Electronic Authentication Guideline

NIST Special Publication 800-63
Version 1.0.2

Electronic Authentication
Guideline
Recommendations of the
National Institute of
Standards and Technology
William E. Burr
Donna F. Dodson
W. Timothy Polk

INFORMATION

S E C U R I T Y

Computer Security Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930

April 2006

U.S. Department of Commerce
Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration
Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology
William Jeffrey, Director

Special Publication 800-63

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 analysis to advance the
development and productive use of information technology. ITL’s responsibilities include the
development of technical, physical, administrative, and management standards and guidelines for
the cost-effective security and privacy of sensitive unclassified information in Federal computer
systems. This Special Publication 800-series reports on ITL’s research, guidance, and outreach
efforts in computer security and its collaborative activities with industry, government, and
academic organizations.

ii

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Authority
This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information
Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347.
NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum
requirements, for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and
assets, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security 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 A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. Supplemental information is
provided A-130, Appendix III.
This guideline has been prepared for use by Federal agencies. It may also be used by
nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright.
(Attribution would be appreciated by NIST.)
Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict 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.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-63, 64 pages
(April 2006)

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or material may be identified in the document
in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such
identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that these entities,
materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

iii

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Abstract
This recommendation provides technical guidance to Federal agencies implementing
electronic authentication. The recommendation covers remote authentication of users
over open networks. It defines technical requirements for each of four levels of
assurance in the areas of identity proofing, registration, tokens, authentication protocols
and related assertions.
KEY WORDS: Authentication, Authentication Assurance, Credentials Service Provider,
Cryptography, Electronic Authentication, Electronic Credentials, Electronic Transactions,
Electronic Government, Identity Proofing, Passwords, PKI, Public Key Infrastructure,
Tokens.

iv

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Acknowledgments
The authors, Bill Burr, Tim Polk and Donna Dodson of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), wish to thank their colleagues who reviewed drafts of
this document and contributed to its development. The authors also gratefully
acknowledge and appreciate the many contributions from the public and private sectors
whose thoughtful and constructive comments improved the quality and usefulness of this
publication.

v

Special Publication 800-63

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 a network, for the purpose of electronic government and
commerce. This recommendation provides technical guidance to agencies to allow an
individual person to remotely authenticate his/her identity to a Federal IT system. This
guidance addresses 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. NIST expects to
explore other means of remote authentication (for example using biometrics, or by
extensive knowledge of private, but not truly secret, personal information) and may
develop additional guidance on the use of these methods for remote authentication.
This technical guidance supplements OMB guidance, E-Authentication Guidance for
Federal Agencies, [OMB 04-04] that defines four levels of authentication Levels 1 to 4,
in terms of the consequences of the authentication errors and misuse of credentials.
Level 1 is the lowest assurance 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.
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:
•

Tokens (typically a cryptographic key or password) for proving identity,

•

Identity proofing, registration and the delivery of credentials which bind an
identity to a token,

•

Remote authentication mechanisms, that is the combination of credentials,
tokens and authentication protocols used to establish that a claimant is in fact
the subscriber he or she claims to be,

•

Assertion mechanisms used to communicate the results of a remote
authentication to other parties.

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 is accessing

vi

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

the protected transaction or data. It allows a wide range of available authentication
technologies to be employed and allows 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 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 an
eavesdropper. 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.
Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either
cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using Approved methods), or are
obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol.
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. It allows any of the token methods of Levels 3 or 4, as well as
passwords and PINs. Successful authentication requires that the claimant prove through
a secure authentication protocol that he or she controls the token. Eavesdropper, replay,
and on-line guessing attacks are prevented.
Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except
the claimant and verifiers operated by the Credentials Service Provider (CSP); however,
session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP.
Approved cryptographic techniques are required. Assertions issued about claimants as a
result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying
parties (using Approved methods), or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a
secure authentication protocol.
Level 3- Level 3 provides multi-factor remote network authentication. At this level,
identity proofing procedures require verification of identifying materials and information.
Level 3 authentication is based on proof of possession of a key or a one-time password
through a cryptographic protocol. Level 3 authentication requires cryptographic strength
mechanisms that protect the primary authentication token (secret key, private key or onetime password) against compromise by the protocol threats including: eavesdropper,
replay, on-line guessing, verifier impersonation and man-in-the-middle attacks. A
minimum of two authentication factors is required. Three kinds of tokens may be used:
“soft” cryptographic tokens, “hard” cryptographic tokens and “one-time password”
device tokens.
Authentication requires that the claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol
that he or she controls the token, and must first unlock the token with a password or
biometric, or must also use a password in a secure authentication protocol, to establish

