individual (e.g. an applicant) 

where he/she can be reached. It includes the residential street address of 

an individual and may also include the mailing address of the 

individual. 

For example, a person with a foreign passport, living in the U.S., will 

need to give an address when going through the identity proofing 

process. This address would not be an “address of record” but a 

“claimed address.” 

Completely 

Automated Public 

Turing test to tell 

Computers and 

Humans Apart 

(CAPTCHA) 

An interactive feature added to web-forms to distinguish use of the 

form by humans as opposed to automated agents. Typically, it requires 

entering text corresponding to a distorted image or from a sound 

stream. 

Cookie A character string, placed in a web browser’s memory, which is 

available to websites within the same Internet domain as the server that 

placed them in the web browser. 

Cookies are used for many purposes and may be assertions or may 

contain pointers to assertions. See Section 9.1.1 for more information. 

Credential An object or data structure that authoritatively binds an identity (and 

optionally, additional attributes) to a token possessed and controlled by 

a Subscriber. 

While common usage often assumes that the credential is maintained 

by the Subscriber, this document also uses the term to refer to 

electronic records maintained by the CSP which establish a binding 

between the Subscriber’s token and identity. 

Credential Service A trusted entity that issues or registers Subscriber tokens and issues 

Provider (CSP) electronic credentials to Subscribers. The CSP may encompass 

Registration Authorities (RAs) and Verifiers that it operates. A CSP 

may be an independent third party, or may issue credentials for its own 

use. 

Cross Site Request An attack in which a Subscriber who is currently authenticated to an 

Forgery (CSRF) RP and connected through a secure session, browses to an Attacker’s 

website which causes the Subscriber to unknowingly invoke unwanted 

actions at the RP. 

For example, if a bank website is vulnerable to a CSRF attack, it may 

be possible for a Subscriber to unintentionally authorize a large money 

transfer, merely by viewing a malicious link in a webmail message 

while a connection to the bank is open in another browser window. 

8
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Cross Site Scripting 

(XSS) 

A vulnerability that allows attackers to inject malicious code into an 

otherwise benign website. These scripts acquire the permissions of 

scripts generated by the target website and can therefore compromise 

the confidentiality and integrity of data transfers between the website 

and client. Websites are vulnerable if they display user supplied data 

from requests or forms without sanitizing the data so that it is not 

executable. 

Cryptographic Key A value used to control cryptographic operations, such as decryption, 

encryption, signature generation or signature verification. For the 

purposes of this document, key requirements shall meet the minimum 

requirements stated in Table 2 of NIST SP 800-57 Part 1. 

See also Asymmetric keys, Symmetric key. 

Cryptographic Token A token where the secret is a cryptographic key. 

Data Integrity The property that data has not been altered by an unauthorized entity. 

Derived Credential A credential issued based on proof of possession and control of a token 

associated with a previously issued credential, so as not to duplicate the 

identity proofing process. 

Digital Signature An asymmetric key operation where the private key is used to digitally 

sign data and the public key is used to verify the signature. Digital 

signatures provide authenticity protection, integrity protection, and 

non-repudiation. 

Eavesdropping Attack An attack in which an Attacker listens passively to the authentication 

protocol to capture information which can be used in a subsequent 

active attack to masquerade as the Claimant. 

Electronic 

Authentication (EAuthentication) 

The process of establishing confidence in user identities electronically 

presented to an information system. 

Entropy A measure of the amount of uncertainty that an Attacker faces to 

determine the value of a secret. Entropy is usually stated in bits. See 

Appendix A. 

Extensible Mark-up 

Language (XML) 

Extensible Markup Language, abbreviated XML, describes a class of 

data objects called XML documents and partially describes the 

behavior of computer programs which process them. 

Federal Bridge 

Certification Authority 

(FBCA) 

The FBCA is the entity operated by the Federal Public Key Infrastructure 

(FPKI) Management Authority that is authorized by the Federal PKI 

Policy Authority to create, sign, and issue public key certificates to 

Principal CAs. 

Federal Information 

Security Management 

Act (FISMA) 

Title III of the E-Government Act requiring each federal agency to 

develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide 

information security for the information and information systems that 

support the operations and assets of the agency, including those 

provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source. 

9
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Federal Information 

Processing Standard 

(FIPS) 

Under the Information Technology Management Reform Act (Public 

Law 104-106), the Secretary of Commerce approves standards and 

guidelines that are developed by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) for Federal computer systems. These standards and 

guidelines are issued by NIST as Federal Information Processing 

Standards (FIPS) for use government-wide. NIST develops FIPS when 

there are compelling Federal government requirements such as for 

security and interoperability and there are no acceptable industry 

standards or solutions. See background information for more details. 

FIPS documents are available online through the FIPS home page: 

http://www.nist.gov/itl/fips.cfm 

Guessing Entropy A measure of the difficulty that an Attacker has to guess the average 

password used in a system. In this document, entropy is stated in bits. 

When a password has n-bits of guessing entropy then an Attacker has 

as much difficulty guessing the average password as in guessing an nbit random quantity. The Attacker is assumed to know the actual 

password frequency distribution. See Appendix A. 

Hash Function A function that maps a bit string of arbitrary length to a fixed length bit 

string. Approved hash functions satisfy the following properties: 

1. (One-way) It is computationally infeasible to find any input that 

maps to any pre-specified output, and 

2. (Collision resistant) It is computationally infeasible to find any two 

distinct inputs that map to the same output. 

Holder-of-Key An assertion that contains a reference to a symmetric key or a public 

Assertion key (corresponding to a private key) held by the Subscriber. The RP 

may authenticate the Subscriber by verifying that he or she can indeed 

prove possession and control of the referenced key. 

Identity A set of attributes that uniquely describe a person within a given 

context. 

Identity Proofing The process by which a CSP and a Registration Authority (RA) collect 

and verify information about a person for the purpose of issuing 

credentials to that person. 

Kerberos A widely used authentication protocol developed at MIT. In “classic” 

Kerberos, users share a secret password with a Key Distribution Center 

(KDC). The user, Alice, who wishes to communicate with another user, 

Bob, authenticates to the KDC and is furnished a “ticket” by the KDC 

to use to authenticate with Bob. 

When Kerberos authentication is based on passwords, the protocol is 

known to be vulnerable to off-line dictionary attacks by eavesdroppers 

who capture the initial user-to- KDC exchange. Longer password 

length and complexity provide some mitigation to this vulnerability, 

although sufficiently long passwords tend to be cumbersome for users. 

10
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Knowledge Based Authentication of an individual based on knowledge of information 

Authentication associated with his or her claimed identity in public databases. 

Knowledge of such information is considered to be private rather than 

secret, because it may be used in contexts other than authentication to a 

Verifier, thereby reducing the overall assurance associated with the 

authentication process. 

Man-in-the-Middle 

Attack (MitM) 

An attack on the authentication protocol run in which the Attacker 

positions himself or herself in between the Claimant and Verifier so 

that he can intercept and alter data traveling between them. 

Message A cryptographic checksum on data that uses a symmetric key to detect 

Authentication Code both accidental and intentional modifications of the data. MACs 

(MAC) provide authenticity and integrity protection, but not non-repudiation 

protection. 

Min-entropy A measure of the difficulty that an Attacker has to guess the most 

commonly chosen password used in a system. In this document, 

entropy is stated in bits. When a password has n-bits of min-entropy 

then an Attacker requires as many trials to find a user with that 

password as is needed to guess an n-bit random quantity. The Attacker 

is assumed to know the most commonly used password(s). See 

Appendix A. 

Multi-Factor A characteristic of an authentication system or a token that uses more 

than one authentication factor. 

The three types of authentication factors are something you know, 

something you have, and something you are. 

Network An open communications medium, typically the Internet, that is used to 

transport messages between the Claimant and other parties. Unless 

otherwise stated, no assumptions are made about the security of the 

network; it is assumed to be open and subject to active (i.e., 

impersonation, man-in-the-middle, session hijacking) and passive (i.e., 

eavesdropping) attack at any point between the parties (e.g., Claimant, 

Verifier, CSP or RP). 

Nonce A value used in security protocols that is never repeated with the same 

key. For example, nonces used as challenges in challenge-response 

authentication protocols must not be repeated until authentication keys 

are changed. Otherwise, there is a possibility of a replay attack. Using 

a nonce as a challenge is a different requirement than a random 

challenge, because a nonce is not necessarily unpredictable. 

Off-line Attack An attack where the Attacker obtains some data (typically by 

eavesdropping on an authentication protocol run or by penetrating a 

system and stealing security files) that he/she is able to analyze in a 

system of his/her own choosing. 

Online Attack An attack against an authentication protocol where the Attacker either 

assumes the role of a Claimant with a genuine Verifier or actively alters 

the authentication channel. 

11
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Online Guessing 

Attack 

An attack in which an Attacker performs repeated logon trials by 

guessing possible values of the token authenticator. 

Passive Attack An attack against an authentication protocol where the Attacker 

intercepts data traveling along the network between the Claimant and 

Verifier, but does not alter the data (i.e., eavesdropping). 

Password A secret that a Claimant memorizes and uses to authenticate his or her 

identity. Passwords are typically character strings. 

Personal Identification 

Number (PIN) 

A password consisting only of decimal digits. 

Personal Identity 

Verification (PIV) 

Card 

Defined by [FIPS 201] as a physical artifact (e.g., identity card, smart 

card) issued to federal employees and contractors that contains stored 

credentials (e.g., photograph, cryptographic keys, digitized fingerprint 

representation) so that the claimed identity of the cardholder can be 

verified against the stored credentials by another person (human 

readable and verifiable) or an automated process (computer readable 

and verifiable). 

Personally Identifiable 

Information (PII) 

Defined by GAO Report 08-536 as “Any information about an 

individual maintained by an agency, including (1) any information that 

can be used to distinguish or trace an individual‘s identity, such as 

name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother‘s maiden 

name, or biometric records; and (2) any other information that is linked 

or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and 

employment information.” 

Pharming An attack in which an Attacker corrupts an infrastructure service such 

as DNS (Domain Name Service) causing the Subscriber to be 

misdirected to a forged Verifier/RP, which could cause the Subscriber 

to reveal sensitive information, download harmful software or 

contribute to a fraudulent act. 

Phishing An attack in which the Subscriber is lured (usually through an email) to 

interact with a counterfeit Verifier/RP and tricked into revealing 

information that can be used to masquerade as that Subscriber to the 

real Verifier/RP. 

Possession and control 

of a token 

The ability to activate and use the token in an authentication protocol. 

Practice Statement A formal statement of the practices followed by the parties to an 

authentication process (i.e., RA, CSP, or Verifier). It usually describes 

the policies and practices of the parties and can become legally binding. 

Private Credentials Credentials that cannot be disclosed by the CSP because the contents 

can be used to compromise the token. (For more discussion, see Section 

7.1.1.) 

Private Key The secret part of an asymmetric key pair that is used to digitally sign 

or decrypt data. 

12
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Protected Session A session wherein messages between two participants are encrypted 

and integrity is protected using a set of shared secrets called session 

keys. 

A participant is said to be authenticated if, during the session, he, she 

or it proves possession of a long term token in addition to the session 

keys, and if the other party can verify the identity associated with that 

token. If both participants are authenticated, the protected session is 

said to be mutually authenticated. 

Pseudonym A false name. 

In this document, all unverified names are assumed to be pseudonyms. 

Public Credentials Credentials that describe the binding in a way that does not 

compromise the token. (For more discussion, see Section 7.1.1.) 

Public Key The public part of an asymmetric key pair that is used to verify 

signatures or encrypt data. 

Public Key Certificate A digital document issued and digitally signed by the private key of a 

Certificate authority that binds the name of a Subscriber to a public 

key. The certificate indicates that the Subscriber identified in the 

certificate has sole control and access to the private key. See also [RFC 

5280]. 

Public Key 

Infrastructure (PKI) 

A set of policies, processes, server platforms, software and 

workstations used for the purpose of administering certificates and 

public-private key pairs, including the ability to issue, maintain, and 

revoke public key certificates. 

Registration The process through which an Applicant applies to become a 

Subscriber of a CSP and an RA validates the identity of the Applicant 

on behalf of the CSP. 

Registration Authority 

(RA) 

A trusted entity that establishes and vouches for the identity or 

attributes of a Subscriber to a CSP. The RA may be an integral part of a 

CSP, or it may be independent of a CSP, but it has a relationship to the 

CSP(s). 

Relying Party (RP) An entity that relies upon the Subscriber's token and credentials or a 

Verifier's assertion of a Claimant’s identity, typically to process a 

transaction or grant access to information or a system. 

Remote (As in remote authentication or remote transaction) An information 

exchange between network-connected devices where the information 

cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization’s 

security controls. 

Note: Any information exchange across the Internet is considered 

remote. 

Replay Attack An attack in which the Attacker is able to replay previously captured 

messages (between a legitimate Claimant and a Verifier) to masquerade 

as that Claimant to the Verifier or vice versa. 

13
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Risk Assessment The process of identifying the risks to system security and determining 

the probability of occurrence, the resulting impact, and additional 

safeguards that would mitigate this impact. Part of Risk Management 

and synonymous with Risk Analysis. 

Salt A non-secret value that is used in a cryptographic process, usually to 

ensure that the results of computations for one instance cannot be 

reused by an Attacker. 

Secondary 

Authenticator 

A temporary secret, issued by the Verifier to a successfully 

authenticated Subscriber as part of an assertion protocol. This secret is 

subsequently used, by the Subscriber, to authenticate to the RP. 

Examples of secondary authenticators include bearer assertions, 

assertion references, and Kerberos session keys. 

Secure Sockets Layer 

(SSL) 

An authentication and security protocol widely implemented in 

browsers and web servers. SSL has been superseded by the newer 

Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol; TLS 1.0 is effectively SSL 

version 3.1. 

Security Assertion 

Mark-up Language 

(SAML) 

An XML-based security specification developed by the Organization 

for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) for 

exchanging authentication (and authorization) information between 

trusted entities over the Internet. See [SAML]. 

SAML Authentication 

Assertion 

A SAML assertion that conveys information from a Verifier to an RP 

about a successful act of authentication that took place between the 

Verifier and a Subscriber. 

Session Hijack Attack An attack in which the Attacker is able to insert himself or herself 

between a Claimant and a Verifier subsequent to a successful 

authentication exchange between the latter two parties. The Attacker is 

able to pose as a Subscriber to the Verifier or vice versa to control 

session data exchange. Sessions between the Claimant and the Relying 

Party can also be similarly compromised. 

Shared Secret A secret used in authentication that is known to the Claimant and the 

Verifier. 

Social Engineering The act of deceiving an individual into revealing sensitive information 

by associating with the individual to gain confidence and trust. 

Special Publication 

(SP) 

A type of publication issued by NIST. Specifically, the Special 

Publication 800-series reports on the Information Technology 

Laboratory's research, guidelines, and outreach efforts in computer 

security, and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and 

academic organizations. 

Strongly Bound 

Credentials 

Credentials that describe the binding between a user and token in a 

tamper-evident fashion. (For more discussion, see Section 7.1.1.) 

Subscriber A party who has received a credential or token from a CSP. 

Symmetric Key A cryptographic key that is used to perform both the cryptographic 

operation and its inverse, for example to encrypt and decrypt, or create 

a message authentication code and to verify the code. 

14
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Token Something that the Claimant possesses and controls (typically a 

cryptographic module or password) that is used to authenticate the 

Claimant’s identity. 

Token Authenticator The output value generated by a token. The ability to generate valid 

token authenticators on demand proves that the Claimant possesses and 

controls the token. Protocol messages sent to the Verifier are dependent 

upon the token authenticator, but they may or may not explicitly 

contain it. 

Token Secret The secret value, contained within a token, which is used to derive 

token authenticators. 

Transport Layer 

Security (TLS) 

An authentication and security protocol widely implemented in 

browsers and web servers. TLS is defined by [RFC 2246], [RFC 3546], 

and [RFC 5246]. TLS is similar to the older Secure Sockets Layer 

(SSL) protocol, and TLS 1.0 is effectively SSL version 3.1. NIST SP 

800-52, Guidelines for the Selection and Use of Transport Layer 

Security (TLS) Implementations specifies how TLS is to be used in 

government applications. 

Trust Anchor A public or symmetric key that is trusted because it is directly built into 

hardware or software, or securely provisioned via out-of-band means, 

rather than because it is vouched for by another trusted entity (e.g. in a 

public key certificate). 

Unverified Name A Subscriber name that is not verified as meaningful by identity 

proofing. 

Valid In reference to an ID, the quality of not being expired or revoked. 

Verified Name A Subscriber name that has been verified by identity proofing. 

Verifier An entity that verifies the Claimant’s identity by verifying the 

Claimant’s possession and control of a token using an authentication 

protocol. To do this, the Verifier may also need to validate credentials 

that link the token and identity and check their status. 

Verifier Impersonation 

Attack 

A scenario where the Attacker impersonates the Verifier in an 

authentication protocol, usually to capture information that can be used 

to masquerade as a Claimant to the real Verifier. 

Weakly Bound 

Credentials 

Credentials that describe the binding between a user and token in a 

manner than can be modified without invalidating the credential. (For 

more discussion, see Section 7.1.1.) 

Zeroize Overwrite a memory location with data consisting entirely of bits with 

the value zero so that the data is destroyed and not recoverable. This is 

often contrasted with deletion methods that merely destroy reference to 

data within a file system rather than the data itself. 

Zero-knowledge 

Password Protocol 

A password based authentication protocol that allows a claimant to 

authenticate to a Verifier without revealing the password to the 

Verifier. Examples of such protocols are EKE, SPEKE and SRP. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

4. E-Authentication Model 

4.1. Overview 

In accordance with [OMB M-04-04], e-authentication is the process of establishing 

confidence in user identities electronically presented to an information system. Systems 

can use the authenticated identity to determine if that individual is authorized to perform 

an electronic transaction. In most cases, the authentication and transaction take place 

across an open network such as the Internet; however, in some cases access to the 

network may be limited and access control decisions may take this into account. 

The e-authentication model used in these guidelines reflects current technologies and 

architectures used in government. More complex models that separate functions, such as 

issuing credentials and providing attributes, among larger numbers of parties are also 

possible and may have advantages in some classes of applications. While a simpler model 

is used in this document, it does not preclude agencies from separating these functions. 

E-authentication begins with registration. The usual sequence for registration proceeds as 

follows. An Applicant applies to a Registration Authority (RA) to become a Subscriber of 

a Credential Service Provider (CSP). If approved, the Subscriber is issued a credential by 

the CSP which binds a token to an identifier (and possibly one or more attributes that the 

RA has verified). The token may be issued by the CSP, generated directly by the 

Subscriber, or provided by a third party. The CSP registers the token by creating a 

credential that binds the token to an identifier and possibly other attributes that the RA 

has verified. The token and credential may be used in subsequent authentication events. 

The name specified in a credential may either be a verified name or an unverified name. 

If the RA has determined that the name is officially associated with a real person and the 

Subscriber is the person who is entitled to use that identity, the name is considered a 

verified name. If the RA has not verified the Subscriber’s name, or the name is known to 

differ from the official name, the name is considered a pseudonym. The process used to 

verify a Subscriber’s association with a name is called identity proofing, and is performed 

by an RA that registers Subscribers with the CSP. At Level 1, identity proofing is not 

required so names in credentials and assertions are assumed to be pseudonyms. At Level 

2, identity proofing is required, but the credential may assert the verified name or a 

pseudonym. In the case of a pseudonym, the CSP shall retain the name verified during 

registration. Level 2 credentials and assertions shall specify whether the name is a 

verified name or a pseudonym. This information assists Relying Parties (RPs) in making 

access control or authorization decisions. In most cases, only verified names may be 

specified in credentials and assertions at Levels 3 and 4.4

 (The required use of a verified 

4

 Note that [FIPS 201] permits authorized pseudonyms in limited cases and does not differentiate between 

credentials using authorized pseudonyms. Nothing in these guidelines should be interpreted as contravening 

the contents of the FIPS or constraining the use of these authorized pseudonymous credentials. See 

Appendix B for the level of PIV credentials. 

16
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

name at higher levels of assurance is derived from OMB M-04-04 and is specific to 

Federal IT systems, rather than a general e-authentication requirement.) 

In this document, the party to be authenticated is called a Claimant and the party 

verifying that identity is called a Verifier. When a Claimant successfully demonstrates 

possession and control of a token to a Verifier through an authentication protocol, the 

Verifier can verify that the Claimant is the Subscriber named in the corresponding 

credential. The Verifier passes on an assertion about the identity of the Subscriber to the 

Relying Party (RP). That assertion includes identity information about a Subscriber, such 

as the Subscriber name, an identifier assigned at registration, or other Subscriber 

attributes that were verified in the registration process (subject to the policies of the CSP 

and the needs of the application). Where the Verifier is also the RP, the assertion may be 

implicit. The RP can use the authenticated information provided by the Verifier to make 

access control or authorization decisions. 

Authentication establishes confidence in the Claimant’s identity, and in some cases in the 

Claimant’s personal attributes (for example the Subscriber is a US Citizen, is a student at 

a particular university, or is assigned a particular number or code by an agency or 

organization). Authentication does not determine the Claimant’s authorizations or access 

privileges; this is a separate decision. RPs (e.g., government agencies) will use a 

Subscriber’s authenticated identity and attributes with other factors to make access 

control or authorization decisions. 

As part of authentication, mechanisms such as device identity or geo-location could be 

used to identify or prevent possible authentication false positives. While these 

mechanisms do not directly increase the assurance level for authentication, they can 

enforce security policies and mitigate risks. In many cases, the authentication process and 

services will be shared by many applications and agencies. However, it is the individual 

agency or application acting as the RP that shall make the decision to grant access or 

process a transaction based on the specific application requirements. 

The various entities and interactions that comprise the e-authentication model used here 

are illustrated below in Figure 1. The shaded box on the left shows the registration, 

credential issuance, maintenance activities, and the interactions between the 

Subscriber/Claimant, the RA and the CSP. The usual sequence of interactions is as 

follows: 

1.	 An individual Applicant applies to an RA through a registration process. 

2. The RA identity proofs that Applicant. 

3.	 On successful identity proofing, the RA sends the CSP a registration 

confirmation message. 

4.	 A secret token and a corresponding credential are established between the 

CSP and the new Subscriber. 

17
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

5.	 The CSP maintains the credential, its status, and the registration data collected 

for the lifetime of the credential (at a minimum).5

 The Subscriber maintains 

his or her token. 

Other sequences are less common, but could also achieve the same functional 

requirements. 

The shaded box on the right side of Figure 1 shows the entities and the interactions 

related to using a token and credential to perform e-authentication. When the Subscriber 

needs to authenticate to perform a transaction, he or she becomes a Claimant to a 

Verifier. The interactions are as follows: 

1.	 The Claimant proves to the Verifier that he or she possesses and controls the 

token through an authentication protocol. 

2.	 The Verifier interacts with the CSP to validate the credential that binds the 

Subscriber’s identity to his or her token. 

3.	 If the Verifier is separate from the RP (application), the Verifier provides6 an 

assertion about the Subscriber to the RP, which uses the information in the 

assertion to make an access control or authorization decision. 

4.	 An authenticated session is established between the Subscriber and the RP. 

In some cases the Verifier does not need to directly communicate with the CSP to 

complete the authentication activity (e.g., some uses of digital certificates). Therefore, the 

dashed line between the Verifier and the CSP represents a logical link between the two 

entities rather than a physical link. In some implementations, the Verifier, RP and the 

CSP functions may be distributed and separated as shown in Figure 1; however, if these 

functions reside on the same platform, the interactions between the components are local 

messages between applications running on the same system rather than protocols over 

shared untrusted networks. 

As noted above, CSPs maintain status information about credentials they issue. CSPs 

will generally assign a finite lifetime when issuing credentials to limit the maintenance 

period. When the status changes, or when the credentials near expiration, credentials 

may be renewed or re-issued; or, the credential may be revoked and/or destroyed. 

Typically, the Subscriber authenticates to the CSP using his or her existing, unexpired 

token and credential in order to request re-issuance of a new token and credential. If the 

Subscriber fails to request token and credential re-issuance prior to their expiration or 

revocation, he or she may be required to repeat the registration process to obtain a new 

token and credential. The CSP may choose to accept a request during a grace period after 

expiration. 

5

 CSPs may be required to maintain this information beyond the lifetime of the credential to support 

auditing or satisfy archiving requirements. 

6

 Many assertion protocols require assertions to be forwarded through the Claimant’s local system before
 

reaching the Relying Party. For Details, see Section 10. 