vii

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

two factor authentication. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never
revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated directly by the
Credentials Service Provider (CSP), however session (temporary) shared secrets may be
provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are
used for all operations. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful
authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using
Approved methods), or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure
authentication protocol.
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. Level 4 is similar to Level 3 except that only “hard”
cryptographic tokens are allowed, FIPS 140-2 cryptographic module validation
requirements are strengthened, and subsequent critical data transfers must be
authenticated via a key bound to the authentication process. The token shall be a
hardware cryptographic module validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at
least FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. By requiring a physical token, which cannot
readily be copied and since FIPS 140-2 requires operator authentication at Level 2 and
higher, this level ensures good, two factor remote authentication.
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. Authentication requires that the claimant prove through a secure authentication
protocol that he or she controls the token. The protocol threats including: eavesdropper,
replay, on-line guessing, verifier impersonation and man-in-the-middle attacks are
prevented. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any
party except the claimant and verifiers operated directly by the Credentials Service
Provider (CSP), however session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to
independent verifiers by the CSP. Strong Approved cryptographic techniques are used
for all operations. All sensitive data transfers are cryptographically authenticated using
keys bound to the authentication process.

viii

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Table of Contents
1. Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Authority ...................................................................................................................... 1
3. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
4. Definitions and Abbreviations ..................................................................................... 4
5. E-Authentication Model............................................................................................... 9
5.1. Subscribers, RAs and CSPs ................................................................................ 10
5.2. Tokens................................................................................................................. 11
5.3. Electronic Credentials......................................................................................... 12
5.4. Verifiers .............................................................................................................. 13
5.5. Assertions............................................................................................................ 13
5.6. Relying Parties .................................................................................................... 14
6. Tokens........................................................................................................................ 15
6.1. Token Threats ..................................................................................................... 16
6.2. Token Levels....................................................................................................... 16
7. Registration and Identity Proofing............................................................................. 19
7.1. Registration Threats ............................................................................................ 19
7.1.1. Threat Model................................................................................................ 19
7.1.2. Resistance to Registration Threats............................................................... 20
7.2. Registration Levels ............................................................................................. 20
7.2.1. Registration and Identity Proofing Requirements........................................ 21
7.2.2. Records Retention Requirements................................................................. 25
7.3. Mapping FPKI Certificate Policies to Registration Levels................................. 25
8. Authentication Protocols............................................................................................ 26
8.1. Authentication Threats........................................................................................ 26
8.1.1. Authentication Protocol Threats .................................................................. 26
8.1.2. Resistance to Protocol Threats..................................................................... 27
8.1.3. Other Threats ............................................................................................... 29
8.2. Authentication Mechanism Requirements.......................................................... 30
8.2.1. Level 1 ......................................................................................................... 31
8.2.2. Level 2 ......................................................................................................... 32
8.2.3. Level 3 ......................................................................................................... 34
8.2.4. Level 4 ......................................................................................................... 37
9. Summary of Technical Requirements by level.......................................................... 38
9.1.1. Relationship of PKI Policies to E-authentication Assurance Levels ........... 41
10. References................................................................................................................ 43
10.1. General References ........................................................................................... 43
10.2. NIST ITL Bulletins ........................................................................................... 43
10.3. NIST Special Publications ................................................................................ 44
10.4. Federal Information Processing Standards ....................................................... 45
10.5. Certificate Policies ............................................................................................ 45

ix

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Appendix A: Estimating Password Entropy and Strength................................................ 46
A.1 Randomly Selected Passwords............................................................................ 47
A.2 User Selected Passwords..................................................................................... 47
A.2 Other Types of Passwords................................................................................... 51
A.3 Examples............................................................................................................. 51
Appendix B: Errata ........................................................................................................... 54
Appendix B.1: Errata for Version 1.0.1........................................................................ 54
Appendix B.2: Errata for Version 1.0.2........................................................................ 54

x

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

1. Purpose
This recommendation provides technical guidance to agencies in the implementation of
electronic authentication (e-authentication).

2. Authority
This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information
Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347.
NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum
requirements, for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and
assets, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security 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 A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. Supplemental information is
provided A-130, Appendix III.
This guideline has been prepared for use by Federal agencies. It may be used by
nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright.
(Attribution would be appreciated by NIST.)
Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict 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.