18
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Figure 1 - The NIST SP 800-63-1 E-Authentication Architectural Model 

4.2. Subscribers, Registration Authorities and Credential Service 

Providers
 

The previous section introduced the different participants in the conceptual eauthentication model. This section provides additional details regarding the relationships 

and responsibilities of the participants involved with Registration, Credential Issuance 

and Maintenance (see the box on the left hand side of Figure 1). 

A user may be referred to as the Applicant, Subscriber, or Claimant, depending on the 

stage in the lifecycle of the credential. An Applicant requests credentials from a CSP. If 

the Applicant is approved and credentials are issued by a CSP, the user is then termed a 

Subscriber of that CSP. A user may be a Subscriber of multiple CSPs to obtain 

appropriate credentials for different applications. A Claimant participates in an 

authentication protocol with a Verifier to prove they are the Subscriber named in a 

particular credential. 

The CSP establishes a mechanism to uniquely identify each Subscriber, register the 

Subscriber’s tokens, and track the credentials issued to that Subscriber for each token. 

The Subscriber may be given credentials to go with the token at the time of registration, 

or credentials may be generated later as needed. Subscribers have a duty to maintain 

control of their tokens and comply with the responsibilities to the CSP. The CSP (or the 

RA) maintains registration records for each Subscriber to allow recovery of registration 

records. 

19
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

There is always a relationship between the RA and CSP. In the simplest and perhaps the 

most common case, the RA and CSP are separate functions of the same entity. However, 

an RA might be part of a company or organization that registers Subscribers with an 

independent CSP, or several different CSPs. Therefore a CSP may have an integral RA, 

or it may have relationships with multiple independent RAs, and an RA may have 

relationships with different CSPs as well. 

Section 5 specifies requirements for the registration, identity proofing and issuance 

processes.
 

4.3. Tokens 

The classic paradigm for authentication systems identifies three factors as the cornerstone 

of authentication: 

• Something you know (for example, a password) 

• Something you have (for example, an ID badge or a cryptographic key) 

• Something you are (for example, a fingerprint or other biometric data) 

Multi-factor authentication refers to the use of more than one of the factors listed above. 

The strength of authentication systems is largely determined by the number of factors 

incorporated by the system. Implementations that use two factors are considered to be 

stronger than those that use only one factor; systems that incorporate all three factors are 

stronger than systems that only incorporate two of the factors. (As discussed in Section 

4.1, other types of information, such as location data or device identity, may be used by 

an RP or Verifier to reject or challenge a claimed identity, but they are not considered 

authentication factors.) 

In e-authentication, the base paradigm is slightly different: the Claimant possesses and 

controls a token that has been registered with the CSP and is used to prove the bearer’s 

identity. The token contains a secret the Claimant can use to prove that he or she is the 

Subscriber named in a particular credential.7

 In e-authentication, the Claimant 

authenticates to a system or application over a network by proving that he or she has 

possession and control of a token. The token provides an output called a token 

authenticator. This output is used in the authentication process to prove that the Claimant 

possesses and controls the token (refer to Section 6.1 for more details), demonstrating 

that the Claimant is the person to whom the token was issued. Depending on the type of 

token, this authenticator may or may not be unique for individual authentication 

operations. 

7

 The stipulation that every token contains a secret is specific to these E-authentication guidelines. As 

noted elsewhere authentication techniques where the token does not contain a secret may be applicable to 

authentication problems in other environments (e.g., physical access). 

20
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

The secrets contained in tokens are based on either public key pairs (asymmetric keys) or 

shared secrets. 

A public key and a related private key comprise a public key pair. The private key is 

stored on the token and is used by the Claimant to prove possession and control of the 

token. A Verifier, knowing the Claimant’s public key through some credential (typically 

a public key certificate), can use an authentication protocol to verify the Claimant’s 

identity, by proving that the Claimant has possession and control of the associated private 

key token. 

Shared secrets stored on tokens may be either symmetric keys or passwords. While they 

can be used in similar protocols, one important difference between the two is how they 

relate to the subscriber. While symmetric keys are generally stored in hardware or 

software that the Subscriber controls, passwords tend to be memorized by the Subscriber. 

As such, keys are something the Subscriber has, while passwords are something he or she 

knows. Since passwords are committed to memory, they usually do not have as many 

possible values as cryptographic keys, and, in many protocols, are vulnerable to network 

attacks that are impractical for keys. Moreover the entry of passwords into systems 

(usually through a keyboard) presents the opportunity for very simple keyboard logging 

attacks, and it may also allow those nearby to learn the password by watching it being 

entered. Therefore, keys and passwords demonstrate somewhat separate authentication 

properties (something you have rather than something you know). However, when using 

either public key pairs or shared secrets, the Subscriber has a duty to maintain exclusive 

control of his or her token, since possession and control of the token is used to 

authenticate the Claimant’s identity. Token threats are discussed more in Section 6.2. 

In this document, e-authentication tokens always contain a secret. So, some of the classic 

authentication factors do not apply directly to e-authentication. For example, an ID badge 

is something you have, and is useful when authenticating to a human (e.g., a guard), but is 

not a token for e-authentication. Authentication factors classified as something you know 

are not necessarily secrets, either. Knowledge based authentication, where the claimant 

is prompted to answer questions that can be confirmed from public databases, also does 

not constitute an acceptable secret for e-authentication. More generally, something you 

are does not generally constitute a secret. Accordingly, this recommendation does not 

permit the use of biometrics as a token. 

However, this recommendation does accept the notional model that authentication 

systems that incorporate all three factors offer better security than systems that only 

incorporate two of the factors. An e-authentication system may incorporate multiple 

factors in either of two ways. The system may be implemented so that multiple factors 

are presented to the Verifier, or some factors may be used to protect a secret that will be 

presented to the Verifier. If multiple factors are presented to the Verifier, each will need 

to be a token (and therefore contain a secret). If a single factor is presented to the 

Verifier, the additional factors are used to protect the token and need not themselves be 

tokens. 

21
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

For example, consider a piece of hardware (the token) which contains a cryptographic 

key (the token secret) where access is protected with a fingerprint. When used with the 

biometric, the cryptographic key produces an output (the token authenticator) which is 

used in the authentication process to authenticate the Claimant. An impostor must steal 

the encrypted key (by stealing the hardware) and replicate the fingerprint to use the 

token. This specification considers such a device to effectively provide two factor 

authentication, although the actual authentication protocol between the Verifier and the 

Claimant simply proves possession of the key. 

As noted above, biometrics do not constitute acceptable secrets for e-authentication, but 

they do have their place in this specification. Biometric characteristics are unique 

personal attributes that can be used to verify the identity of a person who is physically 

present at the point of verification. They include facial features, fingerprints, DNA, iris 

and retina scans, voiceprints and many other characteristics. This publication 

recommends that biometrics be used in the registration process for higher levels of 

assurance to later help prevent a Subscriber who is registered from repudiating the 

registration, to help identify those who commit registration fraud, and to unlock tokens. 

Section 6 provides guidelines on the various types of tokens that may be used for 

electronic authentication. 

4.4. Credentials 

As described in the preceding sections, e-authentication credentials bind a token to the 

Subscriber’s name as part of the issuance process. Credentials are issued and maintained 

by the CSP; Verifiers use the credentials to authenticate the Claimant’s identity based on 

possession and control of the corresponding token. This section provides additional 

background regarding the relationship of credentials in the e-authentication model with 

traditional (paper) credentials and describes common e-authentication credentials. 

Paper credentials are documents that attest to the identity or other attributes of an 

individual or entity called the subject of the credentials. Some common paper credentials 

include passports, birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and employee identity cards. The 

authenticity of paper credentials is established in a variety of ways: traditionally perhaps 

by a signature or a seal, special papers and inks, high quality engraving, and today by 

more complex mechanisms, such as holograms, that make the credentials recognizable 

and difficult to copy or forge. In some cases, simple possession of the credentials is 

sufficient to establish that the physical holder of the credential is indeed the subject of the 

credentials. More commonly, the credentials contain information such as the subject’s 

description, a picture of the subject or the handwritten signature of the subject, which can 

be used to authenticate that the holder of the credentials is indeed the subject of the 

credentials. When these paper credentials are presented in-person, the information 

contained in those credentials can be checked to verify that the physical holder of the 

credential is the subject. 

22
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

E-authentication credentials may be considered the electronic analog to paper credentials. 

In both cases, a valid credential authoritatively binds an identity to the necessary 

information for verifying that a person is entitled to claim that identity. However, the use 

cases differ in several significant aspects. 

The Subject simply possesses and presents the paper credentials in most authentication 

scenarios. Since they are generally easy to copy, mere possession of a valid electronic 

credential is rarely a sufficient basis for successful authentication. The e-authentication 

Claimant possesses a token and presents a token authenticator, but is not necessarily in 

possession of the electronic credentials. For example, password database entries are 

considered to be credentials for the purpose of this document but are possessed by the 

Verifier. X.509 public key certificates are a classic example of credentials the Claimant 

can (and often does) possess. 

As was the case for paper credentials, in order to authenticate a Claimant using an 

electronic credential, the Verifier shall also validate the credential itself (i.e. confirm that 

the credential was issued by an authorized CSP and has not subsequently expired or been 

revoked.) There are two ways this can be done: If the credential has been signed by the 

CSP, the verifier can validate it by checking the signature. Otherwise, validation may be 

done interactively by querying the CSP directly through a secure protocol. 

In the remainder of this document, the term “credentials” refers to electronic credentials 

unless explicitly noted. Section 7 provides guidelines for token and credential 

management activities that are applicable to electronic authentication. 

4.5. Authentication Process 

The authentication process begins with the Claimant demonstrating possession and 

control of a token that is bound to the asserted identity to the Verifier through an 

authentication protocol. Once possession and control has been demonstrated, the Verifier 

verifies that the credential remains valid, usually by interacting with the CSP. 

The exact nature of the interaction between the Verifier and the Claimant during the 

authentication protocol is extremely important in determining the overall security of the 

system. Well designed protocols can protect the integrity and confidentiality of traffic 

between the Claimant and the Verifier both during and after the authentication exchange, 

and it can help limit the damage that can be done by an Attacker masquerading as a 

legitimate Verifier. Additionally, mechanisms located at the Verifier can mitigate online 

guessing attacks against lower entropy secrets like passwords and PINs by limiting the 

rate at which an Attacker can make authentication attempts or otherwise delaying 

incorrect attempts. (Generally, this is done by keeping track of and limiting the number of 

unsuccessful attempts, since the premise of an online guessing attack is that most 

attempts will fail.) 

23
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

The Verifier is a functional role, but is frequently implemented in combination with the 

CSP and/or the RP. If the Verifier is a separate entity from the CSP, it is often desirable 

to ensure that the Verifier does not learn the subscriber’s token secret in the process of 

authentication, or at least to ensure that the Verifier does not have unrestricted access to 

secrets stored by the CSP. 

Section 8 provides guidelines for the various types of protocols used by the Verifier to 

authenticate the Claimant/Subscriber within the e-authentication model. 

4.6. Assertions 

Upon completion of the authentication process, the Verifier generates an assertion 

containing the result of the authentication and provides it to the RP. If the Verifier is 

implemented in combination with the RP, the assertion is implicit. If the Verifier is a 

separate entity from the RP, the assertion is used to pass information about the Claimant 

or the authentication process from the Verifier to the RP. Assertions may be 

communicated directly to the RP, or can be forwarded through the Claimant, which has 

further implications for system design. 

An RP trusts an assertion based on the source, the time of creation, and attributes 

associated with the Claimant. The Verifier is responsible for providing a mechanism by 

which the integrity of the assertion can be confirmed. The RP is responsible for 

authenticating the source (the Verifier) and for confirming the integrity of the assertion. 

When the Verifier passes the assertion through the Claimant, the Verifier shall protect the 

integrity of the assertion in such a way that it cannot be modified by the Claimant. 

However, if the Verifier and the RP communicate directly, a protected session may be 

used to provide the integrity protection. When sending assertions across an open 

network, the Verifier is responsible for ensuring that any sensitive Subscriber information 

contained in the assertion can only be extracted by an RP that it trusts to maintain the 

information’s confidentiality. 

Examples of assertions include: 

•	 Cookies – Cookies are character strings, placed in memory, which are 

available to websites within the same Internet domain as the server that placed 

them in the web browser. Cookies are used for many purposes and may be 

assertions or may contain pointers to assertions.8 

8

 There are specific requirements that agencies must follow when implementing cookies. See OMB 

Memorandum M-10-22, OMB Guidance for Online Use of Web Measurement and Customization 

Technologies, available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-22.pdf as well as OMB 

Memorandum M-03-22, OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the E-Government 

Act of 2002, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-22.html. 

24
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 SAML Assertions – SAML assertions are specified using a mark-up language 

intended for describing security assertions. They can be used by a Verifier to 

make a statement to an RP about the identity of a Claimant. SAML assertions 

may optionally be digitally signed. 

•	 Kerberos Tickets – Kerberos Tickets allow a ticket granting authority to issue 

session keys to two authenticated parties using symmetric key based 

encapsulation schemes. 

Section 9 provides guidelines for the use of assertions in authentication protocols. 

4.7. Relying Parties 

An RP relies on results of an electronic authentication protocol to establish confidence in 

the identity or attributes of a Subscriber for the purpose of some transaction. RPs will use 

a Subscriber’s authenticated identity, the overall authentication assurance level, and other 

factors to make access control or authorization decisions. The Verifier and the RP may be 

the same entity, or they may be separate entities. If they are separate entities, the RP 

normally receives an assertion from the Verifier. The RP ensures that the assertion came 

from a Verifier trusted by the RP. The RP also processes any additional information in 

the assertion, such as personal attributes or expiration times. 

Section 9 provides guidelines for the assertions that may be used by RPs to establish 

confidence in the identities of Claimants when the RP and the Verifier are not co-located. 

4.8. Calculating the Overall Authentication Assurance Level 

The overall authentication assurance level is based on the low watermark of the assurance 

levels for each of the components of the architecture. For instance, to achieve an overall 

assurance level of 3: 

•	 The registration and identity proofing process shall, at a minimum, use Level 

3 processes or higher. 

•	 The token (or combination of tokens) used shall have an assurance level of 3 

or higher. 

•	 The binding between the identity proofing and the token(s), if proofing is 

done separately from token issuance, shall be established at level 3. 

•	 The authentication protocols used shall have a Level 3 assurance level or 

higher. 

•	 The token and credential management processes shall use a Level 3 assurance 

level or higher. 

25
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

• Authentication assertions (if used) shall have a Level 3 assurance or higher. 

The low watermark is the basis for the overall level because the lowest level will likely 

be the target of the Attacker. For example, if a system uses a token for authentication that 

has Level 2 assurance, but uses other mechanisms that have Level 3 assurance, the 

Attacker will likely focus on gaining access to the token since it is easier to attack a 

system component meeting assurance Level 2 rather than attacking those meeting 

assurance Level 3. (See Sections 5 through 9 for information on assurance levels for 

each area.) 

26
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

5. Registration and Issuance Processes 

5.1. Overview 

In the registration process, an Applicant undergoes identity proofing by a trusted RA. If 

the RA is able to verify the Applicant’s identity, the CSP registers or gives the Applicant 

a token and issues a credential as needed to bind that token to the identity or some related 

attribute. The Applicant is now a Subscriber of the CSP and may use the token as a 

Claimant in an authentication protocol. This section describes the requirements for 

registration and for token and credential issuance. 

The RA can be a part of the CSP, or the RA can be a separate and independent entity; 

however, a trusted relationship always exists between the RA and CSP. The RA or CSP 

maintain records of the registration. The RA and CSP can provide services on behalf of 

an organization or may provide services to the public. The processes and mechanisms 

available to the RA for identity proofing may differ as a result. Where the RA operates on 

behalf of an organization, the identity proofing process may be able to leverage a preexisting relationship (e.g., the Applicant is an employee or student). Where the RA 

provides services to the public, the identity proofing process is generally limited to 

confirming publicly available information and previously issued credentials. 

The registration and identity proofing processes are designed based on the required 

assurance level, to ensure that the RA/CSP knows the true identity of the Applicant.
 

Specifically, the requirements include measures to ensure that: 

•	 A person with the Applicant’s claimed attributes exists, and those attributes 

are sufficient to uniquely identify a single person; 

•	 The Applicant whose token is registered is in fact the person who is entitled to 

the identity; 

•	 It is difficult for the Claimant to later repudiate the registration and dispute an 

authentication using the Subscriber’s token. 

An Applicant may appear in person to register, or the Applicant may register remotely. 

Somewhat different processes and mechanisms apply to identity proofing in each case. 

Remote registration is limited to Levels 1 through 3. 

After successful identity proofing of the Applicant, the RA registers the Applicant, and 

then the CSP is responsible for token and credential issuance for the new Subscriber 

(additional CSP responsibilities are discussed further in Section 7). Issuance includes 

creation of the token. Depending on the type of token being used, the CSP will either 

create a new token and supply the token to the Subscriber, or require the Subscriber to 

register a token that the Applicant already possesses or has newly created. In either case, 

the mechanism for transporting the token from the token origination point to the 

Subscriber may need to be secured to ensure that the confidentiality and integrity of the 

27
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

newly established token is maintained and that token is in possession of correct 

Applicant. 

The CSP is also responsible for the creation of a credential that binds the Subscriber’s 

identity to his or her token. Optionally, the CSP may include other verified attributes 

about the Subscriber within the credential, such as his or her organizational affiliation, 

policies, or constraints for token use. 

In models where the registration and identity proofing take place separately from 

credential issuance, the CSP is responsible for verifying that the credential is being issued 

to the same person who was identity proofed by the RA. In this model, issuance must be 

strongly bound to registration and identity proofing so that an Attacker cannot pose as a 

newly registered Subscriber and attempt to collect a token/credential meant for the actual 

Subscriber. This attack, and similar attacks, can be thwarted by the methods described in 

Section 5.3.1 (below Table 3), which describes which techniques are considered 

appropriate for establishing the necessary binding at the various assurance levels. 

5.2. Registration and Issuance Threats 

There are two general categories of threats to the registration process: impersonation and 

either compromise or malfeasance of the infrastructure (RAs and CSPs). This 

recommendation concentrates on addressing impersonation threats. Infrastructure threats 

are addressed by normal computer security controls (e.g., separation of duties, record 

keeping, independent audits) and are outside the scope of this document9

. 

The threats to the issuance process include impersonation attacks and threats to the 

transport mechanism for the token and credential issuance. Table 1 lists the threats related 

to registration and issuance. 

9

 See NIST SP800-53, Recommended Security Controls For Federal Information Systems for appropriate 

security controls. 

28
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table 1 - Registration and Issuance Threats 

Activity Threat/Attack Example 

Registration10 Impersonation 

of claimed 

identity 

An Applicant claims an incorrect identity by 

using a forged driver's license. 

Repudiation of 

registration 

A Subscriber denies registration, claiming 

that he or she did not register that token. 

Issuance Disclosure A key created by the CSP for a Subscriber 

is copied by an Attacker as it is transported 

from the CSP to the Subscriber during 

token issuance. 

Tampering A new password created by the Subscriber 

is modified by an Attacker as it is being 

submitted to the CSP during the credential 

issuance phase. 

Unauthorized 

issuance 

A person claiming to be the Subscriber (but 

in reality is not the Subscriber) is issued 

credentials for that Subscriber. 

5.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies 

Registration threats can be deterred by making impersonation more difficult to 

accomplish or increasing the likelihood of detection. This recommendation deals 

primarily with methods for making impersonation more difficult; however, it does 

prescribe certain methods and procedures that may help to prove who carried out an 

impersonation. At each level, methods are employed to determine that a person with the 

claimed identity exists, that the Applicant is the person who is entitled to the claimed 

identity, and that the Applicant cannot later repudiate the registration. As the level of 

assurance increases, the methods employed provide increasing resistance to casual, 

systematic and insider impersonation. Table 2 lists strategies for mitigating threats to the 

registration and issuance processes. 

10 Some impostors may attempt to register as any Subscriber in the system and other impostors may wish to 

register as a specific Subscriber. 

29
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table 2 - Registration and Issuance Threat Mitigation Strategies 

Activity Threat/Attack Mitigation Strategy 

Registration Impersonation 

of claimed 

identity 

RAs request documentation that provides a 

specified level of confidence (or assurance) 

in the identity of the Applicant and makes it 

more difficult for imposters to successfully 

pass the identity proofing step. 

Government issued documents such as 

driver’s licenses, and passports presented 

by the Applicant are often used to assert 

the identity of the Applicant. 

Have the Applicant provide non-government 

issued documentation (e.g. electricity bills in 

the name of the Applicant with the current 

address of the Applicant printed on the bill, 

or a credit card bill) to help in achieving a 

higher level of confidence in the identity of 

the Applicant. 

Repudiation of 

registration 

Have the Applicant sign a form 

acknowledging participation in the 

registration activity. 

Issuance Disclosure Issue the token in person, physically mail it 

in a sealed envelope to a secure location, 

or use a protected session to send the 

token electronically. 

Tampering Issue credentials in person, physically 

mailing storage media in a sealed envelope, 

or through the use of a communication 

protocol that protects the integrity of the 

session data. 

Establish a procedure that allows the 

Subscriber to authenticate the CSP as the 

source of any token and credential data that 

he or she may receive. 

Unauthorized 

issuance 

Establish procedures to ensure that the 

individual who receives the token is the 

same individual who participated in the 

registration procedure. 

Implement a dual-control issuance process 

that ensures two independent individuals 

shall cooperate in order to issue a token 

and/or credential. 

5.3. Registration and Issuance Assurance Levels 

The following sections list the NIST recommendations for registration and issuance for 

the four levels corresponding to the OMB guidance. As noted in the OMB guidance, 

Levels 1 and 2 recognize the use of pseudonymous credentials. When pseudonymous 

30
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

credentials are used to imply membership in a group, the level of proofing shall be 

consistent with the requirements for the credential of that level. Explicit requirements for 

registration processes for pseudonymous credentials are not specified, as they are unique 

to the membership criteria for each specific group. 

5.3.1. General Requirements per Assurance Level 

For levels 2 and above records of registration shall be maintained either by the RA or by 

the CSP, depending on the context. Either the RA or the CSP shall maintain a record of 

each individual whose identity has been verified and the steps taken to verify his or her 

identity, including any information collected from the applicant in compliance with the 

sections below. The CSP shall have the capability to provide records of identity proofing 

to RPs if required11. The identity proofing and registration processes shall be performed 

according to applicable written policy or practice statement that specifies the particular 

steps taken to verify identities. 

For Levels 2 and above, if the RA and CSP are remotely located and communicate over a 

network, the entire registration transaction between the RA and CSP shall occur over a 

mutually authenticated protected session. Equivalently, the transaction may consist of 

time-stamped or sequenced messages signed by their source and encrypted for their 

recipient. In either case, Approved cryptography is required. 

The CSP shall be able to uniquely identify each Subscriber and the associated tokens and 

the credentials issued to that Subscriber. The CSP shall be capable of conveying this 

information to Verifiers. At Level 1, the name associated with the Subscriber is provided 

by the Applicant and accepted without verification. At Level 2, the identifier associated 

with the Subscriber may be pseudonymous but the RA or CSP shall retain the actual 

identity of the Subscriber. In addition, pseudonymous Level 2 credentials shall be 

distinguishable from Level 2 credentials that contain verified names. 

At Level 3 and above, the name associated with the Subscriber shall be verified. At all 

levels, personally identifiable information (PII) collected as part of the registration 

process shall be protected, and all privacy requirements shall be satisfied. 

The following text establishes registration requirements specific to each level, except as 

noted in the following subsections. There are no level-specific requirements at Level 1. 

Both in-person and remote registration are permitted for Levels 2 and 3. Explicit 

requirements are specified for each scenario in Levels 2 and 3. At Level 4, only in-person 

registration is permitted. 

At Level 2 and higher, the Applicant supplies his or her full legal name, an address of 

record, and date of birth, and may, subject to the policy of the RA or CSP, also supply 

other PII. Detailed level-by-level identity proofing requirements are stated in Table 3. 

11 It is beyond the scope of this document to specify what circumstances make it is necessary and/or 

appropriate for the CSP to provide this information. Refer to applicable privacy laws, rules of evidence etc. 

31
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

In some contexts, once an agency has met the minimum registration requirements for an 

assurance level, the agency may choose to use additional knowledge based authentication 

methods to increase confidence in the registration process. For example, an Applicant 

could be asked to supply non-public information on his or her past dealing with the 

agency that could help confirm the Applicant’s identity. 

The sensitive data collected during the registration and identity proofing stage shall be 

protected at all times (i.e., transmission, storage) to ensure their security and 

confidentiality. Additionally, the results of the identity proofing step (which may include 

background investigations of the Applicant) have to be protected to ensure source 

authentication, confidentiality, and integrity. 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table 3 - Identity Proofing Requirements by Assurance Level 

In-Person Remote 

Level 212 

Basis for Possession of a valid current primary government Possession of a valid current government ID13 (e.g., a 

issuing picture ID that contains Applicant’s picture, and either driver’s license or Passport) number and a financial or 

credentials address of record or nationality of record (e.g., driver’s 

license or Passport) 

utility account number (e.g. checking account, savings 

account, utility account, loan or credit card, or tax ID) 

confirmed via records of either the government ID or 

account number. Note that confirmation of the 

financial or utility account may require supplemental 

information from the applicant. 

RA and CSP 

actions 

RA inspects photo-ID; compares picture to Applicant; 

and records the ID number, address and date of birth 

(DoB). (RA optionally reviews personal information in 

records to support issuance process “a” below.) 

If the photo-ID appears valid and the photo matches 

Applicant then: 

a) If personal information in records includes a 

telephone number or e-mail address, the 

CSP issues credentials in a manner that 

confirms the ability of the Applicant to 

receive telephone communications or text 

message at phone number or e-mail address 

associated with the Applicant in records. Any 

secret sent over an unprotected session 

shall be reset upon first use; or 

b) If ID confirms address of record, RA 

authorizes or CSP issues credentials. Notice 

is sent to address of record, or; 

c) If ID does not confirm address of record, 

CSP issues credentials in a manner that 

confirms the claimed address. 

• RA inspects both ID number and account 

number supplied by Applicant (e.g., for correct 

number of digits). Verifies information provided 

by Applicant including ID number OR account 

number through record checks either with the 

applicable agency or institution or through credit 

bureaus or similar databases, and confirms that: 

name, DoB, address and other personal 

information in records are on balance consistent 

with the application and sufficient to identify a 

unique individual. For utility account numbers, 

confirmation shall be performed by verifying 

knowledge of recent account activity. (This 

technique may also be applied to some financial 

accounts.) 

• Address/phone number confirmation and 

notification:14 

a) CSP issues credentials in a manner 

that confirms the ability of the applicant 

to receive mail at a physical address 

associated with the Applicant in 

records; or 

b) If personal information in records 

includes a telephone number or e-mail 

address, the CSP issues credentials in 

a manner that confirms the ability of 

the Applicant to receive telephone 

communications or text message at 

phone number or e-mail address 

associated with the Applicant in 

records. Any secret sent over an 

unprotected session shall be reset 

upon first use; or 

c) CSP issues credentials. RA or CSP 

sends notice to an address of record 

confirmed in the records check.15 

12 A token at this Level may also be obtained by authenticating to the CSP using mechanisms at the same or 

a higher Level (e.g. PIV). See 5.3.5 for more information.

13 Agencies issuing credentials to foreign nationals residing in foreign countries determine what constitutes 

a valid Government issued ID as required.

14Requirements that use USPS mail for address confirmation and/or notification have a legal basis: Title 18 

U.S. Code: Criminal Procedure, Section 1708: Theft or receipt of stolen mail matter generally. 15 Agencies are encouraged to use methods a) and b) where possible to achieve better security. Method c) 

is especially weak when not used in combination with knowledge of account activity 

33
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Level 312 

Basis for Possession of verified current primary Government Possession of a valid Government ID (e.g., a driver’s 

issuing Picture ID that contains Applicant’s picture and either license or Passport) number and a financial or utility 

credentials address of record or nationality of record (e.g., driver’s 

license or passport) 

account number (e.g., checking account, savings 

account, utility account, loan or credit card) confirmed 

via records of both numbers. Note that confirmation of 

the financial or utility account may require 

supplemental information from the applicant. 

RA and CSP 

actions 

RA inspects photo-ID and verifies via the issuing 

government agency or through credit bureaus or 

similar databases. Confirms that: name, DoB, address 

and other personal information in record are consistent 

with the application. Compares picture to Applicant and 

records ID number. 

If ID is valid and photo matches Applicant, then: 

a) If personal information in records includes a 

telephone number, the CSP issues 

credentials in a manner that confirms the 

ability of the Applicant to receive telephone 

communications at a number associated with 

the Applicant in records, while recording the 

Applicant’s voice or using alternative means 

that establish an equivalent level of nonrepudiation; or 

b) If ID confirms address of record, RA 

authorizes or CSP issues credentials. Notice 

is sent to address of record, or; 

c) If ID does not confirm address of record, 

CSP issues credentials in a manner that 

confirms the claimed address. 

• RA verifies information provided by Applicant 

including ID number AND account number 

through record checks either with the applicable 

agency or institution or through credit bureaus or 

similar databases, and confirms that: name, 

DoB, address and other personal information in 

records are consistent with the application and 

sufficient to identify a unique individual. For utility 

account numbers, confirmation shall be 

performed by verifying knowledge of recent 

account activity. (This technique may also be 

applied to some financial accounts.) 

• Address confirmation: 

a) CSP issues credentials in a manner that 

confirms the ability of the applicant to 

receive mail at a physical address 

associated with the Applicant in records; 

or14 

b) If personal information in records includes a 

telephone number, the CSP issues 

credentials in a manner that confirms the 

ability of the Applicant to receive telephone 

communications at a number associated 

with the Applicant in records. CSP records 

the Applicant’s voice or using alternative 

means that establish an equivalent level of 

non-repudiation. 

34
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Level 412 

Basis for 

issuing 

credentials 

In-person appearance and verification of: 

a) a current primary Government Picture ID that 

contains Applicant’s picture, and either 

address of record or nationality of record 

(e.g., driver’s license or passport), and; 

b) either a second, independent Government ID 

document that contains current corroborating 

information (e.g., either address of record or 

nationality of record), OR verification of a 

financial account number (e.g., checking 

account, savings account, loan or credit 

card) confirmed via records. 

Not Applicable 

RA and CSP 

actions 

• Primary Photo ID: 

RA inspects photo-ID and verifies via the issuing 

government agency or through credit bureaus or 

similar databases. Confirms that: name, DoB, 

address, and other personal information in record 

are consistent with the application. Compares 

picture to Applicant and records ID number. 

• Secondary Government ID or financial account 

a) RA inspects secondary Government ID and 

if apparently valid, confirms that the 

identifying information is consistent with the 

primary Photo-ID, or; 

b) RA verifies financial account number 

supplied by Applicant through record checks 

or through credit bureaus or similar 

databases, and confirms that: name, DoB, 

address, and other personal information in 

records are on balance consistent with the 

application and sufficient to identify a unique 

individual. 

[Note: Address of record shall be confirmed 

through validation of either the primary or 

secondary ID.] 

• Current Biometric 

RA records a current biometric (e.g., photograph 

or fingerprints) to ensure that Applicant cannot 

repudiate application. 

• Credential Issuance 

CSP issues credentials in a manner that confirms 

address of record. 

Not Applicable 

Registration, identity proofing, token creation/issuance, and credential issuance are 

separate processes that can be broken up into a number of separate physical encounters or 

electronic transactions. (Two electronic transactions are considered to be separate if they 

are not part of the same protected session.) In these cases, the following methods shall be 

used to ensure that the same party acts as Applicant throughout the processes: 

•	 At Level 1, there is no specific requirement, however some effort should be 

made to uniquely identify and track applications. 

•	 At Level 2: For electronic transactions, the Applicant shall identify 

himself/herself in any new transaction (beyond the first transaction or 

encounter) by presenting a temporary secret which was established during a 

prior transaction or encounter, or sent to the Applicant’s phone number, email 

address, or physical address of record. For physical transactions, the Applicant 

35
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

shall identify himself/herself in person by either using a secret as described 

above, or through the use of a biometric characteristic that was recorded 

during a prior encounter. 

•	 At Level 3: For electronic transactions, the Applicant shall identify 

himself/herself in each new electronic transaction by presenting a temporary 

secret which was established during a prior transaction or encounter, or sent to 

the Applicant’s physical address of record. Permanent secrets shall only be 

issued to the applicant within a protected session. 

For physical transactions, the Applicant shall identify himself/herself in 

person by either using a secret as described above, or through the use of a 

biometric that was recorded during a prior encounter. Temporary secrets shall 

not be reused. If the CSP issues permanent secrets during a physical 

transaction, then they shall be loaded locally onto a physical device that is 

issued in person to the applicant or delivered in a manner that confirms the 

address of record. 

•	 At Level 4: Only physical transactions apply. The Applicant shall identify 

himself/herself in person in each new physical transaction through the use of a 

biometric that was recorded during a prior encounter.16 If the CSP issues 

permanent secrets, then they shall be loaded locally onto a physical device 

that is issued in person or delivered in a manner that confirms the address of 

record. 

A common reason for breaking up the registration process as described above is to allow 

the subscriber to register or obtain tokens for use in two or more environments. This is 

permissible as long as the tokens individually meet the appropriate assurance level. 

However, if the exact number of tokens to be issued is not agreed upon early in the 

registration process, then the tokens should be distinguishable so that Verifiers will be 

able to detect whether any suspicious activity occurs during the first few uses of a newly 

issued token. 

If a valid credential has already been issued, the CSP may issue another credential of 

equivalent or lower assurance. In this case, proof of possession and control of the original 

token may be substituted for repeating the identity proofing steps. (This is a special case 

of a derived credential. See Section 5.3.5 for procedures when the derived credential is 

issued by a different CSP.) Any requirements for credential delivery at the appropriate 

Level shall still be satisfied. 

5.3.2. Requirements for Educational and Financial Institutions and 

Employers 

At Level 2, employers and educational institutions who verify the identity of their 

employees or students by means comparable to those stated above for Level 2 may elect 

to become an RA or CSP and issue credentials to employees or students, either in-person 

16 Special arrangements can be made for Applicants who are unable to provide the required biometrics. 

36
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

by inspection of a corporate or school issued picture ID, or through online processes, 

where notification is via the distribution channels normally used for sensitive, personal 

communications. 

Federal law, including the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act, impose a duty 

on financial institutions to “know their customers” and report suspicious transactions to 

help prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Many financial institutions are 

regulated by Federal agencies such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

(OCC) or other members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 

(FFIEC) and the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC). These regulators 

normally require the institutions to implement a Customer Identification Program. 

The following provisions apply to Federally regulated financial institutions, brokerages 

and dealers subject to such Federal regulation, that implement such a Customer 

Identification Program: 

•	 At Level 2, such institutions may issue credentials to their customers via the 

mechanisms normally used for online banking or brokerage credentials and 

may use online banking or brokerage credentials and tokens as Level 2 eauthentication credentials and tokens, provided they meet the provisions of 

Sections 6 through 9 for Level 2. 

•	 At Level 3, such institutions may issue credentials to their customers via the 

mechanisms normally used for online banking or brokerage credentials and 

may use online banking or brokerage credentials and tokens as Level 3 eauthentication credentials and tokens, provided: 

1.	 The customers have been in good standing with the institution for a period 

of at least 1 year prior to the issuance of e-authentication credentials, and 

2.	 The credentials and tokens meet the provisions of Sections 6 through 9 for 

Level 3. 

•	 At Level 4, such institutions may issue credentials to their customers via the 

mechanisms normally used for online banking or brokerage credentials and 

may use online banking or brokerage credentials and tokens as Level 4 eauthentication credentials, provided: 

1.	 The customers have appeared in-person before a representative of the 

financial institution, and the representative has inspected a Government 

issued primary Photo-ID and compared the picture to the customer; and 

2.	 The credentials and tokens meet all additional provisions of Section 5, as 

well as all provisions in Sections 6 through 9 for Level 4, as appropriate. 

37
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

5.3.3. Requirements for PKI Certificates Issued under FPKI and 

Mapped Policies 

The identity proofing and certificate issuance processes specified in the Federal PKI 

Certificate Policies [FBCA1, FBCA2, FBCA3] are considered equivalent to the 

requirements specified in Section 5.3.1 in accordance with Appendix B. 

At Level 2, agencies may rely on any CA whose policy satisfies the identity proofing and 

registration requirements specified for Level 2, in addition to any CA cross-certified with 

the Federal Bridge CA under one of the certificate policies identified in Appendix B as a 

Level 2 certificate or a policy mapped to one of those policies through cross-certificates. 

For Levels 3 and 4, agencies shall only accept PKI certificates issued by a CA crosscertified with the Federal Bridge CA under one of the certificate policies identified in 

Appendix B as a Level 3 or Level 4 certificate or a policy mapped to one of those policies 

through cross-certificates. 

The identity proofing and certificate issuance processes specified in Federal Information 

Processing Standard (FIPS) 201, ‘Personal Identity Verification’ [FIPS201], meet and 

exceed the Level 4 requirements specified in the preceding section. 

5.3.4. Requirements for One-Time Use 

For infrequently used applications, issuance and maintenance of credentials would be 

prohibitively expensive. Claimants can be authenticated for immediate one-time access 

to an application for Levels 1 thru 3. At Level 1, there is no requirement for identity 

proofing before one-time use. At Levels 2 and 3, application owners act as the RA/CSP 

in the remote registration processes described in Section 5.3.1, using processes that do 

not require confirmation of the address of record and omitting credential issuance. 

For immediate one-time access at Level 2, application owners can use the registration 

processes specified in Table 3 that: 

•	 Confirm "the ability of the Applicant to receive telephone communications or 

text message at phone number or e-mail address associated with the Applicant 

in records”; or 

•	 Subsequently send a “notice to an address of record confirmed in the records 

check.” 

For immediate one-time access at Level 3, application owners can use the registration 

process specified in Table 3 that: 

•	 Confirms "the ability of the Applicant to receive telephone communications at a 

phone number associated with the Applicant in records while recording the 

Applicant’s voice or using alternative means that establish an equivalent level of 

non-repudiation.” 

38
 
 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

5.3.5. Requirements for Derived Credentials 

Where the Applicant already possesses recognized credentials at or above the desired 

Level of Assurance, the CSP may choose to accept the verified identity of the Applicant 

as a substitute for identity proofing. 

For Level 2 and Level 3, a long term derived credential may be issued based on the 

validation of an original credential of a higher Assurance Level. At all Levels, the CSP 

shall verify original credential status and shall verify that the token is possessed and 

controlled by the Claimant. The status of the original credential should be re-checked at a 

later date (e.g. after a week) to confirm that it was not compromised at the time of 

issuance of the derived credential. (This guards against the case where an Attacker 

requests the desired credential before revocation information can be updated.) Further, 

the CSP shall record the details of the original credential used as the basis for derived 

credential issuance. If the derived credential is revoked, the CSP that issued the derived 

credential may notify the issuer of the original credential, if the reason for revocation 

might motivate action by the issuer of the original credential and such notification is 

permitted by applicable law, regulation, and agreements. 

At Level 4, a long-term derived credential may be issued based on in person presentation 

of another Level 4 credential: in addition to the requirements for Levels 2 and Level 3, 

the biometric data shall be validated against the Claimant, and the binding of the 

biometric and the original credential shall be confirmed. The CSP shall retain the 

biometric sample used to validate the Claimant for future reference. 

In some cases, there may be a desire to tightly couple the revocation status of the derived 

credential to the original. In this case, it is the responsibility of the CSP that issued the 

derived credential to ensure that a tight coupling is maintained. For example, the issuer of 

the derived credential could regularly monitor the status of the primary credential.17 18 

17 This document does not require or prevent CSPs from linking the expiration of the original and derived 

credentials. However, where the revocation status is tightly coupled, this may simplify revocation 

procedures.

18 Requirements for derived credentials issued by the same CSP are at the end of Section 5.3.1.
 

39
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

6. Tokens 

The concept of a token was introduced in Section 4. This section provides a more indepth treatment of e-authentication tokens. Section 6.1 describes classes of tokens 

recognized by this recommendation and how they can be combined in practice. Section 

6.2 identifies threats and mitigation strategies applicable to tokens. Section 6.3 maps 

recognized classes of tokens to assurance levels and identifies any required threat 

mitigation strategies. 

6.1. Overview 

In the e-authentication context, a token contains a secret to be used in authentication 

processes. Tokens are possessed by a Claimant and controlled through one or more of 

the traditional authentication factors (something you know, have, or are). Figure 2 

depicts an abstract model for a token. 

The outer box shown in Figure 2 is the token. Tokens may exist in hardware (e.g., a 

smart card), software (e.g., a software cryptographic module), or may only exist in human 

memory. The inner box represents the token secret that is stored within the token. The 

output of a token is the token authenticator, which is the value that is provided to the 

protocol stack for transmission to the Verifier to prove that the Claimant possesses and 

controls the token. The token authenticator may be the token secret, or a transformation 

of the token secret. 

There are two optional inputs to the token: token input data; and token activation data. 

Token input data, such as a challenge or nonce, may be required to generate the token 

authenticator. Token input data may be supplied by the user or be a feature of the token 

itself (e.g. the clock in an OTP device). Token activation data, such as a PIN or 

biometric, may be required to activate the token and permit generation of an 

authenticator. Token activation data is needed when a Claimant controls the token 

through something you know or something you are. (Where the token is something you 

know, such as a password or memorized secret, token activation is implicit.) 

The authenticator is generated through the use of the token. In the general case, an 

authenticator is generated by performing a mathematical function using the token secret 

and one or more optional token input values (a nonce or challenge): 

Authenticator = Function (<token secret> [, <nonce>] [, <challenge>] ) 

As noted above, in the trivial case, the authenticator may be the token secret itself (e.g., 

where the token is a password). 

40
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Figure 2 - Token Model 

6.1.1. Single-factor versus Multi-factor Tokens 

Tokens are characterized by the number and types of authentication factors that they use. 

(See Section 4.3 for discussion on three types of authentication factors.) For example, a 

password is something you know, a biometric is something you are, and a cryptographic 

identification device is something you have. Tokens may be single-factor or multi-factor 

tokens as described below: 

•	 Single-factor Token – A token that uses one of the three factors to achieve 

authentication. For example, a password is something you know. There are 

no additional factors required to activate the token, so this is considered single 

factor. 

•	 Multi-factor Token – A token that uses two or more factors to achieve 

authentication. For example, a private key on a smart card that is activated via 

PIN is a multi-factor token. The smart card is something you have, and 

something you know (the PIN) is required to activate the token. 

This document does not differentiate between tokens that require two factors and three 

factors, as two factors are sufficient to achieve the highest level recognized in this 

document. Other applications or environments may require such a differentiation. 

6.1.2. Token Types 

These guidelines recognize the following types of tokens for e-authentication. 

•	 Memorized Secret Token – A secret shared between the Subscriber and the 

CSP. Memorized Secret Tokens are typically character strings (e.g., 

passwords and passphrases) or numerical strings (e.g., PINs.) The token 

authenticator presented to the Verifier in an authentication process is the 

41
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

secret itself (e.g. the password or passphrase itself). Memorized secret tokens 

are something you know. 

•	 Pre-registered Knowledge Token – A series of responses to a set of prompts 

or challenges. These responses may be thought of as a set of shared secrets. 

The set of prompts and responses are established by the Subscriber and CSP 

during the registration process. The token authenticator is the set of 

memorized responses to pre-registered prompts during a single run of the 

authentication process. An example of a Pre-registered Knowledge Token 

would be establishing responses for prompts such as “What was your first 

pet’s name?” During the authentication process, the Claimant is asked to 

provide the appropriate responses to a subset of the prompts. Alternatively, a 

Subscriber might select and memorize an image during the registration 

process. In an authentication process, the Claimant is prompted to identify the 

correct images from a set(s) of similar images. Transactions from previously 

authenticated sessions could be accepted as Pre-registered Knowledge 

Tokens. Pre-registered Knowledge Tokens are something you know. 

•	 Look-up Secret Token – A physical or electronic token that stores a set of 

secrets shared between the Claimant and the CSP. The Claimant uses the 

token to look up the appropriate secret(s) needed to respond to a prompt from 

the Verifier (the token input). For example, a Claimant may be asked by the 

Verifier to provide a specific subset of the numeric or character strings printed 

on a card in table format. The token authenticator is the secret(s) identified by 

the prompt. Look-up secret tokens are something you have. 

•	 Out of Band Token – A physical token that is uniquely addressable and can 

receive a Verifier-selected secret for one-time use. The device is possessed 

and controlled by the Claimant and supports private communication19 over a 

channel that is separate from the primary channel for e-authentication. The 

token authenticator is the received secret and is presented to the Verifier using 

the primary channel for e-authentication. For example, a Claimant attempts to 

log into a website and receives a text message on his or her cellular phone, 

PDA, pager, or land line (pre-registered with the CSP during the registration 

phase) with a random authenticator to be presented as a part of the electronic 

authentication protocol. Out of Band Tokens are something you have. 

•	 Single-factor (SF) One-Time Password (OTP) Device – A hardware device 

that supports the spontaneous generation of one-time passwords. This device 

has an embedded secret that is used as the seed for generation of one-time 

passwords and does not require activation through a second factor. 

Authentication is accomplished by providing an acceptable one-time password 

and thereby proving possession and control of the device. The token 

authenticator is the one-time password. For example, a one-time password 

device may display 6 characters at a time. SF OTP devices are something you 

have. 

19 Private communication means the Verifier’s message is sent directly to the Claimant’s device. 

42
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 Single-factor (SF) Cryptographic Device – a hardware device that performs 

cryptographic operations on input provided to the device. This device does not 

require activation through a second factor of authentication. This device uses 

embedded symmetric or asymmetric cryptographic keys. Authentication is 

accomplished by proving possession of the device. The token authenticator is 

highly dependent on the specific cryptographic device and protocol, but it is 

generally some type of signed message. For example, in TLS, there is a 

“certificate verify” message. SF Cryptographic Devices are something you 

have. 

•	 Multi-factor (MF) Software Cryptographic Token – A cryptographic key is 

stored on disk or some other “soft” media and requires activation through a 

second factor of authentication. Authentication is accomplished by proving 

possession and control of the key. The token authenticator is highly dependent 

on the specific cryptographic protocol, but it is generally some type of signed 

message. For example, in TLS, there is a “certificate verify” message. The 

MF software cryptographic token is something you have, and it may be 

activated by either something you know or something you are. 

•	 Multi-factor (MF) One-Time Password (OTP) Device – A hardware device 

that generates one-time passwords for use in authentication and which 

requires activation through a second factor of authentication. The second 

factor of authentication may be achieved through some kind of integral entry 

pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint) reader or a direct computer 

interface (e.g., USB port). The one-time password is typically displayed on 

the device and manually input to the Verifier as a password, although direct 

electronic input from the device to a computer is also allowed. The token 

authenticator is the one-time password. For example, a one-time password 

device may display 6 characters at a time. The MF OTP device is something 

you have, and it may be activated by either something you know or something 

you are. 

•	 Multi-factor (MF) Cryptographic Device – A hardware device that contains a 

protected cryptographic key that requires activation through a second 

authentication factor. Authentication is accomplished by proving possession 

of the device and control of the key. The token authenticator is highly 

dependent on the specific cryptographic device and protocol, but it is 

generally some type of signed message. For example, in TLS, there is a 

“certificate verify” message. The MF Cryptographic device is something you 

have, and it may be activated by either something you know or something you 

are. 

6.1.3. Token Usage 

An authentication process may involve a single token, or a combination of two or more 

tokens, as described below. 

43
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 Single-token authentication – The Claimant presents a single token 

authenticator to prove his or her identity to the Verifier. For example, when a 

Claimant attempts to log into a password protected website, the Claimant 

enters a username and password. In this instance, only the password would be 

considered to be a token. 

•	 Multi-token authentication – The Claimant presents token authenticators 

generated by two or more tokens to prove his or her identity to the Verifier. 

The combination of tokens is characterized by the combination of factors used 

by the tokens (both inherent in the manifestation of the tokens, and those used 

to activate the tokens). A Verifier that requires a Claimant to enter a password 

and use a single-factor cryptographic device is an example of multi-token 

authentication. The combination is considered multi-factor, since the 

password is something you know and the cryptographic device is something 

you have. 

6.1.4. Multi-Stage Authentication Using Tokens 

Multi-stage authentication processes, which use a single-factor token to obtain a second 

token, do not constitute multi-factor authentication. The level of assurance associated 

with the compound solution is the assurance level of the weakest token. 

For example, some cryptographic mobility solutions allow full or partial cryptographic 

keys to be stored on an online server and downloaded to the Claimant’s local system after 

successful authentication using a password or passphrase. Subsequently, the Claimant can 

use the downloaded software cryptographic token to authenticate to a remote Verifier for 

e-authentication. This type of solution is considered only as strong as the password 

provided by the Claimant to obtain the cryptographic token. 