3. 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 guidance to
agencies to allow an individual person to remotely authenticate his/her identity to a
Federal IT system.
This technical guidance supplements OMB guidance, E-Authentication Guidance for
Federal Agencies, [OMB 04-04] that defines four levels of assurance Levels 1 to 4, in
terms of the consequences of the authentication errors and misuse of credentials. Level 1
is the lowest assurance 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 e-authentication assurance required for specific electronic
transactions and systems, based on the risks and their likelihood of occurrence.

-1-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

This document states specific technical requirements for each of the four levels of
assurance in the following areas:
•
•
•
•

Tokens (typically a cryptographic key or password) for proving identity,
Identity proofing, registration and the delivery of credentials which bind an
identity to a token,
Remote authentication mechanisms, that is the combination of credentials,
tokens and authentication protocols used to establish that a claimant is in fact
the subscriber he or she claims to be,
Assertion mechanisms used to communicate the results of a remote
authentication to other parties.

The overall authentication assurance level is determined by the lowest assurance level
achieved in any of the four areas listed above.
This technical guidance covers remote electronic authentication of human users to
Federal agency IT systems over a network. It does 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.
While this technical guidance does, in many cases, establish requirements that Federal IT
systems and service providers participating in authentication protocols be authenticated to
subscribers, it does not specifically address machine-to-machine (such as router-torouter) authentication, nor does this guidance establish specific requirements for issuing
authentication credentials and tokens to machines and servers when they are used in eauthentication protocols with people.
The paradigm of this document is that individuals are enrolled and undergo an identity
proofing process in which their identity is bound to an authentication secret, called a
token. Thereafter, the individuals are remotely authenticated to systems and applications
over an open network, using the token in an authentication protocol. The authentication
protocol allows an individual to demonstrate to a verifier that he has or knows the secret
token, in a manner that protects the secret from compromise by different kinds of attacks.
Higher authentication assurance levels require use of stronger tokens (harder to guess
secrets) and better protection of the token from attacks. This document covers only
authentication mechanisms that work by making the individual demonstrate possession
and control of a secret.
It may also be practical to achieve authentication by testing the personal knowledge of
the individual (referred to as knowledge based authentication). As this information is
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.
Biometric methods are widely used to authenticate individuals who are physically present
at the authentication point, for example for entry into buildings. Biometrics do not
constitute secrets suitable for use in the conventional remote authentication protocols

-2-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

addressed in this document. In the local authentication case, where the claimant is
observed and uses a capture device controlled by the verifier, authentication does not
require that biometrics be kept secret. The use of biometrics to “unlock” conventional
authentication tokens and to prevent repudiation of registration is identified in this
document.
NIST is continuing to study both the topics of knowledge based authentication and
biometrics and may issue additional guidance on their uses for remote authentication of
individuals across a network.
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 03-22]. See the Guide to Federal Agencies on
Implementing Electronic Processes for additional information on legal risks, especially
those that related to the need to satisfy legal standards of proof and prevent repudiation
[DOJ 2000].

-3-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

4. Definitions and Abbreviations
Active Attack

An attack on the authentication protocol where the attacker transmits
data to the claimant or verifier. Examples of active attacks include a
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.
Attack
An attempt to obtain a subscriber’s token or to fool a verifier into
believing that an unauthorized individual possess a claimant’s token.
Attacker
A party who is not the claimant or verifier but wishes to successfully
execute the authentication protocol as a claimant.
Approved
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. Approved cryptographic
algorithms must be implemented in a crypto module validated under
FIPS 140-2. For more information on validation and alist of validated
FIPS 140-2 validated crypto modules see http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/.
Assertion
A statement from a verifier to a relying party that contains identity
information about a subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified
attributes. Assertions may be digitally signed objects or they may be
obtained from a trusted source by a secure protocol.
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.
Authentication
The process of establishing confidence in user identities.
Authentication
A well specified message exchange process that verifies possession of a
protocol
token to remotely authenticate a claimant. Some authentication
protocols also generate cryptographic keys that are used to protect an
entire session, so that the data transferred in the session is
cryptographically protected.
Authenticity
The property that data originated from its purported source.
Bit
A binary digit: 0 or 1.
Biometric
An image or template of a physiological attribute (e.g., a fingerprint)
that may be used to identify an individual. In this document, biometrics
may be used to unlock authentication tokens and prevent repudiation of
registration.
Certification Authority A trusted entity that issues and revokes public key certificates.
(CA)
Certificate Revocation A list of revoked public key certificates created and digitally signed by
-4-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