6.1.5. Assurance Level Escalation 

In certain circumstances, it may be desirable to raise the assurance level of an eauthentication session between a Subscriber and an RP in the middle of the application 

session. This guideline recognizes a special case of multi-token authentication, where a 

primary token is used to establish a secure session, and a secondary token is used later in 

the session to present a second token authenticator. Even though the two tokens were not 

used at the same time, this document recognizes the result as a multi-token authentication 

scheme (which may upgrade the overall level of assurance). In these authentication 

scenarios, the level of assurance achieved by the two stages in combination is the same as 

a multi-token authentication scheme using the same set of tokens. Table 7 describes the 

highest level of assurance achievable through a combination of two token types. 

44
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

6.2. Token Threats 

An Attacker who can gain control of a token will be able to masquerade as the token’s 

owner. Threats to tokens can be categorized based on attacks on the types of 

authentication factors that comprise the token: 

•	 Something you have may be lost, damaged, stolen from the owner or cloned 

by the Attacker. For example, an Attacker who gains access to the owner’s 

computer might copy a software token. A hardware token might be stolen, 

tampered with, or duplicated. 

•	 Something you know may be disclosed to an Attacker. The Attacker might 

guess a password or PIN. Where the token is a shared secret, the Attacker 

could gain access to the CSP or Verifier and obtain the secret value. An 

Attacker may install malicious software (e.g., a keyboard logger) to capture 

the secret. Additionally, an Attacker may determine the secret through offline attacks on network traffic from an authentication attempt. Finally, an 

Attacker may be able to gain information about a Subscriber’s Pre-registered 

Knowledge researching the subscriber or through other social engineering 

techniques. (For example, the subscriber might refer to his or her first pet in a 

conversation or blog.) 

•	 Something you are may be replicated. An Attacker may obtain a copy of the 

token owner’s fingerprint and construct a replica. 

This document assumes that the Subscriber is not colluding with the Attacker who is 

attempting to falsely authenticate to the Verifier. With this assumption in mind, the 

threats to the token(s) used for e-authentication are listed in Table 4, along with some 

examples. 

45
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Au

Table 4 – Token Threats 

Token Threats/Attacks Description Examples 

Theft A physical token is stolen by an 

Attacker. 

A hardware cryptographic device is stolen. A One-time password device is stolen. A look-up secret token is stolen. A Cell phone is stolen. 

Discovery The responses to token prompts 

are easily discovered through searching various data sources. 

The question “What high school did you attend

registered Knowledge Token, when the answeon social media websites. 

Duplication The Subscriber’s token has been 

copied with or without his or her knowledge. 

Passwords written on paper are disclosed. Passwords stored in an electronic file are copieSoftware PKI token (private key) copied. Look-up token copied. 

Eavesdropping The token secret or authenticator 

is revealed to the Attacker as the Subscriber is submitting the token to send over the network. 

Passwords are learned by watching keyboard Passwords are learned by Keystroke logging sA PIN is captured from PIN pad device. 

Offline cracking The token is exposed using 

analytical methods outside the authentication mechanism. 

A key is extracted by differential power analysicryptographic token. A software PKI token is subjected to dictionary correct password to use to decrypt the private 

Phishing or pharming The token secret or authenticator 

is captured by fooling the Subscriber into thinking the Attacker is a Verifier or RP. 

A password is revealed by Subscriber to a webthe Verifier. A password is revealed by a bank Subscriber iemail inquiry from a Phisher pretending to reprA password is revealed by the Subscriber at a website reached through DNS re-routing. 

Social engineering The Attacker establishes a level of 

trust with a Subscriber in order to convince the Subscriber to reveal his or her token or token secret. 

A password is revealed by the Subscriber to an for the password on behalf of the Subscriber’s A password is revealed by a Subscriber in a tean Attacker masquerading as a system admini

Online guessing The Attacker connects to the 

Verifier online and attempts to guess a valid token authenticator in the context of that Verifier. 

Online dictionary attacks are used to guess paOnline guessing is used to guess token authentime password token registered to a legitimate 

46
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

6.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies 

Token related mechanisms that assist in mitigating the threats identified above are 

summarized in Table 5. 

Table 5 - Mitigating Token Threats 

Token Threat/Attack Threat Mitigation Mechanisms 

Theft - Use multi-factor tokens which need to be activated through 

a PIN or biometric. 

Duplication - Use tokens that are difficult to duplicate, such as hardware 

cryptographic tokens. 

Discovery - Use methods in which the responses to prompts cannot be 

easily discovered. 

Eavesdropping - Use tokens with dynamic authenticators where knowledge 

of one authenticator does not assist in deriving a subsequent 

authenticator. 

- Use tokens that generate authenticators based on a token 

input value. 

- Establish tokens through a separate channel. 

Offline cracking - Use a token with a high entropy token secret 

- Use a token that locks up after a number of repeated failed 

activation attempts. 

Phishing or pharming - Use tokens with dynamic authenticators where knowledge 

of one authenticator does not assist in deriving a subsequent 

authenticator. 

Social engineering - Use tokens with dynamic authenticators where knowledge 

of one authenticator does not assist in deriving a subsequent 

authenticator. 

Online guessing - Use tokens that generate high entropy authenticators. 

There are several other strategies that may be applied to mitigate the threats described in 

Table 5: 

•	 Multiple factors raise the threshold for successful attacks. If an Attacker needs 

to steal a cryptographic token and guess a password, then the work to discover 

both factors may be too high. 

•	 Physical security mechanisms may be employed to protect a stolen token from 

duplication. Physical security mechanisms can provide tamper evidence, 

detection, and response. 

•	 Imposing password complexity rules may reduce the likelihood of a successful 

guessing attack. Requiring the use of long passwords that don’t appear in 

common dictionaries may force Attackers to try every possible password. 

•	 System and network security controls may be employed to prevent an Attacker 

from gaining access to a system or installing malicious software. 

•	 Periodic training may be performed to ensure the Subscriber understands 

when and how to report compromise (or suspicion of compromise) or 

47
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1	 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

otherwise recognize patterns of behavior that may signify an Attacker 

attempting to compromise the token. 

•	 Out of band techniques may be employed to verify proof of possession of 

registered devices (e.g., cell phones). 

6.3. Token Assurance Levels 

This section discusses the requirements for tokens used at various levels of assurance. 

6.3.1. Requirements per Assurance Level 

The following sections list token requirements for single and multi-token authentication. 

6.3.1.1. Single Token Authentication 

Table 6 lists the assurance levels that may be achieved by each of the token types when 

used in a single-token authentication scheme. The requirements for each token are listed 

per assurance level. If token requirements are listed only at one assurance level, the token 

may be used at lower levels but shall satisfy the requirements given at whatever level is 

listed. If there is more than one box under “Verifier Requirements” for a given token 

type, it is only necessary to satisfy the requirements in one box. 

48
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table 6 - Token Requirements Per Assurance Level 

Token Type Level Token Requirements Verifier Requirements 

Memorized 

Secret Token 

Level 1 The memorized secret may be a 

user chosen string consisting of 6 

or more characters chosen from an 

alphabet of 90 or more characters, 

a randomly generated PIN 

consisting of 4 or more digits, or a 

secret with equivalent entropy.20 

The Verifier shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

Level 2 The memorized secret may be a 

randomly generated PIN consisting 

of 6 or more digits, a user 

generated string consisting of 8 or 

more characters chosen from an 

alphabet of 90 or more characters, 

or a secret with equivalent 

entropy.20 

CSP implements dictionary or 

composition rule to constrain usergenerated secrets. 

The Verifier shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

Pre-Registered 

Knowledge 

Level 1 The secret provides at least 14 bits 

of entropy.20 

The Verifier shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

Token effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

20 For more information, see Table A.1 in Appendix A. 

49 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Token Type Level Token Requirements Verifier Requirements 

The entropy in the secret cannot 

be directly calculated, e.g., user 

chosen or personal knowledge 

questions. 

If the questions are not supplied by 

the user, the user shall select 

prompts from a set of at least five 

questions. 

For these purposes, an empty 

answer is prohibited. 

The Verifier shall verify the 

answers provided for at least three 

questions, and shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

Level 2 The secret provides at least 20 bits 

of entropy.20 

The Verifier shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

The entropy in the secret cannot 

be directly calculated, e.g., user 

chosen or personal knowledge 

questions. 

If the questions are not supplied by 

the user, the user shall select 

prompts from a set of at least 

seven questions. 

For these purposes, an empty 

answer is prohibited. 

The Verifier shall verify the 

answers provided for at least five 

questions, and shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Token Type Level Token Requirements Verifier Requirements 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

Look-up Secret 

Token 

Level 2 The token authenticator has 64 

bits of entropy.20 

N/A 

The token authenticator has at The Verifier shall implement a 

least 20 bits of entropy.20 throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

Out of Band 

Token 

Level 2 The token is uniquely addressable 

and supports communication over 

a channel that is separate from the 

primary channel for eauthentication. 

The Verifier generated secret shall 

have at least 64 bits of entropy.20 

The Verifier generated secret shall 

have at least 20 bits of entropy20 

and the Verifier shall implement a 

throttling mechanism that 

effectively limits the number of 

failed authentication attempts an 

Attacker can make on the 

Subscriber’s account to 100 or 

fewer in any 30-day period. 

Note: While an implementation that 

simply counted all failed 

authentication attempts in each 

calendar month and locked out the 

account when the limit was 

exceeded would technically meet 

the requirement, this is a poor 

choice for reasons of system 

availability. See Section 8.2.3 for 

more detailed advice. 

SF One-Time 

Password 

Device 

Level 2 Shall use Approved block cipher or 

hash function to combine a 

symmetric key stored on device 

with a nonce to generate a onetime password. 

The nonce may be a date and 

time, or a counter generated on 

the device. 

The one-time password shall have 

a limited lifetime, on the order of 

minutes. 

The cryptographic module 

performing the verifier function 

shall be validated at FIPS 140-2 

Level 1 or higher.21 

SF 

Cryptographic 

Level 2 The cryptographic module shall be 

validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or 

Verifier generated token input 

(e.g., a nonce or challenge) has at 

21 Products validated under subsequent versions of FIPS 140-2 are also acceptable. 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Token Type Level Token Requirements Verifier Requirements 

Device higher.21 least 64 bits of entropy.20 

MF Software Level 3 The cryptographic module shall be Verifier generated token input 

Cryptographic 

Token 

validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or 

higher.21 Each authentication shall 

(e.g., a nonce or challenge) has at 

least 64 bits of entropy.20 

require entry of the password or 

other activation data and the 

unencrypted copy of the 

authentication key shall be erased 

after each authentication. 

MF OTP Level 4 Cryptographic module shall be The one-time password shall have 

Hardware Token FIPS 140-2 validated Level 2 or 

higher; with physical security at 

FIPS 140-2 Level 3 or higher.21 

The one-time password shall be 

generated by using an Approved 

block cipher or hash function to 

combine a symmetric key stored 

on a personal hardware device 

with a nonce to generate a onetime password. 

The nonce may be a date and 

time, a counter generated on the 

device. Each authentication shall 

require entry of a password or 

other activation data through an 

integrated input mechanism. 

a limited lifetime of less than 2 

minutes. 

MF Hardware Level 4 Cryptographic module shall be Verifier generated token input 

Cryptographic 

Token 

FIPS 140-2 validated, Level 2 or 

higher; with physical security at 

FIPS 140-2 Level 3 or higher.21 

Shall require the entry of a 

password, PIN, or biometric to 

activate the authentication key. 

Shall not allow the export of 

authentication keys. 

(e.g., a nonce or challenge) has at 

least 64 bits of entropy.20 

6.3.1.2. Multi-Token Authentication 

When two of the token types are combined for a multi-token authentication scheme, 

Table 7 shows the highest possible assurance level that can be achieved by the 

combination.22 

22 Note that the table displays tokens that exhibit the properties of “something you have” and “something 

you know”. 

52
 
 Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic 

Table 7 - Assurance Levels for Multi-Token E-Authentication Schemes23 

Memorized 

Secret 

Token 

Preregistered 

Knowledge 

Token 

Look-up 

Secret 

Token 

Out of 

Band 

Token 

SF OTP 

Device 

SF Cryptographic 

Device 

MF 

Software 

Cryptographic 

Token 

M

Memorized Secret Token Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 

Pre-registered Knowledge Token 

X Level 2 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 

Look-up Secret Token X X Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Out of Band Token X X X Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 SF OTP Device X X X X Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 SF Cryptographic Device 

X X X X X Level 2 Level 3 

MF Software Cryptographic Token 

X X X X X X Level 3 

MF OTP Device X X X X X X X MF Cryptographic Device 

X X X X X X X 

23 The boxes marked with an “x” denote that the combination already appears in the table 

53 

1 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

The principles used in generating Table 7 are as follows. Level 3 can be achieved using 

two tokens rated at Level 2 that represent two different factors of authentication. Since 

this specification does not recognize biometrics as a stand-alone token for remote 

authentication, achieving Level 3 with separate Level 2 tokens implies something you 

have and something you know: 

Token (Level 2, something you have) + Token (Level 2, something you know) → Token(Level 3) 

In all other cases, combinations of tokens are considered to achieve the Level of the 

highest rated token. 

For example, a Memorized Secret Token combined with a Look-up Secret Token can be 

used to achieve Level 3 authentication, since the look-up secret token is “something you 

have” and the Memorized Secret Token is “something you know”. However, combining a 

MF software cryptographic token (which is rated at Level 3) and a Memorized Secret 

Token (which is rated at Level 2) achieves an overall level of 3, since the addition of the 

Memorized Secret Token does not increase the assurance of the combination. 

It should be noted that to achieve Level 4 with a single token or token combination, one 

of the tokens needs to be usable with an authentication process that strongly resists manin-the-middle attacks. While it is possible to meet this requirement with a wide variety of 

token types, certain choices of tokens may complicate the task of designing a protocol 

that meets Level 4 requirements for authentication process (as described in Section 8 of 

this document). In particular, one-time password devices that rely exclusively on the 

human user for input and output may be especially problematic and may need to be 

supplemented with a software cryptographic token to provide strong man-in-the-middle 

resistance. 

54
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

7. Token and Credential Management 

7.1. Overview 

As introduced in Section 4, credentials are objects that bind identity to a token. To 

maintain the level of assurance provided by an e-authentication solution, credentials and 

tokens shall be managed to reflect any changes in that binding. This section discusses 

token and credential management activities performed by the CSP subsequent to the 

registration, identity proofing and issuance activities described in Section 5. This includes 

the lifecycle management activities for the token and credential. The activities that must 

be performed by the CSP depend in part upon the nature of the credentials and the token 

itself. 

7.1.1. Categorizing Credentials 

This specification categorizes credentials according to two orthogonal perspectives. 

Some classes of credentials can be distributed to relying parties, while others cannot be 

disclosed by the CSP without compromising the token itself. Another classification 

indicates whether the binding represented in the credential is tamper-evident. 

Credentials that describe the binding in a way that does not compromise the token are 

referred to as Public Credentials. The classic example of a Public Credential is a public 

key certificate; it is mathematically infeasible to calculate the user’s private key even 

with knowledge of the corresponding public key. Credentials that cannot be disclosed by 

the CSP because the contents can be used to compromise the token are considered 

Private Credentials. The classic example of a Private Credential is the hashed value of a 

password, since this hash can be used to perform an offline attack on the password. 

Credentials that describe the binding between a user and token in a tamper-evident 

fashion are considered Strongly Bound Credentials. For example, modification of a 

digitally signed credential (such as a public key certificate) can be easily detected through 

signature verification. The binding between a user and token can be modified in Weakly 

Bound Credentials without invalidating the credentials. Weakly bound credentials require 

supplemental integrity protection and/or access controls to ensure that the binding 

represented by the credential remains accurate. For example, replacing the value of a 

hashed password in a password file associates the user with a new password, so access to 

this file is restricted to system users and processes. 

Strongly bound credential mechanisms require little or no additional integrity protection, 

whereas weakly bound credentials require additional integrity protection or access 

controls to ensure that unauthorized parties cannot spoof or tamper with the binding of 

the identity to the token representation within the credential. 

Unencrypted password files are private credentials that are weakly bound, and hence 

need to be afforded confidentiality as well as integrity protection. Signed password files 

are private credentials that are strongly bound and therefore require confidentiality 

55
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

protection but no additional integrity protection. An unsigned pairing of a public key and 

the name of its owner or a self-signed certificate is an example of a public credential that 

is weakly bound. Finally, a CA-signed public key certificate represents a public 

credential that is strongly bound. 

CSPs and Verifiers are trusted to obey the requirements in this section as well as Section 

8. 

7.1.2. Token and Credential Management Activities 

The CSP manages tokens and credentials. The RA establishes the Applicant’s identity, 

and the CSP is responsible for generating credentials and supplying the Subscriber with a 

token or allowing the Subscriber to register his or her own token as described in Section 

5. The CSP is responsible for some or all of the following token and credential 

management activities following issuance of the token and credential: 

•	 Credential storage – After the credential has been created, the CSP may be 

responsible for maintaining the credentials in storage. In cases where the 

credentials are stored by the CSP, the level of security afforded to the 

credential will depend on the type of credential issued. For private credentials, 

additional confidentiality mechanisms are required in storage, whereas for 

public credentials, this is not necessary. Similarly, for weakly bound 

credentials, additional integrity protection is needed in storage, unlike strongly 

bound credentials. Finally, credentials need to be available to allow CSPs and 

Verifiers to determine the identity of the corresponding token owner. 

•	 Token and credential verification services – In many e-authentication 

scenarios, the Verifier and the CSP are not part of the same entity. In these 

cases, the CSP is responsible for providing the Verifier with the information 

needed to facilitate the token and credential verification process. The CSP 

may provide token and credential verification services to Verifiers. For 

example, the Verifier may request the CSP to verify the password submitted 

by the Claimant against the CSP’s local password database. 

•	 Token and credential renewal /re-issuance – Certain types of tokens and 

credentials may support the process of renewal or re-issuance. During 

renewal, the usage or validity period of the token and credential is extended 

without changing the Subscriber’s identity or token. During re-issuance, a new 

credential is created for a Subscriber with a new identity and/or a new token. 

The CSP establishes suitable policies for renewal and re-issuance of tokens 

and credentials. The CSP may establish a time period prior to the expiration of 

the credential, when the Subscriber can request renewal or re-issuance 

following successful authentication using his or her existing, unexpired token 

and credential. For example, a CSP may allow a digital certificate to be 

renewed for another year prior to the expiry of the current certificate by 

proving possession and control of the existing token (i.e., the private key). 

56
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Once the Subscriber’s credentials have expired, the Subscriber may be 

required to re-establish his or her identity with the CSP; this is typically the 

case with CSPs that issue digital certificates. Conversely, the CSP may 

establish a grace period for the renewal or re-issuance of an expired 

credential, such that the Subscriber can request renewal/re-issuance of his or 

her credential even after it has expired without the need to re-establish his or 

her identity with the CSP. For example, if a Claimant attempts to login to a 

username/password based system on which his or her password has already 

expired, and the system supports a grace period, the user may be prompted to 

create a new password and supply the last password for verification purposes. 

The use of expired tokens or credentials to invoke renewal/re-issuance is more 

practical when the Verifier and CSP are part of the same entity. 

The public key certificate for a Subscriber may be renewed with the same 

public key, or may be re-issued with a new public key. Passwords are seldom 

renewed so that the life of the existing password is extended for another 

period. Usually the account name/password credential for a Subscriber is 

renewed by having the Subscriber select a new password. 

•	 Token and credential revocation and destruction – The CSP is responsible for 

maintaining the revocation status of credentials and destroying the credential 

at the end of its life. Explicit and elaborate revocation mechanisms may be 

required for “public credentials” since these credentials are disseminated 

widely, possibly with a preset validity period. For example, public key 

certificates are revoked using Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) after the 

certificates are distributed. 

“Private credentials” are held closely by the CSP, and hence the revocation 

and destruction of these credentials is implemented easily through an update 

of the CSP’s local credential stores. Credentials that bind 

usernames/passwords are instantaneously revoked and destroyed if the CSP 

deletes its mapping between the username and the password. Certain types of 

tokens may need to be explicitly deleted or zeroized at the end of the 

credential life in order to permanently disable the token and prevent its 

unauthorized reuse. For example, a Multi-factor Hardware Cryptographic 

Token may need to be zeroized to ensure that all of the information pertaining 

to the Subscriber is deleted from the token. 

The CSP may be responsible for ensuring that hardware tokens are collected 

and cleared of any data when the Subscriber no longer has a need for its use. 

The CSP may establish policies for token collection to avoid the possibility of 

unauthorized use of the token after it is considered out of use. The CSP may 

destroy such collected tokens, or zeroize them to ensure that there are no 

remnants of information that can be used by an Attacker to derive the token 

value. For example, a Subscriber who is issued a hardware OTP token by a 

CSP may be required by policy to return the token to the CSP at the end of its 

life, or when the Subscriber’s association with that CSP terminates. 

57
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 Records retention – The CSP or its representative is responsible for 

maintaining a record of the registration, history, and status of each token and 

credential, including revocation. CSPs operated by or on behalf of executive 

branch agencies shall also follow either the General Records Schedule 

established by the National Archives and Records Administration or an 

agency-specific schedule as applicable. All other entities shall comply with 

their respective records retention policies in accordance with whatever laws 

apply to those entities. A minimum record retention period is required at 

Level 2 and above. 

•	 Security controls – The CSP is responsible for implementing and maintaining 

appropriate security controls contained in NIST SP 800-53. The security 

control baseline for CSPs is specified in terms of a FIPS 200 impact level for 

each assurance level. (See Section 7.3, below.) 

7.2. Token and Credential Management Threats 

Tokens and credentials can only be as strong as the strength of the management 

mechanisms used to secure them. The CSP is responsible for mitigating threats to the 

management operations described in the last section. Token and credential management 

threats are described below; they are categorized in accordance with the management 

activity to which they apply. 

These threats represent the potential to breach the confidentiality, integrity and 

availability of tokens and credentials during the CSP activities, and are listed below. 

58
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table 8 - Token and Credential Management Threats 

Token and Credential 

Management Activity Threat/Attack Example 

Credential storage Disclosure Usernames and passwords 

stored in a system file are 

revealed. 

Tampering The file that maps usernames 

to passwords within the CSP is 

hacked so that the mappings 

are modified, and existing 

passwords are replaced by 

passwords known to the 

Attacker. 

Token and credential 

verification services 

Disclosure An Attacker is able to view 

requests and responses 

between the CSP and the 

Verifier. 

Tampering An Attacker is able to 

masquerade as the CSP and 

provide bogus responses to the 

Verifier’s password verification 

requests. 

Unavailability The password file or the CSP is 

unavailable to provide 

password and username 

mappings. 

Public key certificates for 

Claimants are unavailable to 

the Verifier because the 

directory systems are down (for 

example for maintenance or as 

a result of a denial of service 

attack). 

Token and credential 

issuance/renewal/reissuance 

Disclosure Password renewed by the CSP 

for a Subscriber is copied by an 

Attacker as it is transported 

from the CSP to the 

Subscriber. 

Tampering New password created by the 

Subscriber is modified by an 

Attacker as it is being 

submitted to the CSP to 

replace an expired password. 

Unauthorized issuance The CSP is compromised 

through unauthorized physical 

or logical access resulting in 

issuance of fraudulent 

credentials. 

59
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Token and Credential 

Management Activity Threat/Attack Example 

Unauthorized renewal/reissuance Attacker fools the CSP into reissuing the credential for a 

current Subscriber – the new 

credential binds the current 

Subscriber’s identity with a 

token provided by the Attacker. 

Attacker is able to take 

advantage of a weak credential 

renewal protocol to extend the 

credential validity period for a 

current Subscriber. 

Token and credential 

revocation/destruction 

Delayed revocation/destruction 

of credentials 

Stale CRLs allow accounts 

(that should have been locked 

as a result of credential 

revocation) to be used by an 

Attacker. 

User accounts are not deleted 

when employees leave a 

company leading to a possible 

use of the old accounts by 

unauthorized persons. 

Token use after 

decommissioning 

A hardware token is used after 

the corresponding credential 

was revoked or expired. 

7.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies 

Token and credential management related mechanisms that assist in mitigating the threats 

identified above are summarized in Table 9. 

7.3. Token and Credential Management Assurance Levels 

7.3.1. Requirements per Assurance Level 

The stipulations for management of tokens and credentials by the CSP and Verifier are 

described below for each assurance level. The stipulations described at each level in this 

section are incremental in nature; requirements stipulated at lower levels are implicitly 

included at higher levels. 

60
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table 9 - Token and Credential Threat Mitigation Strategies 

Token and Credential 

Management Activity Threat/Attack Mitigation Strategy 

Credential storage Disclosure Use access control mechanisms that 

protect against unauthorized disclosure 

of credentials held in storage. 

Tampering Use access control mechanisms that 

protect against unauthorized tampering 

of credentials and tokens. 

Token and credential 

verification services 

Disclosure Use a communication protocol that 

offers confidentiality protection. 

Tampering Ensure that Verifiers authenticate the 

CSP prior to accepting a verification 

response from that CSP. 

Use a communication protocol that 

offers integrity protection. 

Unavailability Ensure that the CSP has a well 

developed and tested Contingency 

Plan. 

Token and credential 

issuance/renewal/reissuance 

Disclosure Use a communication protocol that 

provides confidentiality protection of 

session data. 

Tampering Use a communication protocol that 

allows the Subscriber to authenticate 

the CSP prior to engaging in token reissuance activities and protects the 

integrity of the data passed. 

Unauthorized issuance Implement physical and logical access 

controls to prevent compromise of the 

CSP. See [FISMA] for details on 

security controls. 

Unauthorized 

renewal/re-issuance 

Establish policy that Subscriber shall 

prove possession of the old token to 

successfully negotiate the re-issuance 

process. Any attempt to negotiate the 

re-issuance process using an expired or 

revoked token should fail. 

Credential 

revocation/destruction 

Delayed 

revocation/destruction 

of credentials 

Revoke/Destroy credentials as soon as 

notification that the credentials should 

be revoked or destroyed. 

Token use after 

decommissioning 

Destroy tokens after their corresponding 

credentials have been revoked. 

61
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

7.3.1.1. Level 1 

At Level 1, the following shall be required: 

•	 Credential storage – Files of shared secrets used by Verifiers at Level 1 

authentication shall be protected by access controls that limit access to 

administrators and only to those applications that require access. Such shared 

secret files shall not contain the plaintext passwords; typically they contain a 

one-way hash or “inversion” of the password. In addition, any method 

allowed for the protection of long-term shared secrets at Level 2 or above may 

be used at Level 1. 

•	 Token and credential verification services – Long term token secrets should 

not be shared with other parties unless absolutely necessary. 

•	 Token and credential renewal / re-issuance – No stipulation 

•	 Token and credential revocation and destruction – No stipulation 

•	 Records retention – No stipulation 

•	 Security controls – No stipulation 

7.3.1.2. Level 2 

At Level 2, the following shall be required: 

•	 Credential storage – Files of shared secrets used by CSPs at Level 2 shall be 

protected by access controls that limit access to administrators and only to 

those applications that require access. Such shared secret files shall not 

contain the plaintext passwords or secrets; two alternative methods may be 

used to protect the shared secret: 

1.	 Passwords may be concatenated to a variable salt (variable across a group 

of passwords that are stored together) and then hashed with an Approved 

algorithm so that the computations used to conduct a dictionary or 

exhaustion attack on a stolen password file are not useful to attack other 

similar password files. The hashed passwords are then stored in the 

password file. The variable salt may be composed using a global salt 

(common to a group of passwords) and the username (unique per 

password) or some other technique to ensure uniqueness of the salt within 

the group of passwords. 

2.	 Shared secrets may be encrypted and stored using Approved encryption 

algorithms and modes, and the needed secret decrypted only when 

immediately required for authentication. In addition, any method allowed 

to protect shared secrets at Level 3 or 4 may be used at Level 2. 

62
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 Token and credential verification services – Long term shared authentication 

secrets, if used, shall never be revealed to any other party except Verifiers 

operated by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be 

provided by the CSP to independent Verifiers. 

Cryptographic protections are required for all messages between the CSP and 

Verifier which contain private credentials or assert the validity of weakly 

bound or potentially revoked credentials. Private credentials shall only be sent 

through a protected session to an authenticated party to ensure confidentiality 

and tamper protection. 

The CSP may send the Verifier a message that either asserts that a weakly 

bound credential is valid, or that a strongly bound credential has not been 

subsequently revoked. In this case, the message shall be logically bound to the 

credential, and the message, the logical binding, and the credential shall all be 

transmitted within a single integrity protected session between the Verifier 

and the authenticated CSP. If revocation is an issue, the integrity protected 

messages shall either be time stamped, or the session keys shall expire with an 

expiration time no longer than that of the revocation list. Alternatively, the 

time stamped message, binding, and credential may all be signed by the CSP, 

although, in this case, the three in combination would comprise a strongly 

bound credential with no need for revocation. 

•	 Token and credential renewal/re-issuance – The CSP shall establish suitable 

policies for renewal and re-issuance of tokens and credentials. Proof-ofpossession of the unexpired current token shall be demonstrated by the 

Claimant prior to the CSP allowing renewal and re-issuance. Passwords shall 

not be renewed; they shall be re-issued. After expiry of current token and any 

grace period, renewal and re-issuance shall not be allowed. Upon re-issuance, 

token secrets shall not be set to a default or reused in any manner. All 

interactions shall occur over a protected session such as SSL/TLS. 

•	 Token and credential revocation and destruction – CSPs shall revoke or 

destroy credentials and tokens within 72 hours after being notified that a 

credential is no longer valid or a token is compromised to ensure that a 

Claimant using the token cannot successfully be authenticated. If the CSP 

issues credentials that expire automatically within 72 hours (e.g., issues fresh 

certificates with a 24 hour validity period each day) then the CSP is not 

required to provide an explicit mechanism to revoke the credentials. CSPs that 

register passwords shall ensure that the revocation or de-registration of the 

password can be accomplished in no more than 72 hours. CAs cross-certified 

with the Federal Bridge CA at the Citizen and Commerce Class Basic, 

Medium and High or Common Certificate Policy levels are considered to 

meet credential status and revocation provisions of this level. 

•	 Records retention – A record of the registration, history, and status of each 

token and credential (including revocation) shall be maintained by the CSP or 

its representative. The record retention period of data for Level 2 credentials is 

seven years and six months beyond the expiration or revocation (whichever is 

63
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

later) of the credential. CSPs operated by or on behalf of executive branch 

agencies shall also follow either the General Records Schedule established by 

the National Archives and Records Administration or an agency-specific 

schedule as applicable. All other entities shall comply with their respective 

records retention policies in accordance with whatever laws apply to those 

entities. 

•	 Security controls – The CSP must employ appropriately tailored security 

controls from the low baseline of security controls defined in [SP 800-53] and 

must ensure that the minimum assurance requirements associated with the low 

baseline are satisfied. 

7.3.1.3. Level 3 

At Level 3, the following is required: 

•	 Credential storage24 – Files of long-term shared secrets used by CSPs or 

Verifiers at Level 3 shall be protected by access controls that limit access to 

administrators and only to those applications that require access. Such shared 

secret files shall be encrypted so that: 

1.	 The encryption key for the shared secret file is encrypted under a key held 

in a FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or higher validated hardware cryptographic 

module or any FIPS 140-2 Level 3 or 4 cryptographic module and 

decrypted only as immediately required for an authentication operation. 

2.	 Shared secrets are protected as a key within the boundary of a FIPS 140-2 

Level 2 or higher validated hardware cryptographic module or any FIPS 

140-2 Level 3 or 4 cryptographic module and is not exported in plaintext 

from the module. 

Strongly bound credentials support tamper detection mechanisms such as 

digital signatures, but weakly bound credentials can be protected against 

tampering using access control mechanisms as described above. 

•	 Token and credential verification services – CSPs shall provide a secure 

mechanism to allow Verifiers or RPs to ensure that the credentials are valid. 

Such mechanisms may include on-line validation servers or the involvement 

of CSP servers that have access to status records in authentication 

transactions. 

Temporary session authentication keys may be generated from long-term 

shared secret keys by CSPs and distributed to third party Verifiers, as a part of 

the verification services offered by the CSP, but long-term shared secrets shall 

not be shared with any third parties, including third party Verifiers. This type 

24 With regard to references to FIPS 140-2, products validated under subsequent versions of FIPS 140-2 are 

also acceptable. 

64
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

of third-party (or delegated) verification is used in the realm of GSM (Global 

System for Mobile Communications) roaming; the locally available network 

authenticates the “roaming” Subscriber using a temporary session 

authentication key received from the Base Station. Such temporary session 

authentication keys are typically created by cryptographically combining the 

long term shared secret with a nonce challenge, to generate a session key. The 

challenge and session key are securely transmitted to the Verifier. The 

Verifier in turn sends only the challenge to the Claimant, and the Claimant 

applies the challenge to the long-term shared secret to generate the session 

key. Both Claimant and Verifier now share a session key, which can be used 

for authentication. Such verification schemes are permitted at this level 

provided that Approved cryptographic algorithms are used for all operations. 

Token and credential verification services categorized as FIPS 199 

“Moderate” or “High” for availability shall be protected in accordance with 

the Contingency Planning (CP) controls specified in NIST SP 800-53 to 

provide an adequate level of availability needed for the service. 

•	 Token and credential renewal /re-issuance – Renewal and re-issuance shall 

only occur prior to expiration of the current credential. Claimants shall 

authenticate to the CSP using the existing token and credential in order to 

renew or re-issue the credential. All interactions shall occur over a protected 

session such as SSL/TLS. 

•	 Credential revocation and destruction – CSPs shall have a procedure to 

revoke credentials and tokens within 24 hours. The certificate status 

provisions of CAs cross-certified with the Federal Bridge CA at the Basic, 

Medium, High or Common Certificate Policy levels are considered to meet 

credential status and revocation provisions of this level. Verifiers shall ensure 

that the tokens they rely upon are either freshly issued (within 24 hours) or 

still valid. Shared secret based authentication systems may simply remove 

revoked Subscribers from the verification database. 

•	 Records retention – All stipulations from Level 2 apply. 

•	 Security controls – The CSP must employ appropriately tailored security 

controls from the moderate baseline of security controls defined in [SP 800-

53] and must ensure that the minimum assurance requirements associated with 

the moderate baseline are satisfied. 

7.3.1.4. Level 4 

At Level 4, the following is required: 

•	 Credential storage – No additional stipulation. 

•	 Token and credential verification services – No additional stipulation. 

65
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 Token and credential renewal/re-issuance – Sensitive data transfers shall be 

cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication 

process. All temporary or short-term keys derived during the original 

authentication operation shall expire and re-authentication shall be required 

after not more than 24 hours from the initial authentication. 

•	 Token and credential revocation and destruction – CSPs shall have a 

procedure to revoke credentials within 24 hours. Verifiers or RPs shall ensure 

that the credentials they rely upon are either freshly issued (within 24 hours) 

or still valid. The certificate status provisions of CAs cross-certified with the 

Federal Bridge CA at the High and Common Certificate Policies shall be 

considered to meet credential status provisions of Level 4. [FBCA1] 

It is generally good practice to destroy a token within 48 hours of the end of 

its life or the end of the Subscriber’s association with the CSP. Destroying 

includes either the physical destruction of the token or cleansing it of all 

information related to the Subscriber. 

•	 Records retention – All stipulations from Levels 2 and 3 apply. The minimum 

record retention period for Level 4 credential data is ten years and six months 

beyond the expiration or revocation of the credential. 

•	 Security controls – The CSP must employ appropriately tailored security 

controls from the moderate baseline of security controls defined in [SP 800-

53] and must ensure that the minimum assurance requirements associated with 

the moderate baseline are satisfied. 

7.3.2. Relationship of PKI Policies to E-Authentication Assurance 

Levels 

Appendix B specifies the mapping between the Federal PKI Certificate Policies and the 

requirements in Section 7. 

66
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

8. Authentication Process 

8.1. Overview 

The authentication process establishes the identity of the Claimant to the Verifier with a 

certain degree of assurance. It is implemented through an authentication protocol 

message exchange, as well as management mechanisms at each end that further constrain 

or secure the authentication activity. One or more of the messages of the authentication 

protocol may need to be carried on a protected session. This is illustrated in Figure 3. 

Figure 3 - Authentication Process Model 

An authentication protocol is a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a 

Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has control of a valid token to establish his 

or her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is 

communicating with the intended Verifier. An exchange of messages between a Claimant 

and a Verifier that results in authentication (or authentication failure) between the two 

parties is an authentication protocol run. During or after a successful authentication 

protocol run, a protected communication session may be created between the two parties; 

this protected session may be used to exchange the remaining messages of the 

authentication protocol run, or to exchange session data between the two parties. 

Management mechanisms may be implemented on the Claimant and the Verifier to 

further enhance the authentication process. For example, trust anchors may be established 

at the Claimant to enable the authentication of the Verifier using public key mechanisms 

such as TLS. Similarly, mechanisms may be implemented on the Verifier to limit the rate 

of online guessing of passwords by an Attacker who is trying to authenticate as a 

legitimate Claimant. Further, detection of authentication transactions originating from an 

unexpected location or channel for a Claimant, or indicating use of an unexpected 

hardware or software configuration, may indicate increased risk levels and motivate 

additional confirmation of the Claimant’s identity. 

67
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

At the conclusion of the authentication protocol run, the verifier might issue a secondary 

authentication credential, such as a cookie, to the Claimant and rely upon it to 

authenticate the claimant in the near future. Requirements for doing this securely are in 

Section 9. 

8.2. Authentication Process Threats 

In general, attacks that reveal long-term token secrets are worse than attacks that reveal 

short-term authentication secrets or session data, because in the former, the Attacker can 

then use the token secret to assume a Subscriber’s identity and do greater harm. 

RAs, CSPs, and Verifiers are ordinarily trustworthy (in the sense of being correctly 

implemented and not deliberately malicious). However, Claimants or their systems may 

not be trustworthy (or else their identity claims could simply be trusted). Moreover, while 

RAs, CSPs, and Verifiers are normally trustworthy, they are not invulnerable, and could 

become corrupted. Therefore, authentication protocols that expose long-term 

authentication secrets more than is absolutely required, even to trusted entities, should be 

avoided. Table 10 lists the types of threats posed to the authentication process. 

Table 10 - Authentication Process Threats 

Type of Attack Description Example 

Online guessing An Attacker performs repeated logon 

trials by guessing possible values of 

the token authenticator. 

An Attacker navigates to a 

web page and attempts to log 

in using a Subscriber's 

username and commonly used 

passwords, such as 

“password” and “secret”. 

Phishing A Subscriber is lured to interact with 

a counterfeit Verifier, and tricked into 

revealing his or her token secret, 

sensitive personal data or 

authenticator values that can be 

used to masquerade as the 

Subscriber to the Verifier. 

A Subscriber is sent an email 

that redirects him or her to a 

fraudulent website and is 

asked to log in using his or her 

username and password. 

Pharming A Subscriber who is attempting to 

connect to a legitimate Verifier, is 

routed to an Attacker’s website 

through manipulation of the domain 

name service or routing tables. 

A Subscriber is directed to a 

counterfeit website through 

DNS poisoning, and reveals or 

uses his or her token believing 

he or she is interacting with 

the legitimate Verifier. 

Eavesdropping An Attacker listens passively to the 

authentication protocol to capture 

information which can be used in a 

subsequent active attack to 

masquerade as the Claimant. 

An Attacker captures the 

transmission of a password or 

password hash from a 

Claimant to a Verifier. 

Replay An Attacker is able to replay 

previously captured messages 

(between a legitimate Claimant and a 

Verifier) to authenticate as that 

Claimant to the Verifier. 

An Attacker captures a 

Claimant’s password or 

password hash from an actual 

authentication session, and 

replays it to the Verifier to gain 

access at a later time. 

68
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Type of Attack Description Example 

Session hijack An Attacker is able to insert himself 

or herself between a Subscriber and 

a Verifier subsequent to a successful 

authentication exchange between 

the latter two parties. The Attacker is 

able to pose as a Subscriber to the 

Verifier/RP or vice versa to control 

session data exchange. 

An Attacker is able to take 

over an already authenticated 

session by eavesdropping on 

or predicting the value of 

authentication cookies used to 

mark HTTP requests sent by 

the Subscriber. 

Man-in-the-middle The Attacker positions himself or 

herself in between the Claimant and 

Verifier so that he or she can 

intercept and alter the content of the 

authentication protocol messages. 

The Attacker typically impersonates 

the Verifier to the Claimant and 

simultaneously impersonates the 

Claimant to the Verifier. Conducting 

an active exchange with both parties 

simultaneously may allow the 

Attacker to use authentication 

messages sent by one legitimate 

party to successfully authenticate to 

the other. 

An Attacker breaks into a 

router that forwards messages 

between the Verifier and a 

Claimant. When forwarding 

messages, the Attacker 

substitutes his or her own 

public key for that of the 

Verifier. The Claimant is 

tricked into encrypting his or 

her password so that the 

Attacker can decrypt it. 

An Attacker sets up a 

fraudulent website 

impersonating the Verifier. 

When an unwary Claimant 

tries to log in using his or her 

one-time password device, the 

Attacker’s website 

simultaneously uses the 

Claimant’s one-time password 

to log in to the real Verifier. 

8.2.1. Other Threats 

Attacks are not limited to the authentication protocol itself. Other attacks include: 

•	 Denial of Service attacks in which the Attacker overwhelms the Verifier by 

flooding it with a large amount of traffic over the authentication protocol; 

•	 Malicious code attacks that may compromise or otherwise exploit 

authentication tokens; 

•	 Attacks that fool Claimants into using an insecure protocol, when the 

Claimant thinks that he or she is using a secure protocol, or trick the Claimant 

into overriding security controls (for example, by accepting server certificates 

that cannot be validated). 

The purpose of flooding attacks is to overwhelm the resources used to support an 

authentication protocol to the point where legitimate Claimants cannot reach the Verifier 

or to slow down the process to make it more difficult for the Claimant to reach the 

Verifier. For example, a Verifier that implements an authentication protocol that uses 

encryption/decryption is sent a large number of protocol messages causing the Verifier to 

69
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

be crippled due to the use of excessive system resources to encrypt/decrypt. Nearly all 

authentication protocols are susceptible to flooding attacks; possible ways to resist such 

attacks is through the use of distributed Verifier architectures, use of load balancing 

techniques to distribute protocol requests to multiple mirrored Verifier systems, or other 

similar techniques. 

Malicious code could be introduced into the Claimant’s computer system for the purpose 

of compromising or otherwise exploiting the Claimant’s token. The malicious code may 

be introduced by many means, including the threats detailed below. There are many 

countermeasures (e.g., virus checkers and firewalls) that can mitigate the risk of 

malicious code on Claimant systems. General good practice to mitigate malicious code 

threats is outside the scope of this document25. Hardware tokens prevent malicious 

software from extracting and copying the token secret. However, malicious code may still 

misuse the token, particularly if activation data is presented to the token via the computer. 

8.2.2. Threat Mitigation Strategies 

The following are strategies that can be incorporated in authentication processes to 

mitigate the attacks listed in the previous section: 

•	 Online guessing resistance – An authentication process is resistant to online 

guessing attacks if it is impractical for the Attacker, with no a priori 

knowledge of the token authenticator, to authenticate successfully by repeated 

authentication attempts with guessed authenticators. The entropy of the 

authenticator, the nature of the authentication protocol messages, and other 

management mechanisms at the Verifier contribute to this property. For 

example, password authentication systems can make targeted password 

guessing impractical by requiring use of high-entropy passwords and limiting 

the number of unsuccessful authentication attempts, or by controlling the rate 

at which attempts can be carried out. (See Appendix A and Table 6 in Section 

6.3.1.). Similarly, to resist untargeted password attacks, a Verifier may 

supplement these controls with network security controls. 

•	 Phishing and pharming resistance (verifier impersonation) – An 

authentication process is resistant to phishing and pharming (also known as 

Verifier impersonation,) if the impersonator does not learn the value of a 

token secret or a token authenticator that can be used to act as a Subscriber to 

the genuine Verifier. In the most general sense, this assurance can be provided 

by the same mechanisms that provide the strong man-in-the-middle resistance 

described later in this section; however, long term secrets can be protected 

against phishing and pharming simply by the use of a tamper resistant token, 

provided that the long term secret cannot be reconstructed from a Token 

Authenticator. To decrease the likelihood of phishing and pharming attacks, it 

25 See SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls For Federal Information Systems 

70
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

is recommended that the Claimant authenticate the Verifier using 

cryptographic mechanisms prior to submitting the token authenticator to the 

supposed Verifier. Additionally, management mechanisms can be 

implemented at the Verifier to send a Claimant personalized content after 

successful authentication of the Claimant or the Claimant’s device. (Refer to 

Section 8.2.4 for further details on personalization.) This allows the Claimant 

to achieve a higher degree of assurance of the authenticity of the Verifier 

before proceeding with the remainder of the session with the Verifier or RP. It 

should be mentioned, however, that there is no foolproof way to prevent the 

Claimant from revealing any sensitive information to which he or she has 

access. 

•	 Eavesdropping resistance – An authentication process is resistant to 

eavesdropping attacks if an eavesdropper who records all the messages 

passing between a Claimant and a Verifier finds it impractical to learn the 

Claimant’s token secret or to otherwise obtain information that would allow 

the eavesdropper to impersonate the Subscriber in a future authentication 

session. Eavesdropping-resistant protocols make it impractical26 for an 

Attacker to carry out an off-line attack where he or she records an 

authentication protocol run and then analyzes it on his or her own system for 

an extended period to determine the token secret or possible token 

authenticators. For example, an Attacker who captures the messages of a 

password-based authentication protocol run may try to crack the password by 

systematically trying every password in a large dictionary, and comparing it 

with the protocol run data. Protected session protocols, such as TLS, provide 

eavesdropping resistance. 

•	 Replay resistance – An authentication process resists replay attacks if it is 

impractical to achieve a successful authentication by recording and replaying 

a previous authentication message. Protocols that use nonces or challenges to 

prove the “freshness” of the transaction are resistant to replay attacks since the 

Verifier will easily detect that the old protocol messages replayed do not 

contain the appropriate nonces or timeliness data related to the current 

authentication session. 

•	 Hijacking resistance – An authentication process and data transfer protocol 

combination are resistant to hijacking if the authentication is bound to the data 

transfer in a manner that prevents an adversary from participating actively in 

the data transfer session between the Subscriber and the Verifier or RP 

without being detected. This is a property of the relationship of the 

authentication protocol and the subsequent session protocol used to transfer 

data. This binding is usually accomplished by generating a per-session shared 

secret during the authentication process that is subsequently used by the 

26 “Impractical” is used here in the cryptographic sense of nearly impossible, that is there is always a small 

chance of success, but even the Attacker with vast resources will nearly always fail. For off-line attacks, 

impractical means that the amount of work required to “break” the protocol is at least on the order of 280 

cryptographic operations. For on-line attacks impractical means that the number of possible on-line trials is 

very small compared to the number of possible key or password values. 

71
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Subscriber and the Verifier or RP to authenticate the transfer of all session 

data. 

It is important to note that web applications, even those protected by 

SSL/TLS, can still be vulnerable to a type of session hijacking attack called 

Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF). In this type of attack, a malicious website 

contains a link to the URL of the legitimate RP. The malicious website is 

generally constructed so that a web browser will automatically send an HTTP 

request to the RP whenever the browser visits the malicious website. If the 

Subscriber visits the malicious website while he or she has an open SSL/TLS 

session with the RP, the request will generally be sent in the same session and 

with any authentication cookies intact. While the Attacker never gains access 

to the session secret, the request may be constructed to have side effects, such 

as sending an email message or authorizing a large transfer of money. 

CSRF attacks may be prevented by making sure that neither an Attacker nor a 

script running on the Attacker’s website has sufficient information to 

construct a valid request authorizing an action (with significant consequences) 

by the RP. This can be done by inserting random data, supplied by the RP, 

into any linked URL with side effects and into a hidden field within any form 

on the RP’s website. This mechanism, however, is not effective if the Attacker 

can run scripts on the RP’s website (Cross Site Scripting or XSS). To prevent 

XSS vulnerabilities, the RP should sanitize inputs from Claimants or 

Subscribers to make sure they are not executable, or at the very least not 

malicious, before displaying them as content to the Subscriber’s browser. 