List (CRL)
Challenge-response
protocol

a Certification Authority. See [RFC 3280]
An authentication protocol where the verifier sends the claimant a
challenge (usually a random value or a nonce) that the claimant
combines with a shared secret (often by hashing the challenge and
secret together) to generate a response that is sent to the verifier. The
verifier knows the shared secret and can independently compute the
response and compare it with the response generated by the claimant.
If the two are the same, the claimant is considered to have successfully
authenticated himself. When the shared secret is a cryptographic key,
such protocols are generally secure against eavesdroppers. When the
shared secret is a password, an eavesdropper does not directly intercept
the password itself, but the eavesdropper may be able to find the
password with an off-line password guessing attack.
Claimant
A party whose identity is to be verified using an authentication
protocol.
Credential
An object that authoritatively binds an identity (and optionally,
additional attributes) to a token possessed and controlled by a person.
Credentials Service
A trusted entity that issues or registers subscriber tokens and issues
Provider (CSP)
electronic credentials to subscribers. The CSP may encompass
Registration Authorities and verifiers that it operates. A CSP may be
an independent third party, or may issue credentials for its own use.
Cryptographic key
A value used to control cryptographic operations, such as decryption,
encryption, signature generation or signature verification. For the
purposes of this document, keys must provide at least 80-bits of
protection. This means that it must be as hard to find an unknown key
or decrypt a message, given the information exposed to an
eavesdropper by an authentication, as to guess an 80-bit random
number.
See also Asymmetric keys, Symmetric key.
Cryptographic strength A measure of the expected number of operations required to defeat a
cryptographic mechanism. For the purposes of this document, this term
is defined to mean that breaking or reversing an operation is at least as
difficult computationally as finding the key of an 80-bit block cipher by
key exhaustion, that is it requires at least on the order of 279 operations.
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.
Digital Signature
An asymmetric key operation where the private key is used to digitally
sign an electronic document and the public key is used to verify the
signature. Digital signatures provide authentication and integrity
protection.
Electronic Credentials Digital documents used in authentication that bind an identity or an
attribute to a subscriber’s token. Note that this document distinguishes
between credentials, and tokens (see below) while other documents
may interchange these terms.
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

-5-

Special Publication 800-63

FIPS
Guessing entropy

Hash function

HMAC
Identity

Identity proofing
Kerberos

Man-in-the-middle
attack (MitM)
Message
Authentication Code
(MAC)
Min-entropy

Network

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Appendix A.
Federal Information Processing Standard.
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 n-bit
random quantity. The attacker is assumed to know the actual password
frequency distribution. See Appendix A.
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.
Hash-based Message Authentication Code: a symmetric key
authentication method using hash functions.
A unique name of an individual person. Since the legal names of
persons are not necessarily unique, the identity of a person must
include sufficient additional information (for example an address, or
some unique identifier such as an employee or account number) to
make the complete name unique.
The process by which a CSP and an RA validate sufficient information
to uniquely identify a person.
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-toKDC exchange.
An attack on the authentication protocol run in which the attacker
positions himself in between the claimant and verifier so that he can
intercept and alter data traveling between them.
A cryptographic checksum on data that uses a symmetric key to detect
both accidental and intentional modifications of the data.
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.
An open communications medium, typically the Internet, that is used to
transport messages between the claimant and other parties. Unless

-6-

Special Publication 800-63

Nonce

Off-line attack

On-line attack

On-Line Certificate
Status Protocol
(OCSP)
Passive attack

Password

Electronic Authentication Guideline

otherwise stated no assumptions are made about the security of the
network; it is assumed to be open and subject to active (e.g.,
impersonation, man-in-the-middle, session hijacking…) and passive
(e.g., eavesdropping) attack at any point between the parties (claimant,
verifier, CSP or relying party).
A value used in security protocols that is never repeated with the same
key. For example, challenges used in challenge-response
authentication protocols generally must not be repeated until
authentication keys are changed, or 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.
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.
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. The goal of the attack may be to gain
authenticated access or learn authentication secrets.
An on-line protocol used to determine the status of a public key
certificate. See [RFC 2560].
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).
A secret that a claimant memorizes and uses to authenticate his or her
identity. Passwords are typically character strings.
The ability to activate and use the token in an authentication protocol.