•	 Man-in-the-middle resistance – Authentication protocols are resistant to a 

man-in-the-middle attack when both parties (i.e., Claimant and Verifier) are 

authenticated to the other in a manner that prevents the undetected 

participation of a third party. There are two levels of resistance: 

1.	 Weak man-in-the-middle resistance – A protocol is said to be weakly 

resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks if it provides a mechanism for the 

Claimant to determine whether he or she is interacting with the real 

Verifier, but still leaves the opportunity for the non-vigilant Claimant to 

reveal a token authenticator (to an unauthorized party) that can be used to 

masquerade as the Claimant to the real Verifier. For example, sending a 

password over server authenticated TLS is weakly resistant to man-in the 

middle attacks. The browser allows the Claimant to verify the identity of 

the Verifier; however, if the Claimant is not sufficiently vigilant, the 

password will be revealed to an unauthorized party who can abuse the 

information. Weak man-in-the-middle resistance can also be provided by a 

zero-knowledge password protocol, such as Encrypted Key Exchange 

(EKE), Simple Password Exponential Key Exchange (SPEKE), or Secure 

Remote Password Protocol (SRP), which enables the Claimant to 

authenticate to a Verifier without disclosing the token secret. However, it 

is possible for the Attacker to trick the Claimant into passing his or her 

72
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

password into a less secure protocol, thereby revealing the password to the 

Attacker. Furthermore, if it is unreasonably difficult for the Claimant to 

verify that the proper protocol is being used, then the overall 

authentication process does not even provide weak man-in-the-middle 

resistance (for example, if a zero-knowledge password protocol is 

implemented by an unsigned java applet displayed on a plaintext HTTP 

page). 

2.	 Strong man-in-the-middle resistance: A protocol is said to be strongly 

resistant to man-in-the-middle attack if it does not allow the Claimant to 

reveal, to an Attacker masquerading as the Verifier, information (token 

secrets, authenticators) that can be used by the latter to masquerade as the 

true Claimant to the real Verifier. An example of such a protocol is client 

authenticated TLS, where the browser and the web server authenticate one 

another using PKI. Even an unwary Claimant cannot easily reveal to an 

Attacker masquerading as the Verifier any information that can be used by 

the Attacker to authenticate to the real Verifier. Specialized protocols 

where the Claimant’s token device will only release an authenticator to a 

preset list of valid Verifiers may also be strongly resistant to man-in-themiddle attacks. 

Note that systems can supplement the mitigation strategies listed above by enforcing 

appropriate security policies. For example, device identity, system health checks, and 

configuration management can be used to mitigate the risk that the Claimant’s system has 

been compromised. 

8.2.3. Throttling Mechanisms 

When using a token that produces low entropy token Authenticators, it is necessary to 

implement controls at the Verifier to protect against online guessing attacks. An explicit 

requirement for such tokens is given in Table 6: the Verifier shall effectively limit online 

Attackers to 100 failed attempts on a single account in any 30 day period. 

The simplest way of implementing a throttling mechanism (which is not the 

recommended approach) would be to keep a counter of failed attempts that is reset at the 

beginning of each calendar month, and to lock the account for the rest of the month, when 

the counter exceeds 50. Aside from the fact that this system would not technically meet 

the requirement on the first of March in non-leap years, this throttling mechanism has a 

number of more severe problems. Most notably, it leaves the Verifier open to a very easy 

denial of service attack (on the first day of the month, an Attacker simply makes 50 failed 

attempts on each Subscriber account he or she knows about, and the system is unusable 

for the next 29 days.) 

73
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

The above simple implementation is also sufficiently limiting that it may suffer from 

usability problems, where the legitimate Subscriber is penalized for behavior that could 

reasonably be identified as benign and should not be counted as failed attempts by an 

Attacker. For example, if the Verifier records a dozen failed authentication attempts 

followed by a successful attempt from the same IP address over a few minutes to a few 

hours, it would be reasonable to assume that those attempts did not come from an 

Attacker. 

Additional techniques can be used to prioritize authentication attempts that are likely to 

come from the Subscriber over those that are more likely to come from an Attacker. 

•	 Requiring the Claimant to complete a Completely Automated Public Turing 

test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA) before attempting 

authentication. 

•	 Requiring the Claimant to wait for a short period of time (anything from 30 

seconds to an hour, depending on how close the system is to its maximum 

allowance for failed attempts) before attempting Authentication following a 

failed attempt. 

•	 Only accepting authentication requests from a white list of IP addresses at 

which the Subscriber has been successfully authenticated before. 

Since these measures often create user inconvenience, it is best to allow a certain number 

of failed authentication attempts before employing the above techniques. For example, a 

system which enforces the 30-day failed attempt limit, by dividing the calendar into 10-

day sub-periods and only allowing 25 failed attempts in each sub-period, could allocate 

failed attempts as follows: in a given 10 day period, the Verifier could allow 2 failed 

attempts each day regardless of any other considerations, allow an additional 5 failed 

attempts over the whole period with no additional protections, require CAPTCHAs for 

the next 5 failed attempts (beyond the 2-per-day quota), and only allow the final 5 

attempts to come from a white-listed IP address after the Claimant has completed a 

CAPTCHA. 

Finally, if the Verifier accepts authentication attempts for a large number of Subscribers, 

it is possible that an Attacker will attempt on online attack on all Subscriber accounts 

simultaneously, hoping to gain access to one of them, thus circumventing the throttling 

mechanisms employed on the individual accounts. No specific guideline is given for 

protecting against such attacks, but Verifiers with a large number of Subscribers should 

take measures to detect such attacks and either respond to them automatically or alert 

system administrators to the threat. 

74
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

8.2.4. Phishing and Pharming (Verifier Impersonation): 

Supplementary Countermeasures 

It is important to note that phishing and pharming are attacks that use different techniques 

to achieve the same goal. Effectively, the Claimant is tricked into believing that he or she 

is interacting with the Verifier when in actuality, the Verifier is being impersonated by an 

Attacker attempting to collect token information or other sensitive information. 

In a successful phishing attack, the Attacker sends an official looking email to a 

Subscriber claiming to be a Verifier. The email usually contains a link to a counterfeit 

Verifier and will ask the Subscriber to click on the link and authenticate to the Verifier27. 

The Subscriber proceeds to authenticate to the counterfeit Verifier and the login 

information and token authenticator is captured. At this point, the Subscriber is unaware 

that he or she has been phished, and proceeds with the actions requested by the original 

email. Once the Subscriber logs off, he or she is unaware that his or her login information 

has been captured and that potentially sensitive data has been captured. 

In a successful pharming attack, the Attacker corrupts either the domain name service 

(using a technique called DNS poisoning) or the local routing tables (by modifying the 

host files on a Claimant’s computer to point to a bogus DNS server). When the 

Subscriber attempts to connect to a legitimate Verifier on the Internet, the corrupted DNS 

tables or routing tables take the Subscriber to a counterfeit Verifier on the Internet. The 

Subscriber unknowingly reveals token authenticators and other sensitive information to 

the counterfeit Verifier. 

The strongest mechanism for preventing phishing and pharming of authentication secrets, 

such as token authenticators, is to make sure that some authentication secrets are not 

directly accessible to the Claimant (as described in Section 8.2.2). However, to help 

mitigate a wider variety of phishing and pharming attacks, the following techniques may 

be used: 

•	 Out of band confirmation of transaction details – Details (e.g., account 

number, amount) of sensitive transactions authorized by the Subscriber may 

be sent by the RP to the Subscriber’s out of band token and displayed along 

with a confirmation code. The confirmation code may either be 

cryptographically derived from the Subscriber’s token secret and the 

transaction details, or it may be a random value that is sent to the Subscriber’s 

out of band token along with the transaction details. Alternatively, transaction 

details may be typed in by the Subscriber as manual inputs to a one-time 

password device. In order to complete the transaction, the Subscriber shall 

send the correct one-time password or confirmation code to the Verifier or 

RP. 

•	 Adding a “Last Login” feature by the Verifier to inform the Subscriber of his 

or her last login – If the Subscriber logged in at 8:00am and then logs in at 

27 Some phishing attacks may request the Subscriber to provide personally sensitive information so that the 

Attacker may impersonate the Subscriber outside the scope of E-authentication. 

75
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

4:00pm but the Last Login feature states that the last login was at 2:00pm, the 

Subscriber may suspect that he or she has been phished and take appropriate 

action. 

Personalization is the process of customizing a webpage or email for a user to enhance 

the user experience. For the purpose of this document, personalization schemes can assist 

the user to determine if he or she is interacting with the correct entity. It is important to 

note that personalization is at best a low assurance mechanism for mitigating Phishing 

and Pharming threats, especially when delivered over a communication protocol that is 

not strongly resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks. However, personalization may 

provide additional assurance when combined with other techniques. 

There are three types of personalization in the context of this guideline: 

•	 Pre-authentication personalization – The Verifier displays to the Claimant 

some personalized indicator (such as an image or user-chosen phrase picked at 

registration) prior to the latter submitting the token authenticator to the 

former. This indicator may be established by the Subscriber at the time of 

registration. When the Claimant views the personalized indicator, the 

Claimant has an increased sense of assurance that he or she is interacting with 

the correct Verifier. For example, a Verifier may require the Claimant to 

submit the username first; in response, the Verifier provides the personalized 

indicator for the claimed username. If the Claimant recognizes the 

personalized indicator as his or her own, the Claimant submits his or her token 

authenticator to the Verifier. Pre-authentication personalization does not 

eliminate Phishing attacks, but requires the Attacker to use a more complex 

technique to succeed in a Phishing attack. 

•	 Post-authentication personalization – The Verifier displays a personalized 

indicator to the Subscriber after successful authentication of the latter. The 

personalized indicator provides assurance to the Subscriber that he or she has 

in fact logged in to the correct site. This indicator may be established by the 

Subscriber at the time of registration. For example, after a Subscriber 

authenticates to the Verifier, the Verifier provides a personalized indicator 

(such as a picture, a phrase, or a greeting) that the Subscriber can readily 

recognize as his or her own. If the personalized indicator is not shown, or is 

not recognized by the Subscriber, the Subscriber suspects that he or she has 

been phished and takes appropriate action. Post-authentication personalization 

does not protect any secrets used by the Subscriber in the initial authentication 

process. Nonetheless, if some or all of these secrets are protected by hardware 

or software that runs a protocol with strong man-in-the-middle resistance, then 

the personalization will assist the Subscriber in recognizing that he or she is 

interacting with a bogus site and refraining from revealing any further 

sensitive information. If personalization appears before the Subscriber is 

prompted for a password, but after the Verifier strongly authenticates the 

76
 
 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Subscriber’s local system, then the Subscriber’s password may also be 

protected from phishing. 

•	 Personalization of email sent to the Subscriber by a valid Verifier – This type 

of personalization is employed to help the Subscriber differentiate between 

email from a valid Verifier, and email from a Phisher. For example, an email 

from a Verifier may contain a picture which the Subscriber selected in the 

registration process. This type of personalization forces the Phisher to use a 

fairly difficult attack and in effect forces the Phisher to either use a targeted 

attack against each Subscriber or hope that the Subscriber will not notice the 

incorrect or missing personalization identifier. 

It is important to note that using a Subscriber’s name (first or last) as the only 

method of personalization is a relatively weak method to thwart a phishing 

attack since it is fairly easy for an Attacker to gain this type of information 

and display it in an email or display it after logging into a site. Information of 

a non-public nature is a better candidate for use during personalization. 

8.3. Authentication Process Assurance Levels 

The stipulations for authentication process assurance levels are described in the following 

sections. 

8.3.1. Threat Resistance per Assurance Level 

Authentication process assurance levels can be defined in terms of required threat 

resistance. Table 11 lists the threat resistance requirements per assurance level: 

Table 11 – Required Authentication Protocol Threat Resistance per Assurance Level 

Authentication Process 

Attacks/Threats 

Threat Resistance Requirements 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Online guessing Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Replay Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Session hijacking No Yes Yes Yes 

Eavesdropping No Yes Yes Yes 

Phishing/pharming(verifier 

impersonation) No No Yes28 Yes 

Man in the middle No Weak Weak Strong 

Denial of service/flooding29 No No No No 

28 Long term authentication secrets shall be protected at this level. Short term secrets may or may not be
 

protected.

29 Although there are techniques used to resist flood attacks, no protocol has comprehensive resistance to
 

stop flooding.
 

77
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

8.3.2. Requirements per Assurance Level 

This section states the requirements levied on the authentication process to achieve the 

required threat resistance at each assurance level. At Levels 2 and above, the 

authentication process shall provide sufficient information to the Verifier to uniquely 

identify the appropriate registration information that was (i) provided by the Subscriber at 

the time of registration, and (ii) verified by the RA in the issuance of the token and 

credential. It is important to note that the requirements listed below will not protect the 

authentication process if malicious code is introduced on the Claimant’s machine or at 

the Verifier. 

8.3.2.1. Level 1 

Although there is no identity proofing requirement at this level, the authentication 

mechanism provides some assurance that the same Claimant who participated in previous 

transactions is accessing the protected transaction or data. It allows a wide range of 

available authentication technologies to be employed and permits the use of any of the 

token methods of Levels 2, 3 or 4. Successful authentication requires that the Claimant 

prove, through a secure authentication protocol, that he or she possesses and controls the 

token. 

Plaintext passwords or secrets shall not be transmitted across a network at Level 1. 

However this level does not require cryptographic methods that block offline analysis by 

eavesdroppers. For example, password challenge-response protocols that combine a 

password with a challenge to generate an authentication reply satisfy this requirement 

although an eavesdropper who intercepts the challenge and reply may be able to conduct 

a successful off-line dictionary or password exhaustion attack and recover the password. 

Since an eavesdropper who intercepts such a protocol exchange will often be able to find 

the password with a straightforward dictionary attack, and this vulnerability is 

independent of the strength of the operations, there is no requirement at this level to use 

Approved cryptographic techniques. At Level 1, long-term shared authentication secrets 

may be revealed to Verifiers. 

A wide variety of technologies should be able to meet the requirements of Level 1. For 

example, a Verifier might obtain a Subscriber password from a CSP and authenticate the 

Claimant by use of a challenge-response protocol. A password sent through a TLS 

protocol session is another example. Other common protocols that meet Level 1 

requirements include APOP [RFC 1939], S/KEY [RFC 1760], and password-based 

versions of Kerberos [KERB]. 

8.3.2.2. Level 2 

Level 2 allows a wide range of available authentication technologies to be employed and 

permits the use of any of the token methods of Levels 2, 3 and 4. Successful 

authentication requires that the Claimant shall prove, through a secure authentication 

78
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

protocol, that he or she controls the token. Session hijacking (when required based on the 

FIPS 199 security category of the systems as described below), replay, and online 

guessing attacks shall be resisted. Approved cryptography is required to resist 

eavesdropping to capture authentication data. Protocols used at Level 2 and above shall 

be at least weakly man-in-the-middle resistant, as described in the threat mitigation 

strategies subsection. 

Session data transmitted between the Claimant and the RP following a successful Level 2 

authentication shall be protected as described in the NIST FISMA guidelines. 

Specifically, all session data exchanged between information systems that are categorized 

as FIPS 199 “Moderate” or “High” for confidentiality and integrity, shall be protected in 

accordance with NIST SP 800-53 Control SC-8 (which requires transmission 

confidentiality) and SC-9 (which requires transmission integrity). 

A wide variety of technologies can meet the requirements of Level 2. For example, a 

Verifier might authenticate a Claimant who provides a password through a secure 

(encrypted) TLS protocol session (tunneling). 

8.3.2.3. Level 3 

Level 3 provides multi-factor remote network authentication. At least two authentication 

factors are required. Level 3 authentication is based on proof of possession of the allowed 

types of tokens through a cryptographic protocol. Level 3 also permits any of the token 

methods of Level 4. Refer to Section 6 for requirements for single tokens and token 

combinations that can achieve Level 3 authentication assurance. Additionally, At Level 3, 

strong cryptographic mechanisms shall be used to protect token secret(s) and 

authenticator(s). Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, shall never be revealed 

to any party except the Claimant and CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets 

may be provided to Verifiers by the CSP, possibly via the Claimant. Approved 

cryptographic techniques shall be used for all operations including the transfer of session 

data. 

Level 3 assurance may be satisfied by client authenticated TLS (implemented in all 

modern browsers), with Claimants who have public key certificates. Other protocols with 

similar properties may also be used. 

Level 3 authentication assurance may also be met by tunneling the output of a MF OTP 

Token, or the output of a SF OTP Token in combination with a Level 2 personal 

password, through a TLS session. 

8.3.2.4. Level 4 

Level 4 is intended to provide the highest practical remote network authentication 

assurance. Refer to Section 6 for single tokens and token combinations that are allowed 

to be used to achieve Level 4 authentication assurance. 

79
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Level 4 requires strong cryptographic authentication of all parties, and all sensitive data 

transfers between the parties. Either public key or symmetric key technology may be 

used. The token secret shall be protected from compromise through the malicious code 

threat as described in Section 0 above. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, 

shall never be revealed to any party except the Claimant and CSP; however session 

(temporary) shared secrets may be provided to Verifiers or RPs by the CSP. Strong, 

Approved cryptographic techniques shall be used for all operations including the transfer 

of session data. All sensitive data transfers shall be cryptographically authenticated using 

keys that are derived from the authentication process in such a way that MitM attacks are 

strongly resisted. 

Level 4 assurance may be satisfied by client authenticated TLS (implemented in all 

modern browsers), with Claimants who have public key MF Hardware Cryptographic 

Tokens. Other protocols with similar properties can also be used. 

It should be noted that, in multi-token schemes, the token used to provide strong man-inthe-middle resistance need not be a hardware token. For example, if a software 

cryptographic token is used to open a client-authenticated TLS session, and the output of 

a multifactor OTP device is sent by the claimant in that session, then the resultant 

protocol will still provide Level 4 assurance. 

80
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

9. Assertions 

9.1. Overview 

Assertions are statements from a Verifier to an RP that contain information about a 

Subscriber. Assertions are used when the RP and the Verifier are not collocated (i.e., they 

are connected through a shared network). The RP uses the information in the assertion to 

identify the Claimant and make authorization decisions about his or her access to 

resources controlled by the RP. An assertion may include identification and 

authentication statements regarding the Subscriber, and may additionally include attribute 

statements that further characterize the Subscriber and support the authorization decision 

at the RP. 

Assertion-based authentication of the Claimant serves several important goals. It supports 

the process of Single-Sign-On for Claimants, allowing them to authenticate once to a 

Verifier and subsequently obtain services from multiple RPs without being aware of 

further authentication. Assertion mechanisms also support the implementation of a 

federated identity for a Subscriber, allowing the linkage of multiple identities/accounts 

held by the Subscriber with different RPs through the use of a common “federated” 

identifier. In this context, a federation is a group of entities (RPs, Verifiers and CSPs) that 

are bound together through common agreed-upon business practices, policies, trust 

mechanisms, profiles and protocols. Finally, assertion mechanisms can also facilitate 

authentication schemes that are based on the attributes or characteristics of the Claimant 

in lieu of (or in addition to) the identity of the Claimant. Attributes are often used in 

determining access privileges for Attributes Based Access Control (ABAC) or Role 

Based Access Control (RBAC). 

It is important to note that assertion schemes are fairly complex multiparty protocols, and 

therefore have fairly subtle security requirements which shall be satisfied. When 

evaluating a particular assertion scheme, it may be instructive to break it down into its 

component interactions. Generally speaking, interactions between the 

Claimant/Subscriber and the Verifier and between the Claimant/Subscriber and RP are 

similar to the authentication mechanisms presented in Section 8, while interactions 

between the Verifier and RP are similar to the token and credential verification services 

presented in Section 7. Many of the requirements presented in this section will, therefore, 

be similar to corresponding requirements in those two sections. 

There are two basic models for assertion-based authentication. After successful 

authentication with the Verifier, the Subscriber is issued an assertion or an assertion 

reference, which the Subscriber uses to authenticate to the RP. 

•	 The Direct Model – In the direct model, the Claimant uses his or her eauthentication token to authenticate to the Verifier. Following successful 

authentication of the Claimant, the Verifier creates an assertion, and sends it 

to the Subscriber to be forwarded to the RP. The assertion is used by the 

81
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Claimant/Subscriber to authenticate to the RP. (This is usually handled 

automatically by the Subscriber’s browser.) Figure 4 illustrates this model. 

Figure 4 - Direct Assertion Model 

•	 The Indirect Model – In the indirect model, the Claimant uses his or her token 

to authenticate to the Verifier. Following successful authentication, the 

Verifier creates an assertion as well as an assertion reference (which identifies 

the Verifier and includes a pointer to the full assertion held by the Verifier). 

The assertion reference is sent to the Subscriber to be forwarded to the RP. In 

this model, the assertion reference is used by the Claimant/Subscriber to 

authenticate to the RP. The RP then uses the assertion reference to explicitly 

request the assertion from the Verifier. Figure 5 illustrates this model. 

Figure 5 - Indirect Assertion Model 

82
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

As mentioned earlier, an assertion contains a set of claims or statements about an 

authenticated Subscriber. Based on the statements contained within it, an authentication 

assertion will fall into one of two categories (and either category can be used in both 

direct and indirect models): 

•	 Holder-of-Key Assertions – A holder-of-key assertion contains a reference to a 

symmetric key or a public key (corresponding to a private key) possessed by 

the Subscriber. The RP may require the Subscriber to prove possession of the 

secret that is referenced in the assertion. In proving possession of the 

Subscriber’s secret, the Subscriber also proves with a certain degree of 

assurance that he or she is the rightful owner of the assertion. It is therefore 

difficult for an Attacker to use a holder-of-key assertion issued to a 

Subscriber, since the former cannot prove possession of the secret referenced 

within the assertion. 

•	 Bearer Assertions – A bearer assertion does not provide a mechanism for the 

Claimant to prove that he or she is the rightful owner of the assertion. The RP 

has to assume that the assertion was issued to the Subscriber who presents the 

assertion or the corresponding assertion reference to the RP. If a bearer 

assertion (in the direct model) or assertion reference (in the indirect model) 

belonging to a Subscriber is captured, copied, or manufactured by an Attacker, 

the latter can impersonate the rightful Subscriber to obtain services from the 

RP. Bearer assertions can be made secure only if some part of the assertion or 

assertion reference, sent to the Subscriber by the Verifier, is unpredictable to 

an Attacker and can reliably be kept secret. 

There are cases in which the RP should be anonymous to the Verifier for the purpose of 

privacy. The direct model is more suitable for the “anonymous RP” scenario since there 

is no requirement for the RP to authenticate to the Verifier as in the indirect model. 

However, it is possible to devise authentication schemes (e.g., using key hierarchies 

within a group or federation) that allow the use of the indirect model to support the 

“anonymous RP” scenario. 

There are other cases where privacy concerns require that the Claimant’s identity/account 

at the Verifier and RP not be linked through use of a common identifier/account name. In 

such scenarios, pseudonymous identifiers are used within the assertions generated by the 

Verifier for the RP. 

It should be noted that the two models described above are abstractions. There may be 

other interactions between the three players preceding or interspersed with the 

interactions described in the model. For example, the Claimant may initiate a connection 

with an RP of his or her choice, at which point, the latter would redirect the Claimant to 

an appropriate Verifier to be authenticated using the direct model, resulting in an 

assertion being sent to the RP. Alternately, the Claimant may first authenticate to a 

Verifier of his or her choice and then select one or more RPs to obtain further services. 

83
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

The direct model is used to generate assertions for each of these RPs. Parallel scenarios 

may be constructed for the indirect model as well. 

There is one other basic assertion model. 

•	 The Proxy Model – In the proxy model, the Claimant uses his or 

her e-authentication token to authenticate to the Verifier. 

Following successful authentication of the Claimant, the Verifier 

creates an assertion and includes it when interacting directly with 

the RP, acting as an intermediary between the Claimant and the 

RP. Figure 6 illustrates this model. 

Figure 6 – Proxy Model 

The RP grants or denies the request based, at least in part, on the 

authentication assertion made by the Verifier. There are several 

common reasons for such proxies: 

o	 Portals that provide users access to multiple RPs that 

require user authentication 

o	 Web caching mechanisms that are required to satisfy the 

RP’s access control policies, especially when clientauthenticated TLS with the Claimant is required 

o	 Network monitoring and/or filtering mechanisms that 

terminate TLS in order to inspect and manipulate the traffic 

It is good practice to protect communications between the Verifier 

and the RP. Current commercial implementations tend to do this 

by having the proxy use client-authenticated TLS with the Verifier 

and pass the authentication assertion in the HTTP header. 

Note that the Verifier may have access to information that may be 

useful to the RP in enforcing security policies, such as device 

identity, location, system health checks, and configuration 

management. If so, it may be a good idea to pass this information 

along to the RP. 

Three types of assertion technologies will be discussed within this section: Web browser 

cookies, SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) assertions, and Kerberos tickets. 

84
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Other assertion technologies may be used in an e-authentication environment as long as 

they meet the requirements set forth in Section 9.3 below for the targeted assurance level. 

9.1.1. Cookies 

One type of assertion widely in use is Web cookie technology. Cookies are text files used 

by a browser to store information provided by a particular web site. The contents of the 

cookie are sent back to the web site each time the browser requests a page from the same 

web site. The web site uses the contents of the cookie to identify the user and prepare 

customized Web pages for that user, or to authorize the user for certain transactions. 

Cookies have two mandatory parameters: 

•	 Name – This parameter states the name of the cookie. 

•	 Value – This parameter holds information that a cookie is storing. For 

example, the value parameter could hold a user ID or session ID. 

Cookies also have four optional parameters: 

•	 Expiration date – This parameter determines how long the cookie stays valid. 

•	 Path – This parameter sets the path over which the cookie is valid. 

•	 Domain – This parameter determines the domain in which the cookie is valid. 

•	 Secure – This parameter indicates the cookie requires that a secure connection 

exist for the cookie to be used. 

There are two types of cookies: 

•	 Session cookies – A cookie that is erased when the user closes the web 

browser. The session cookie is stored in temporary memory and is not 

retained after the browser is closed. 

•	 Persistent cookies – A cookie that is stored on a user’s hard drive until it 

expires (persistent cookies are set with expiration dates) or until the user 

deletes the cookie. 

Cookies are effective as assertions for Internet single-sign-on where the RP and Verifier 

are part of the same Internet domain, and when the cookie contains authentication status 

for that domain. They are not usable in scenarios where the RP and the Verifier are part 

of disparate domains. 

Cookies are also often used by the Claimant to re-authenticate to a server. This may be 

considered to be a use of assertion technology. In this case, the server acts as a Verifier 

when it sets the cookie in the Subscriber’s browser, and as an RP when it requests the 

cookie from a Claimant who wishes to re-authenticate to it. Often, the cookie contains a 

random number, and the assertion data that it represents does not leave the server. Note 

85
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

that, if the cookie is used as an assertion reference in this way, no assertion needs to be 

sent on an open network, and therefore, confidentiality and integrity requirements for 

assertion data at Level 2 and below may be satisfied by access controls rather than by 

cryptographic methods. (The cookie itself, however, does need to be protected.) This is in 

line with the credential storage requirement presented in Section 7. 

9.1.2. Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Assertions 

SAML is an XML-based framework for creating and exchanging authentication and 

attribute information between trusted entities over the Internet. As of this writing, the 

latest specification for [SAML] is SAML v2.0, issued 15 March 2005. 

The building blocks of SAML include the Assertions XML schema which define the 

structure of the assertion; the SAML Protocols which are used to request assertions and 

artifacts (that is, the assertion reference mentioned in Section 9.1); and the Bindings that 

define the underlying communication protocols (such as HTTP or SOAP) and that can be 

used to transport the SAML assertions. The three components above define a SAML 

profile that corresponds to a particular use case such as “Web Browser SSO”. 

SAML Assertions are encoded in an XML schema and can carry up to three types of 

statements: 

•	 Authentication statements – Include information about the assertion issuer, the 

authenticated subject, validity period, and other authentication information. 

For example, an Authentication Assertion would state the subject “John” was 

authenticated using a password at 10:32pm on 06-06-2004. 

•	 Attribute statements – Contain specific additional characteristics related to the 

Subscriber. For example, subject “John” is associated with attribute “Role” 

with value “Manager”. 

•	 Authorization statements – Identify the resources the Subscriber has 

permission to access. These resources may include specific devices, files, and 

information on specific web servers. For example, subject “John” for action 

“Read” on “Webserver1002” given evidence “Role”. 

Authorization statements are beyond the scope of this document and will not be 

discussed. 

9.1.3. Kerberos Tickets 

The Kerberos Network Authentication Service [RFC 4120] was designed to provide 

strong authentication for client/server applications using symmetric-key cryptography. 

Extensions to Kerberos can support the use of public key cryptography for selected steps 

86
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

of the protocol. Kerberos also supports confidentiality and integrity protection of session 

data between the Subscriber and the RP. 

Kerberos supports authentication of a Claimant over an untrusted, shared network using 

two or more Verifiers. The Claimant implicitly authenticates to the Verifier by 

demonstrating the ability to decrypt a random session key encrypted for the Subscriber by 

the Verifier. (Some Kerberos variants also require the Subscriber to explicitly 

authenticate to the Verifier, but this is not universal.) In addition to the encrypted session 

key, the Verifier also generates another encrypted object called a Kerberos ticket. The 

ticket contains the same session key, the identity of the Subscriber to whom the session 

key was issued, and an expiration time after which the session key is no longer valid. The 

ticket is confidentiality and integrity protected by a pre-established that is key shared 

between the Verifier and the RP. 

To authenticate using the session key, the Claimant sends the ticket to the RP along with 

encrypted data that proves that the Claimant possesses the session key embedded within 

the Kerberos ticket. Session keys are either used to generate new tickets, or to encrypt 

and authenticate communications between the Subscriber and the RP. 

To begin the process, the Claimant sends an authentication request to the Authentication 

Server (AS). The AS encrypts a session key for the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s 

long term credential. The long term credential may either be a secret key shared between 

the AS and the Subscriber, or in the PKINIT variant of Kerberos, a public key certificate. 

It should be noted that most variants of Kerberos based on a shared secret key between 

the Subscriber and Verifier derive this key from a user generated password. As such, they 

are vulnerable to offline dictionary attack by a passive eavesdropper. 

In addition to delivering the session key to the subscriber, the AS also issues a ticket 

using a key it shares with the Ticket Granting Server (TGS). This ticket is referred to as a 

Ticket Granting Ticket (TGT), since the verifier uses the session key in the TGT to issue 

tickets rather than to explicitly authenticate the Claimant. The TGS uses the session key 

in the TGT to encrypt a new session key for the Subscriber and uses a key it shares with 

the RP to generate a ticket corresponding to the new session key. The subscriber decrypts 

the session key and uses the ticket and the new session key together to authenticate to the 

RP. 

9.2. Assertion Threats 

In this section, it is assumed that the two endpoints of the assertion transmission (namely, 

the Verifier and the RP) are uncompromised. However, the Claimant is not assumed to be 

entirely trustworthy as the Claimant may have an interest in modifying or replacing an 

assertion to obtain a greater level of access to a resource/service provided by the RP. 

Other Attackers are assumed to lurk within the shared transmission medium (e.g., 

Internet) and may be interested in obtaining or modifying assertions and assertion 

references to impersonate a Subscriber or access unauthorized data or services. 

87
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Furthermore, it is possible that two or more entities may be colluding to attack another 

party. An Attacker may attempt to subvert assertion protocols by directly compromising 

the integrity or confidentiality of the assertion data. For the purpose of this type of threat, 

authorized parties who attempt to exceed their privileges may be considered Attackers. 

•	 Assertion manufacture/modification – An Attacker may generate a bogus 

assertion or modify the assertion content (such as the authentication or 

attribute statements) of an existing assertion, causing the RP to grant 

inappropriate access to the Subscriber. For example, an Attacker may modify 

the assertion to extend the validity period; a Subscriber may modify the 

assertion to have access to information that they should not be able to view. 

•	 Assertion disclosure – Assertions may contain authentication and attribute 

statements that include sensitive Subscriber information. Disclosure of the 

assertion contents can make the Subscriber vulnerable to other types of 

attacks. 

•	 Assertion repudiation by the Verifier – An assertion may be repudiated by a 

Verifier if the proper mechanisms are not in place. For example, if a Verifier 

does not digitally sign an assertion, the Verifier can claim that it was not 

generated through the services of the Verifier. 

•	 Assertion repudiation by the Subscriber – Since it is possible for a 

compromised or malicious subscriber to issue assertions to the wrong party, a 

subscriber can repudiate any transaction with the RP that was authenticated 

using only a bearer assertion. 

•	 Assertion redirect: An Attacker uses the assertion generated for one RP to 

obtain access to a second RP. 

•	 Assertion reuse – An Attacker attempts to use an assertion that has already 

been used once with the intended RP. 

In addition to reliable and confidential transmission of assertion data from the Verifier to 

the RP, assertion protocols have a further goal: in order for the Subscriber to be 

recognized by the RP, he or she shall be issued some secret information, the knowledge 

of which distinguishes the Subscriber from Attackers who wish to impersonate the 

Subscriber. In the case of holder-of-key assertions, this secret is generally the 

Subscriber’s long term token secret, which would already have been established with the 

CSP prior to the initiation of the assertion protocol.30 

In other cases, however, the Verifier will generate a temporary secret and transmit it to 

the authenticated Subscriber for this purpose. Since, when this secret is used to 

authenticate to the RP, it generally replaces the token authenticator in the type of 

30 The role of the Verifier in such protocols is not necessarily to issue new secrets. Rather, in a holder-ofkey-assertion, the Verifier communicates the information in the Subscriber’s credential (as well as any 

supplementary information from the CSP such as revocation data) to the RP. The Verifier also vouches that 

the holder-of-key assertion represents current information from a trusted source (the CSP.) 

88
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

protocols described in Section 8, this temporary secret will be referred to here as a 

secondary authenticator. Secondary authenticators include assertions in the direct model, 

session keys in Kerberos, assertion references in the indirect model, and cookies used for 

authentication. The threats to the secondary authenticator are as follows: 

•	 Secondary authenticator manufacture – An Attacker may attempt to generate 

a valid secondary authenticator and use it to impersonate a Subscriber. 

•	 Secondary authenticator capture – The Attacker may use a session hijacking 

attack to capture the secondary authenticator when the Verifier transmits it to 

the Subscriber after the primary authentication step, or the Attacker may use a 

man-in-the-middle attack to obtain the secondary authenticator as it is being 

used by the Subscriber to authenticate to the RP. If, as in the indirect model, 

the RP needs to send the secondary authenticator back to the Verifier in order 

to check its validity or obtain the corresponding assertion data, an Attacker 

may similarly subvert the communication protocol between the Verifier and 

the RP to capture a secondary authenticator. In any of the above scenarios, the 

secondary authenticator can be used to impersonate the Subscriber. 

Finally, in order for the Subscriber’s authentication to the RP to be useful, the binding 

between the secret used to authenticate to the RP and the assertion data referring to the 

Subscriber shall be strong. 

•	 Assertion substitution – A subscriber may attempt to impersonate a more 

privileged subscriber by subverting the communication channel between the 

Verifier and RP, for example by reordering the messages, to convince the RP 

that his or her secondary authenticator corresponds to assertion data sent on 

behalf of the more privileged subscriber. This is primarily a threat to the 

indirect model, since in the direct model, assertion data is directly encoded in 

the secondary authenticator. 

9.2.1. Threat Mitigation Strategies 

Mitigation techniques are described below for each of the threats described in the last 

subsection. 

Logically speaking, an assertion is issued by a Verifier and consumed by an RP – these 

are the two end points of the session that needs to be secured to protect the assertion. In 

the direct model, the session in which the assertion is passed traverses the Subscriber. 

Furthermore, in the current web environment, the assertion may pass through two 

separate secure sessions (one between the Verifier and the Subscriber, and the other 

between the Subscriber and the RP), with a break in session security on the Subscriber’s 

browser. This is reflected in the mitigation strategies described below. In the indirect 

model, the assertion flows directly from the Verifier to the RP; this protocol session 

89
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

needs to be protected. All of the threat mitigation strategies in Section 8 apply to the 

protocols used to request, retrieve and submit assertions and assertion references. 

•	 Assertion manufacture/modification: To mitigate this threat, one of the 

following mechanisms may be used: 

1.	 The assertion may be digitally signed by the Verifier. The RP should 

check the digital signature to verify that it was issued by a legitimate 

Verifier. 

2.	 The assertion may be sent over a protected session such as TLS/SSL. In 

order to protect the integrity of assertions from malicious attack, the 

Verifier shall be authenticated. 

•	 Assertion disclosure – To mitigate this threat, one of the following 

mechanisms may be implemented: 

1.	 The assertion may be sent over a protected session to an authenticated RP. 

Note that, in order to protect assertions against both disclosure and 

manufacture/modification using a protected session, both the RP and the 

Verifier need to be authenticated. 

2.	 If assertions are signed by the Verifier, they may be encrypted for a 

specific RP with no additional integrity protection. It should be noted that 

any protocol that requires a series of messages between two parties to be 

signed by their source and encrypted for their recipient provides all the 

same guarantees as a mutually authenticated protected session, and may 

therefore be considered equivalent. The general requirement for protecting 

against both assertion disclosure and assertion manufacture/modification 

may therefore be described as a mutually authenticated protected session 

or equivalent between Verifier and RP. 

•	 Assertion repudiation by the Verifier – To mitigate this threat, the assertion 

may be digitally signed by the Verifier using a key that supports nonrepudiation. The RP should check the digital signature to verify that it was 

issued by a legitimate Verifier. 

•	 Assertion repudiation by the Subscriber – To mitigate this threat, the Verifier 

may issue holder of key, rather than bearer assertions. The Subscriber can then 

prove possession of the asserted key to the RP. If the asserted key matches the 

subscriber’s long term credential (as provided by the CSP) it will be clear to 

all parties involved that it was the Subscriber who authenticated to the RP 

rather than a compromised Verifier impersonating the Subscriber. 

•	 Assertion redirect – To mitigate this threat, the assertion may include the 

identity of the RP for whom it was generated. The RP verifies that incoming 

assertions include its identity as the recipient of the assertion. 

90
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

•	 Assertion reuse – To mitigate this threat, the following mechanisms may be 

used: 

1.	 The assertion includes a timestamp and has a short lifetime of validity. 

The RP checks the timestamp and lifetime values to ensure that the 

assertion is currently valid. The lifetime value may either be in the 

assertion or set by the RP. 

2.	 The RP keeps track of assertions that were consumed within a 

(configurable) time window to ensure that an assertion cannot be used 

more than once within that time window. 

•	 Secondary authenticator manufacture – To mitigate this threat, one of the 

following mechanisms may be implemented: 

1.	 The secondary authenticator may contain sufficient entropy that an 

Attacker without direct access to the Verifier’s random number generator 

cannot guess the value of a valid secondary authenticator. 

2.	 The secondary authenticator may contain timely assertion data that is 

signed by the Verifier or integrity protected using a key shared between 

the Verifier and the RP. 

3.	 The Subscriber may authenticate to the RP directly using his or her long 

term token and avoid the need for a secondary authenticator altogether. 

•	 Secondary authenticator capture – To mitigate this threat, adequate 

protections shall be in place throughout the lifetime of any secondary 

authenticators used in the assertion protocol. 

1.	 In order to protect the secondary authenticator while it is in transit 

between the Verifier and the Subscriber, the secondary authenticator shall 

be sent via a protected session established during the primary 

authentication of the Subscriber using his or her token. This requirement is 

the same as the requirement in Section 8, regarding the Authentication 

Process, to protect sensitive data (in this case the secondary authenticator) 

from session hijacking attacks. 

2.	 In order to protect the secondary authenticator from capture as it is 

submitted to the RP, the secondary authenticator shall be used in an 

authentication protocol which protects against eavesdropping and man-inthe-middle attacks as described in Section 8. 

3.	 In order to protect the secondary authenticator after it has been used, it 

shall never be transmitted on an unprotected session or to an 

unauthenticated party while it is still valid. The secondary authenticator 

may be sent in the clear only if the sending party has strong assurances 

that the secondary authenticator will not subsequently be accepted by any 

other RP. This is possible if the secondary authenticator is specific to a 

91
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

single RP, and if that RP will not accept secondary authenticators with the 

same value until the maximum lifespan of the corresponding assertion has 

passed. 

•	 Assertion substitution – To mitigate this threat, one of the following 

mechanisms may be implemented: 

1.	 Responses to assertion requests, signed or integrity protected by the 

Verifier, may contain the value of the assertion reference used in the 

request or some other nonce that was cryptographically bound to the 

request by the RP. 

2.	 Responses to assertion requests may be bound to the corresponding 

requests by message order, as in HTTP, provided that assertions and 

requests are protected by a protocol such as TLS that can detect and 

disallow malicious reordering of packets. 

9.3. Assertion Assurance Levels 

The stipulations for assertion assurance levels are described in the next sections. 

9.3.1. Threat Resistance per Assurance Level 

Table 12 lists the requirements for assertions (both in the direct and indirect models) and 

assertion references (in the indirect model) at each assurance level in terms of resistance 

to the threats listed above. 

Table 12 – Threat Resistance per Assurance Level 

Threat Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Assertion 

manufacture/modification Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Assertion disclosure No Yes Yes Yes 

Assertion repudiation by Verifier No No Yes31 Yes31 

Assertion repudiation by 

Subscriber No No No Yes31 

Assertion redirect No Yes Yes Yes 

Assertion reuse Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Secondary authenticator 

manufacture Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Secondary authenticator capture No Yes Yes Yes 

Assertion substitution No Yes Yes Yes 

31 Except for Kerberos. 

92 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

9.3.2. Requirements per Assurance Level 

The following sections summarize the requirements for assertions at each assurance level. 

All assertions recognized within this guideline shall indicate the assurance level of the 

initial authentication of the Claimant to the Verifier. The assurance level indication 

within the assertion may be implicit (e.g., through the identity of the Verifier implicitly 

indicating the resulting assurance level) or explicit (e.g., through an explicit field within 

the assertion). 

9.3.2.1. Level 1 

At Level 1, it must be impractical for an Attacker to manufacture an assertion or assertion 

reference that can be used to impersonate the Subscriber. If the direct model is used, the 

assertion which is used shall be signed by the Verifier or integrity protected using a secret 

key shared by the Verifier and RP, and if the indirect model is used, the assertion 

reference which is used shall have a minimum of 64 bits of entropy. Bearer assertions 

shall be specific to a single transaction.32 Also, if assertion references are used, they shall 

be freshly generated whenever a new assertion is created by the Verifier. In other words, 

bearer assertions and assertion references are generated for one-time use. 

Furthermore, in order to protect assertions against modification in the indirect model, all 

assertions sent from the Verifier to the RP shall either be signed by the Verifier, or 

transmitted from an authenticated Verifier via a protected session. In either case, a strong 

mechanism must be in place which allows the RP to establish a binding between the 

assertion reference and its corresponding assertion, based on integrity protected (or 

signed) communications with the authenticated Verifier. 

To lessen the impact of captured assertions and assertion references, assertions that are 

consumed by an RP which is not part of the same Internet domain as the Verifier shall 

expire if they are not used within 5 minutes of their creation. Assertions intended for use 

within a single Internet domain, including assertions contained in or referenced by 

cookies, however, may last as long as 12 hours without being used. 

9.3.2.2. Level 2 

If the underlying credential specifies that the subscriber name is a pseudonym, this 

information must be conveyed in the assertion. Level 2 assertions shall be protected 

against manufacture/modification, capture, redirect and reuse. Assertion references shall 

be protected against manufacture, capture and reuse. Each assertion shall be targeted for a 

32 For example, implementation of SSO requires a separate assertion each time a new session is started with 

a participating RP. 

93
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

single RP and the RP shall validate that it is the intended recipient of the incoming 

assertion. 

All stipulations from Level 1 apply. Additionally, assertions, assertion references and any 

session cookies used by the Verifier or RP for authentication purposes, shall be 

transmitted to the Subscriber through a protected session which is linked to the primary 

authentication process in such a way that session hijacking attacks are resisted (see 

Section 8.2.2 for methods which may be used to protect against session hijacking 

attacks). Assertions, assertion references and session cookies shall not be subsequently 

transmitted over an unprotected session or to an unauthenticated party while they remain 

valid. (To this end, any session cookies used for authentication purposes shall be flagged 

as secure, and redirects used to forward secondary authenticators from the Subscriber to 

the RP shall specify a secure protocol such as HTTPS.) 

To protect assertions against manufacture, modification, and disclosure, assertions which 

are sent from the Verifier to the RP, whether directly or through the Subscriber’s device, 

shall either be sent via a mutually authenticated protected session between the Verifier 

and RP, or equivalently shall be signed by the Verifier and encrypted for the RP. 

All assertion protocols used at Level 2 and above require the use of Approved 

cryptographic techniques. As such, the use of Kerberos keys derived from user generated 

passwords is not permitted at Level 2 or above. 

9.3.2.3. Level 3 

At Level 3, in addition to Level 2 requirements, assertions shall be protected against 

repudiation by the Verifier; all assertions used at Level 3 shall be signed. Level 3 

assertions shall specify verified names and not pseudonyms. 

Kerberos uses symmetric key mechanisms to protect key management and session data, 

and it does not protect against assertion repudiation. However, based on the high degree 

of vetting conducted on the Kerberos protocol and its wide deployment, Kerberos tickets 

are acceptable for use as assertions at Level 3 as long as: 

•	 All Verifiers (Kerberos Authentication Servers and Ticket Granting Servers) are 

under the control of a single management authority that ensures the correct 

operation of the Kerberos protocol; 

•	 The Subscriber authenticates to the Verifier using a Level 3 token; 

•	 All Level 3 requirements unrelated to non-repudiation are satisfied. 

Also, at Level 3, single-domain assertions (e.g., Web browser cookies) shall expire if 

they are not used within 30 minutes. Cross-domain assertions shall expire if not used 

within 5 minutes. 

94
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

However, in order to deliver the effect of single sign on, the Verifier may re-authenticate 

the Subscriber prior to delivering assertions to new RPs, using a combination of long 

term and short term single domain assertions provided that the following assurances are 

met: 

•	 The Subscriber has successfully authenticated to the Verifier within the last 12 

hours. 

•	 The Subscriber can demonstrate that he or she was the party that authenticated 

to the Verifier. This could be demonstrated, for example, by the presence of a 

cookie set by the Verifier in the Subscriber’s browser. 

•	 The Verifier can reliably determine whether the Subscriber has been in active 

communication with an RP since the last assertion was delivered by the 

Verifier. This means that the Verifier needs evidence that the Subscriber is 

actively using the services of the RP and has not been idle for more than 30 

minutes. An authenticated assertion by the RP to this effect is considered 

sufficient evidence for this purpose. 

9.3.2.4. Level 4 

At Level 4, bearer assertions (including cookies) shall not be used to establish the identity 

of the Claimant to the RP. Assertions made by the Verifier may however be used to bind 

keys or other attributes to an identity. Holder-of-key assertions may be used, provided 

that all three requirements below are met: 

•	 The Claimant authenticates to the Verifier using a Level 4 token (as described in 

Section 6) in a Level 4 authentication protocol (as described in Section 8). 

•	 The Verifier generates a holder-of-key assertion that references a key that is part 

of the Level 4 token (used to authenticate to the Verifier) or linked to it through a 

chain of trust, and; 

•	 The RP verifies that the Subscriber possesses the key that is referenced in the 

holder-of-key assertion using a Level 4 protocol (where the RP plays the role 

attributed to the Verifier by Section 8). 

The RP should maintain records of the assertions it receives, so that if a suspicious 

transaction occurs at the RP, the key asserted by the Verifier may be compared to the 

value registered with the CSP. This record keeping allows the RP to detect any attempt 

by the Verifier to impersonate the Subscriber using fraudulent assertions and may also be 

useful for preventing the Subscriber from repudiating various aspects of the 

authentication process. 

95
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Kerberos uses symmetric key mechanisms to protect key management and session data, 

and it does not protect against assertion repudiation by the Subscriber or the Verifier. 

However, based on the high degree of vetting conducted on the Kerberos protocol and its 

wide deployment, Kerberos tickets are acceptable for use as assertions at Level 4 as long 

as: 

•	 All Verifiers (Kerberos Authentication Servers and Ticket Granting Servers) are 

under the control of a single management authority that ensures the correct 

operation of the Kerberos protocol; 

•	 The Subscriber authenticates to the Verifier using a Level 4 token; 

•	 All Level 4 requirements unrelated to non-repudiation are satisfied. 

All Level 1-3 requirements for the protection of assertion data remain in force at Level 4. 

96
 
 

 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

10. References 

This section lists references that are current versions at the time of publication. 

Subsequent versions of NIST publications (i.e., Federal Information Processing Standards 

and Special Publications) are also acceptable. 

10.1. General References 

[DOJ 2000] Guide to Federal Agencies on Implementing Electronic Processes 

(November 2000), available at: 

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ecommerce.html 

[GSA ESIG] Use of Electronic Signatures in Federal Organization Transactions 

(2011), available at: http://www.gsa.gov/ 

[FISMA] Federal Information Security Management Act, available at: 

http://csrc.nist.gov/drivers/documents/FISMA-final.pdf 

[OMB M-04-04] OMB Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for 

Federal agencies, December 16, 2003, available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy04/m04-04.pdf 

[OMB M-03-22] OMB Memorandum M-03-22, OMB Guidance for Implementing the 

Privacy Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002, September 26, 

2003 available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-

22.html. 