Possession and control
of a token
Personal Identification A password consisting only of decimal digits.
Number (PIN)
Practice Statement
A formal statement of the practices followed by an authentication entity
(e.g., RA, CSP, or verifier); typically the specific steps taken to register
and verify identities, issue credentials and authenticate claimants.
Private key
The secret part of an asymmetric key pair that is typically used to
digitally sign or decrypt data.
Proof of Possession A protocol where a claimant proves to a verifier that he/she possesses
(PoP) protocol
and controls a token (e.g., a key or password)
Protocol run
An instance of the exchange of messages between a claimant and a
verifier in a defined authentication protocol that results in the
authentication (or authentication failure) of the claimant.
Public key
The public part of an asymmetric key pair that is typically used to
verify signatures or encrypt data.
Public key certificate
A digital document issued and digitally signed by the private key of a
Certification Authority that binds the name of a subscriber to a public
key. The certificate indicates that the subscriber identified in the

-7-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

certificate has sole control and access to the private key. See also [RFC
3280]
Pseudonym
A subscriber name that has been chosen by the subscriber that is not
verified as meaningful by identity proofing.
Registration
The process through which a party applies to become a subscriber of a
CSP and an RA validates the identity of that party on behalf of the
CSP.
Registration Authority A trusted entity that establishes and vouches for the identity of a
(RA)
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
An entity that relies upon the subscriber’s credentials, typically to
process a transaction or grant access to information or a system.
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.
Security Assertion
A specification for encoding security assertions in the XML markup
Markup Language
language. See: http://www.oasis(SAML)
open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=security
Shared secret
A secret used in authentication that is known to the claimant and the
verifier.
Subject
The person whose identity is bound in a particular credential.
Subscriber
A party who receives a credential or token from a CSP and becomes a
claimant in an authentication protocol.
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.
Token
Something that the claimant possesses and controls (typically a key or
password) used to authenticate the claimant’s identity.
Transport Layer
An authentication and security protocol widely implemented in
Security (TLS)
browsers and web servers. TLS is defined by [RFC 2246] and [RFC
3546]. TLS is similar to the older Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocol
and is effectively SSL version 3.1.
Tunneled password
A protocol where a password is sent through a protected channel. For
protocol
example, the TLS protocol is often used with a verifier’s public key
certificate to (1) authenticate the verifier to the claimant, (2) establish
an encrypted session between the verifier and claimant, and (3) transmit
the claimant’s password to the verifier. The encrypted TLS session
protects the claimant’s password from eavesdroppers.
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 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 An attack where the attacker impersonates the verifier in an
attack
authentication protocol, usually to learn a password.

-8-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

5. E-Authentication Model
In accordance with [OMB 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.
E-authentication begins with registration. An applicant applies to a Registration
Authority (RA) to become a subscriber of a Credential Service Provider (CSP) and, as a
subscriber, is issued or registers a secret, called a token, and a credential that binds the
token to a name and possibly other attributes that the RA has verified. The token and
credential may be used in subsequent authentication events.
The subscriber’s name may either be a verified name or a pseudonym. A verified name is
associated with the identity of a real person and before an applicant can receive
credentials or register a token associated with a verified name, he or she must
demonstrate that the identity is a real identity, and that he or she is the person who is
entitled to use that identity. This process is called identity proofing, and is performed by
an RA that registers subscribers with the CSP. At Level 1, since names are not verified,
names are always assumed to be pseudonyms. Level 2 credentials and assertions must
specify whether the name is a verified name or a pseudonym. This information assists
relying parties, that is parties who rely on the name or other authenticated attributes, in
making access control or authorization decisions. Only verified names are allowed at
Levels 3 and 4.
In this guidance, 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 in an on-line authentication to a verifier through an authentication
protocol, the verifier can verify that the clamant is the subscriber. The verifier passes on
an assertion about the identity of the subscriber to the relying party. 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 relying party, the assertion may be implicit. In addition, the
subscriber’s identifying information may be incorporated in credentials (e.g., public key
certificates) made available by the claimant. The relying party can use the authenticated
information provided by the verifier/CSP to make access control or authorization
decisions.
Authentication simply establishes identity, or in some cases verified 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), not what that identity
is authorized to do or what access privileges he or she has; this is a separate decision.
-9-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Relying parties, typically government agencies, will use a subscriber’s authenticated
identity and other factors to make access control or authorization decisions. In many
cases, the authentication process and services will be shared by many applications and
agencies, but the individual agency or application is the relying party that must make the
decision to grant access or process a transaction based on the specific application
requirements. This guidance provides technical recommendations for the process of
authentication, not authorization.
In summary, an individual applicant applies first to an RA. The RA identity proofs that
applicant. As the result of successful identity proofing, the applicant becomes a
subscriber of a CSP associated with the RA, with a credential and a secret token
registered to the subscriber. When the subscriber needs to authenticate to perform a
transaction, he or she becomes a claimant to a verifier. The claimant proves to the
verifier that he or she controls the token, using an authentication protocol. If the verifier
is separate from the relying party (application), the verifier provides an assertion about
the claimant to the relying party, which uses the information in the assertion to make an
access control or authorization decision. If the transaction is significant, the relying party
may log the subscriber identity and credential(s) used in the authentication along with
relevant transaction data.
5.1. Subscribers, RAs and CSPs
In the conceptual e-authentication model, a claimant in an authentication protocol is a
subscriber to some CSP. At some point, an applicant registers with an RA, which verifies
the identity of the applicant, typically through the presentation of paper credentials and
by records in databases. This process is called identity proofing. The RA, in turn, vouches
for the identity of the applicant (and possibly other verified attributes) to a CSP. The
applicant then becomes a subscriber of the CSP.
The CSP establishes a mechanism to uniquely identify each subscriber and the associated
tokens and credentials issued to that subscriber. The CSP registers or gives the
subscriber a token to be used in an authentication protocol and issues credentials as
needed to bind that token to the identity, or to bind the identity to some other useful
verified attribute. The subscriber may be given electronic 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 maintains registration records for each subscriber to allow recovery of
registration records.
There is always a relationship between the RA and CSP. In the simplest and perhaps the
most common case, the RA/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 7 provides recommendations for the identity proofing and registration process.