[KERB] Neuman, C., and T. Ts’o, Kerberos: An Authentication Service for 

Computer Networks, IEEE Communications, vol. 32, no.9, 1994. 

[RFC 4120] IETF, RFC 4120, The Kerberos Network Authentication Service 

(V5), July 2005, available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4120.txt 

[RFC 1939] IETF, RFC 1939, Post Office Protocol, Version 3, May 1996, 

available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1939.txt 

[RFC 2246] IETF, RFC 2246, The TLS Protocol, Version 1.0. January 1999, 

available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt

 [RFC 5280] IETF, RFC 5280, Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate 

and CRL Profile, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt 

[RFC 3546] IETF, RFC 3546, Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions, June 

2003, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3546.txt 

[RFC 5246] IETF, RFC 5246, The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol, 

Version 1.2, August 2008, available at 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246 

97
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

[RFC 1760] IETF, RFC 1760, The S/KEY One-Time Password System, February 

1995, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1760.txt 

[ICAM] National Security Systems and Identity, Credential and Access 

Management Sub-Committee Focus Group, Federal CIO Council, 

ICAM Lexicon, Version 0.5, March 2011. 

[ISPKI] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 | ISO / IEC 9594-8: “Information 

Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: PublicKey and Attribute Certificate Frameworks.” 

[SAML] OASIS, SAML, “Security Assertion Markup Language 2.0,” v2.0, 

March 2005, available at 

http://www.oasis-open.org/standards#samlv2.0 

10.2. NIST Special Publications 

NIST 800 Series Special Publications are available at: 

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html. The following publications may be 

of particular interest to those implementing systems of applications requiring eauthentication. 

[SP 800-30] NIST Special Publication 800-30, Risk Management Guide for 

Information Technology Systems, July 2002. 

[SP 800-32] NIST Special Publication, 800-32, Introduction to Public Key 

Technology and the Federal PKI Infrastructure, February 2001. 

[SP 800-33] NIST Special Publication 800-33, Underlying Technical Models for 

Information Technology Security, December 2001. 

[SP 800-37] NIST Special Publication 800-37, Revision1, Guide for Applying the 

Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems, 

February 2010. 

[SP 800-40] NIST Special Publication 800-40, Version 2.0, Creating a Patch and 

Vulnerability Management Program,, November 2005. 

[SP 800-41] NIST Special Publication 800-41, Revision 1, Guidelines on 

Firewalls and Firewall Policy, September 2009. 

[SP 800-43] NIST Special Publication 800-43, Guide to Securing Windows 2000 

Professional, November 2002. 

[SP 800-44] NIST Special Publication 800-44, Version 2,Guidelines on Securing 

Public Web Servers, September 2007. 

[SP 800-47] NIST Special Publication 800-47, Security Guide for Interconnecting 

Information Technology Systems, September 2002. 

[SP 800-52] NIST Special Publication 800-52, Guidelines for the Selection and 

Use of Transport Layer Security Implementations, June 2005. 

98
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

[SP 800-53] NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, Recommended Security 

Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, August 

2009 and Errata as of May 2010. 

[SP 800-53A] NIST Special Publication 800-53A, Revision 1, Guide for Assessing 

the Security Controls in Federal Information Systems and 

Organizations, Building Effective Security Assessment Plans, June 

2010. 

[SP 800-57] NIST Special Publication 800-57, Revision 2, Recommendation for 

Key Management – Part 1: General, March 2007. 

[SP 800-94] NIST Special Publication, 800-94, Guide to Intrusion Detection and 

Prevention Systems (IDPS), February 2007. 

[SP 800-115] NIST Special Publication 800-115, Technical Guide to Information 

Security Testing and Assessment, September 2008. 

10.3. Federal Information Processing Standards 

FIPS can be found at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/

 [FIPS 140-2] Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 140-2, Security 

Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, NIST, May 25, 2001. 

[FIPS 180-2] Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 180-2, Secure 

Hash Standard (SHS), NIST, August 2002. 

[FIPS186-2] Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 186-2, Digital 

Signature Standard (DSS), NIST, June 2000. 

[FIPS 197] Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 197, Advanced 

Encryption Standard (AES), NIST, November 2001. 

[FIPS 199] Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and 

Information Systems (February 2004), available at: 

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips199/FIPS-PUB-199-final.pdf 

[FIPS 201] Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and 

Contractors (March 2006), available at: 

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips201-1/FIPS-201-1-chng1.pdf 

10.4. Certificate Policies 

These certificate policies can be found at: http://www.cio.gov/fpkipa/ 

[FBCA1]	 X.509 Certificate Policy For The Federal Bridge Certification 

Authority (FBCA), version 2.1 January 12, 2006. Available at: 

http://www.cio.gov/fpkipa/documents/FBCA_CP_RFC3647.pdf 

99
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

[FBCA2] Citizen & Commerce Certificate Policy, Version 1.0 December 3, 

2002. Available at: 

http://www.cio.gov/fpkipa/documents/citizen_commerce_cpv1.pdf 

[FBCA3] X.509 Certificate Policy for the Common Policy Framework, Version 

2.4 February 15, 2006. Available at: 

http://www.cio.gov/fpkipa/documents/CommonPolicy.pdf 

100
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Appendix A: Estimating Entropy and Strength 

Password Entropy 

Passwords represent a very popular implementation of memorized secret tokens. In this 

case impersonation of an identity requires only that the impersonator obtain the 

password. Moreover, the ability of humans to remember long, arbitrary passwords is 

limited, so passwords are often vulnerable to a variety of attacks including guessing, use 

of dictionaries of common passwords, and brute force attacks of all possible password 

combinations. There are a wide variety of password authentication protocols that differ 

significantly in their vulnerabilities, and many password mechanisms are vulnerable to 

passive and active network attacks. While some cryptographic password protocols resist 

nearly all direct network attacks, these techniques are not at present widely used and all 

password authentication mechanisms are vulnerable to keyboard loggers and observation 

of the password when it is entered. Experience also shows that users are vulnerable to 

“social engineering” attacks where they are persuaded to reveal their passwords to 

unknown parties, who are basically “confidence men.” 

Claude Shannon coined the use of the term “entropy33” in information theory. The 

concept has many applications to information theory and communications and Shannon 

also applied it to express the amount of actual information in English text. Shannon says, 

“The entropy is a statistical parameter which measures in a certain sense, how much 

information is produced on the average for each letter of a text in the language. If the 

language is translated into binary digits (0 or 1) in the most efficient way, the entropy H 

is the average number of binary digits required per letter of the original language.”34 

Entropy in this sense is at most only loosely related to the use of the term in 

thermodynamics. A mathematical definition of entropy in terms of the probability 

distribution function is: 

H (X ) := −∑P(X = x)log2 P(X = x) x 

where P(X=x) is the probability that the variable X has the value x. 

Shannon was interested in strings of ordinary English text and how many bits it would 

take to code them in the most efficient way possible. Since Shannon coined the term, 

“entropy” has been used in cryptography as a measure of the difficulty in guessing or 

determining a password or a key. Clearly the strongest key or password of a particular 

size is a truly random selection, and clearly, on average such a selection cannot be 

compressed. However it is far from clear that compression is the best measure for the 

strength of keys and passwords, and cryptographers have derived a number of alternative 

33 C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal, v. 27, pp. 

379-423, 623-656, July, October 1948, see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html 34 C. E. Shannon, “Prediction and Entropy of Printed English”, Bell System Technical Journal, v.30, n. 1, 

1951, pp. 50-64. 

101
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

forms or definitions of entropy, including “guessing entropy” and “min-entropy.” As 

applied to a distribution of passwords the guessing entropy is, roughly speaking, an 

estimate of the average amount of work required to guess the password of a selected user, 

and the min-entropy is a measure of the difficulty of guessing the easiest single password 

to guess in the population. 

If we had a good knowledge of the frequency distribution of passwords chosen under a 

particular set of rules, then it would be straightforward to determine either the guessing 

entropy or the min-entropy of any password. An Attacker who knew the password 

distribution would find the password of a chosen user by first trying the most probable 

password for that chosen username, then the second most probable password for that 

username and so on in decreasing order of probability until the Attacker found the 

password that worked with the chosen username. The average for all passwords would be 

the guessing entropy. The Attacker who is content to find the password of any user would 

follow a somewhat different strategy, he would try the most probable password with 

every username, then the second most probable password with every username, until he 

found the first “hit.” This corresponds to the min-entropy. 

Unfortunately, we do not have much data on the passwords users choose under particular 

rules, and much of what we do know is found empirically by “cracking” passwords, that 

is by system administrators applying massive dictionary attacks to the files of hashed 

passwords (in most systems no plaintext copy of the password is kept) on their systems. 

NIST would like to obtain more data on the passwords users actually choose, but, where 

they have the data, system administrators are understandably reluctant to reveal password 

data to others. Empirical and anecdotal data suggest that many users choose very easily 

guessed passwords, where the system will allow them to do so. 

A.1 Randomly Selected Passwords 

As we use the term here, “entropy” denotes the uncertainty in the value of a password. 

Entropy of passwords is conventionally expressed in bits. If a password of k bits is 

chosen at random there are 2k

 possible values and the password is said to have k bits of 

entropy. If a password of length l characters is chosen at random from an alphabet of b 

characters (for example the 94 printable ISO characters on a typical keyboard) then the 

entropy of the password is bl

 (for example if a password composed of 8 characters from 

the alphabet of 94 printable ISO characters the entropy is 948 ≈ 6.09 x 1015 – this is about 

252, so such a password is said to have about 52 bits of entropy). For randomly chosen 

passwords, guessing entropy, min-entropy, and Shannon entropy are all the same value. 

The general formula for entropy, H is given by: 

H = log2 (bl

) 

Table A.1 gives the entropy versus length for a randomly generated password chosen 

from the standard 94 keyboard characters (not including the space). Calculation of 

randomly selected passwords from other alphabets is straightforward. 

102
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

A.2 User Selected Passwords 

It is much more difficult to estimate the entropy in passwords that users choose for 

themselves, because they are not chosen at random and they will not have a uniform 

random distribution. Passwords chosen by users probably roughly reflect the patterns and 

character frequency distributions of ordinary English text, and are chosen by users so that 

they can remember them. Experience teaches us that many users, left to choose their own 

passwords will choose passwords that are easily guessed and even fairly short 

dictionaries of a few thousand commonly chosen passwords, when they are compared to 

actual user chosen passwords, succeed in “cracking” a large share of those passwords. 

A.2.1 Guessing Entropy Estimate 

Guessing entropy is arguably the most critical measure of the strength of a password 

system, since it largely determines the resistance to targeted, online password guessing 

attacks. 

In these guidelines, we have chosen to use Shannon’s estimate of the entropy in ordinary 

English text as the starting point to estimate the entropy of user-selected passwords. It is a 

big assumption that passwords are quite similar to other English text, and it would be 

better if we had a large body of actual user selected passwords, selected under different 

composition rules, to work from, but we have no such resource, and it is at least plausible 

to use Shannon’s work for a “ballpark” estimate. Readers are cautioned against 

interpreting the following rules as anything more than a very rough rule of thumb method 

to be used for the purposes of e-authentication. 

Shannon conducted experiments where he gave people strings of English text and asked 

them to guess the next character in the string. From this he estimated the entropy of each 

successive character. He used a 27-character alphabet, the ordinary English lower case 

letters plus the space. 

In the following discussion we assume that passwords are user selected from the normal 

keyboard alphabet of 94 printable characters, and are at least 6-characters long. Since 

Shannon used a 27 character alphabet it may seem that the entropy of user selected 

passwords would be much larger, however the assumption here is that users will choose 

passwords that are almost entirely lower case letters, unless forced to do otherwise, and 

that rules that force them to include capital letters or non-alphabetic characters will 

generally be satisfied in the simplest and most predictable manner, often by putting a 

capital letter at the start (as we do in ordinary English) and punctuation or special 

characters at the end, or by some simple substitution, such as $ for the letter “s.” 

Moreover rules that force passwords to appear to be highly random will be 

counterproductive because they will make the passwords hard to remember. Users will 

then write the passwords down and keep them in a convenient (that is insecure) place, 

such as pasted on their monitor. Therefore it is reasonable to start from estimates of the 

entropy of simple English text, assuming only a 27-symbol alphabet. 

103
 
 

 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Shannon observed that, although there is a non-uniform probability distribution of letters, 

it is comparatively hard to predict the first letter of an English text string, but, given the 

first letter, it is much easier to guess the second and given the first two the third is easier 

still, and so on. He estimated the entropy of the first symbol at 4.6 to 4.7 bits, declining to 

on the order of about 1.5 bits after 8 characters. Very long English strings (for example 

the collected works of Shakespeare) have been estimated to have as little as .4 bits of 

entropy per character.35 Similarly, in a string of words, it is harder to predict the first 

letter of a word than the following letters, and the first letter carries about 6 times more 

information than the fifth or later letters36. 

An Attacker attempting to find a password will try the most likely chosen passwords first. 

Very extensive dictionaries of passwords have been created for this purpose. Because 

users often choose common words or very simple passwords systems commonly impose 

rules on password selection in an attempt to prevent the choice of “bad” passwords and 

improve the resistance of user chosen passwords to such dictionary or rule driven 

password guessing attacks. For the purposes of these guidelines, we break those rules into 

two categories: 

1.	 Dictionary tests that test prospective passwords against an “extensive dictionary 

test” of common words and commonly used passwords, then disallow passwords 

found in the dictionary. We do not precisely define a dictionary test, since it must 

be tailored to the password length and rules, but it should prevent selection of 

passwords that are simple transformations of any one word found in an 

unabridged English dictionary, and should include at least 50,000 words. There is 

no intention to prevent selection of long passwords (16 characters or more based 

on phrases) and no need to impose a dictionary test on such long passwords of 16 

characters or more. 

2.	 Composition rules that typically require users to select passwords that include 

lower case letters, upper case letters, and non-alphabetic symbols (e.g.;: 

“~!@#$%^&*()_-+={}[]|\:;’<,>.?/1234567890”). 

Either dictionary tests or composition rules eliminate some passwords and reduce the 

space that an adversary must test to find a password in a guessing or exhaustion attack. 

However they can eliminate many obvious choices and therefore we believe that they 

generally improve the “practical entropy” of passwords, although they reduce the work 

required for a truly exhaustive attack. The dictionary check requires a dictionary of at 

least 50,000 legal passwords chosen to exclude commonly selected passwords. Upper 

case letters in candidate passwords should be converted to lower case before comparison. 

Table A.1 provides a rough estimate of the average entropy of user chosen passwords as a 

function of password length. Estimates are given for user selected passwords drawn from 

the normal keyboard alphabet that are not subject to further rules, passwords subject to a 

dictionary check to prevent the use of common words or commonly chosen passwords 

35 Thomas Schurmann and Peter Grassberger, “Entropy estimation of symbol sequences,” 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0203/0203436.pdf

36 ibid. 

104
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

and passwords subject to both composition rules and a dictionary test. In addition an 

estimate is provided for passwords or PINs with a ten-digit alphabet. The table also 

shows the calculated entropy of randomly selected passwords and PINs. The values of 

Table A.1 should not be taken as accurate estimates of absolute entropy, but they do 

provide a rough relative estimate of the likely entropy of user chosen passwords, and 

some basis for setting a standard for password strength. 

The logic of the Table A.1 is as follows for user-selected passwords drawn from the full 

keyboard alphabet: 

•	 The entropy of the first character is taken to be 4 bits; 

•	 The entropy of the next 7 characters are 2 bits per character; this is roughly 

consistent with Shannon’s estimate that “when statistical effects extending 

over not more than 8 letters are considered the entropy is roughly 2.3 bits per 

character;” 

•	 For the 9th through the 20th character the entropy is taken to be 1.5 bits per 

character; 

•	 For characters 21 and above the entropy is taken to be 1 bit per character; 

•	 A “bonus” of 6 bits of entropy is assigned for a composition rule that requires 

both upper case and non-alphabetic characters. This forces the use of these 

characters, but in many cases these characters will occur only at the beginning 

or the end of the password, and it reduces the total search space somewhat, so 

the benefit is probably modest and nearly independent of the length of the 

password; 

•	 A bonus of up to 6 bits of entropy is added for an extensive dictionary check. 

If the Attacker knows the dictionary, he can avoid testing those passwords, 

and will in any event, be able to guess much of the dictionary, which will, 

however, be the most likely selected passwords in the absence of a dictionary 

rule. The assumption is that most of the guessing entropy benefits for a 

dictionary test accrue to relatively short passwords, because any long 

password that can be remembered must necessarily be a “pass-phrase” 

composed of dictionary words, so the bonus declines to zero at 20 characters. 

For user selected PINs the assumption of Table A.1 is that such pins are subjected at least 

to a rule that prevents selection of all the same digit, or runs of digits (e.g., “1234” or 

“76543”). This column of Table A.1 is at best a very crude estimate, and experience with 

password crackers suggests, for example, that users will often preferentially select simple 

number patterns and recent dates, for example their year of birth. 

A.2.2 Min-Entropy Estimates 

Experience suggests that a significant share of users will choose passwords that are very 

easily guessed (“password” may be the most commonly selected password, where it is 

allowed). Suppose, for example, that one user in 1,000 chooses one of the 2 most 

105
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

common passwords, in a system that allows a user 3 tries before locking a password. An 

Attacker with a list of user names, who knows the two most commonly chosen passwords 

can use an automated attack to try those 2 passwords with each user name, and can 

expect to find at least one password about half the time by trying 700 usernames with 

those two passwords. Clearly this is a practical attack if the only goal is to get access to 

the system, rather than to impersonate a single selected user. This is usually too 

dangerous a possibility to ignore. 

We know of no accurate general way to estimate the actual min-entropy of user chosen 

passwords, without examining in detail the passwords that users actually select under the 

rules of the password system, however it is reasonable to argue that testing user chosen 

passwords against a sizable dictionary of otherwise commonly chosen legal passwords, 

and disallowing matches, will raise the min-entropy of a password. A dictionary test is 

specified here that is intended to ensure at least 10 bits of min-entropy. That test is: 

•	 Upper case letters in passwords are converted to entirely lower case and 

compared to a dictionary of at least 50,000 commonly selected otherwise legal 

passwords and rejected if they match any dictionary entry, and 

•	 Passwords that are detectable permutations of the username are not allowed. 

This is estimated to ensure at least 10 bits of min-entropy. Other means may be 

substituted to ensure at least 10 bits of min-entropy. User chosen passwords of at least 15 

characters are assumed to have at least 10 bits of min-entropy. For example a user might 

be given a short randomly chosen string (two randomly chosen characters from a 94-bit 

alphabet have about 13 bits of entropy). A password, for example, might combine short 

system selected random elements, to ensure 10 bits of min-entropy, with a longer userchosen password. 

A.3 Other Types of Passwords 

Some password systems require a user to memorize a number of images, such as faces. 

Users are then typically presented with successive fields of several images (typically 9 at 

a time), each of which contains one of the memorized images. Each selection represents 

approximately 3.17 bits of entropy. If such a system used five rounds of memorized 

images, then the entropy of system would be approximately 16 bits. Since this is 

randomly selected password the guessing entropy and min-entropy are both the same 

value. 

It is possible to combine randomly chosen and user chosen elements into a single 

composite password. For example a user might be given a short randomly selected value 

to ensure min-entropy to use in combination with a user chosen password string. The 

random component might be images or a character string. 

106
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table A.1 – Estimated Password Guessing Entropy in bits vs. Password Length 

User Chosen Randomly Chosen 

94 Character Alphabet 10 char. alphabet 94 char 

alphabet 

Length 

Char. 

No Checks Dictionary 

Rule 

Dict. & 

Composition 

Rule 

1 4 - - 3 3.3 6.6 

2 6 - - 5 6.7 13.2 

3 8 - - 7 10.0 19.8 

4 10 14 16 9 13.3 26.3 

5 12 17 20 10 16.7 32.9 

6 14 20 23 11 20.0 39.5 

7 16 22 27 12 23.3 46.1 

8 18 24 30 13 26.6 52.7 

10 21 26 32 15 33.3 65.9 

12 24 28 34 17 40.0 79.0 

14 27 30 36 19 46.6 92.2 

16 30 32 38 21 53.3 105.4 

18 33 34 40 23 59.9 118.5 

20 36 36 42 25 66.6 131.7 

22 38 38 44 27 73.3 144.7 

24 40 40 46 29 79.9 158.0 

30 46 46 52 35 99.9 197.2 

40 56 56 62 45 133.2 263.4 

107
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60

estimated bits of entropy

Figure A.1 - Estimated User Selected Password Entropy vs. Length 

no checks 

dictionary rule 

comp & dictionary 

0 10 20 30 

Password length in characters 

108
 
Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Appendix B: Mapping of Federal PKI Certificate Policies to Eauthentication Assurance Levels 

Agencies are, in general, issuing certificates under the policies specified in the Common 

Policy Framework [FBCA3] to satisfy FIPS 201. Organizations outside the US 

Government have begun issuing credentials under a parallel set of policies and 

requirements known collectively as PIV Interoperabiltiy specifications (PIV-I). Agencies 

that were early adopters of PKI technology, and organizations outside the Federal 

government, issue PKI certificates under organization specific policies instead of the 

Common Policy Framework. The primary mechanism for evaluating the assurance 

provided by public key certificates issued under organization specific policies is the 

policy mapping of the Federal Policy Authority to the Federal Bridge CA policies. These 

policies include the Rudimentary, Basic, Medium, Medium-HW, and High assurance 

policies specified in [FBCA1] and the Citizen and Commerce class policy specified in 

[FBCA2]. 

These policies incorporate all aspects of the credential lifecycle, often in greater detail 

than specified here. These policies also include security controls (e.g., multi-party 

control and system auditing for CSPs) that are outside the scope of this document. 

However, the FPKI policies are based on work that largely predates this specification, 

and the security requirements are not always strictly aligned with those specified here. 

As a result, this appendix provides an overall mapping between FPKI certificate policies 

and the e-authentication Levels instead of a strict evaluation of compliance. There are 

known discrepancies, such as FIPS 201’s allowance for pseudonyms on credentials 

issued to personnel in dangerous jobs, or the ability to issue PIV credentials based on a 

single federal government issued identity credential. While these discrepancies are 

recognized, the overall level of assurance provided by these policies is deemed to meet 

the requirements based on the additional controls. 

The table below summarizes how certificates issued under the Common Policy 

Framework correspond to the e-authentication assurance levels. Note that the Common 

Device policy is not listed; this policy supports authentication of a system rather than a 

person. In addition, table B.1 summarizes how organization specific certificate policies 

correspond to e-authentication assurance levels. At Level 2 agencies may use certificates 

issued under policies that have not been mapped by the Federal policy authority, but are 

determined to meet the Level 2 identify proofing, token and status reporting 

requirements. (For this evaluation, a strict compliance mapping should be used, rather 

than the rough mapping used for the FPKI policies.) For Levels 3 and 4, agencies shall 

depend upon the mappings provided by the Federal PKI. 

The Federal PKI has also added two policies, Medium Commercial Best Practices 

(Medium-CBP) and Medium Hardware Commercial Best Practices (MediumHW-CBP) 

to support recognition of non-Federal PKIs. In terms of e-authentication levels, the 

Medium CBP and MediumHW-CBP are equivalent to Medium and Medium-HW, 

respectively. 

109
 
 

 

Special Publication 800-63-1 Electronic Authentication Guideline 

Table B.1 – Certificate Policies and the E-authentication Assurance Levels 

Certificate Policy 

Selected Policy Components 

Overall 

Equivalence 

Identity 

Proofing Token 

Token and 

Credential 

Management37 

Common-Auth 

PIVI-Auth 

SHA1-Auth38 

Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 

Common-SW Meets Level 4 Meets Level 3 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 3 

Common-HW 

PIVI-HW 

SHA1-HW38 

Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 

Common-High Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 

FBCA Basic39 Meets Level 3 Meets Level 3 Meets Level 3 Meets Level 3 

FBCA Medium39 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 3 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 3 

FBCA Medium-HW39 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 

FBCA High39 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 4 

Common-cardAuth 

PIVI-cardAuth 

SHA1-cardAuth38 

Meets Level 4 Meets Level 2 Meets Level 4 Meets Level 2 

37 The key component in token and credential management is the credential status mechanism. 

38 The SHA1 policies have been deprecated and will not be acceptable after December 31, 2013. 39 These policies are not asserted in the user certificates, but equivalence is established through policy 

mapping at the Federal Bridge CA. 

110