-10-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

5.2. Tokens
Tokens generically are something the claimant possesses and controls that may be used to
authenticate the claimant’s identity. In e-authentication, the claimant authenticates to a
system or application over a network. Therefore, a token used for e-authentication is a
secret and the token must be protected. The token may, for example, be a cryptographic
key, that is protected by encrypting it under a password. An impostor must steal the
encrypted key and learn the password to use the token.
Authentication systems are often categorized by the number of factors that they
incorporate. The three factors often considered as the cornerstone of authentication are:
•

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 voice print or other biometric)

Authentication systems that incorporate all three factors are stronger than systems that
only incorporate one or two of the factors. 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. For example, consider a hardware device that
holds a cryptographic key. The key might be activated by a password or the hardware
device might include a biometric capture device and uses a biometric to activate the key.
Such a device is considered to effectively provide two factor authentication, although the
actual authentication protocol between the verifier and the claimant simply proves
possession of the key.
The secrets are often 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 used by the claimant as a 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 control of the
associated private key token (proof of possession).
Shared secrets are either symmetric keys or passwords. In a protocol sense, all shared
secrets are similar, and can be used in similar authentication protocols; however,
passwords, since they are often committed to memory, are something the claimant
knows, rather than something he has. Passwords, because they are committed to
memory, 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 or “shoulder surfing” attacks. Therefore
keys and passwords demonstrate somewhat separate authentication properties (something
you know rather than something you have). Passwords often have lesser resistance to
network attacks. However, when using either public key pairs or shared secrets, the

-11-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

subscriber has a duty to maintain exclusive control of his token, since possession and
control of the token is used to authenticate the subscriber’s identity.
Biometrics are unique personal attributes that can be used to identify a person. They
include facial pictures, fingerprints, DNA, iris and retina scans, voiceprints and many
other things. In this document, biometrics are used in the registration process to be able
to later prevent a subscriber who in fact registered from repudiating the registration, to
help identify those who commit registration fraud, and to unlock tokens. Biometrics are
not used directly as tokens in this document.
As defined in Section 6, this guidance recognizes four kinds of claimant tokens: hard
tokens, soft tokens, one-time password device tokens and password tokens.
5.3. Electronic 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
credentials themselves are authenticated 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 credentials is indeed the subject of
the credentials. More commonly, the credentials contain biometric information such as
the subject’s description, a picture of the subject or the handwritten signature of the
subject that 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,
authentication biometrics contained in those credentials can be checked to confirm that
the physical holder of the credential is the subject.
Electronic identity credentials bind a name and perhaps other attributes to a token. This
recommendation does not prescribe particular kinds of electronic credentials. There are a
variety of electronic credential types in use today, and new types of credentials are
constantly being created. At a minimum, credentials include identifying information that
permits recovery of the records of the registration associated with the credentials and a
name that is associated with the subscriber. In every case, given the issuer and the
identifying information in the credential, it must be possible to recover the registration
records upon which the credentials are based. Electronic credentials may be generalpurpose credentials or targeted to a particular verifier. Some common types of credentials
are:
• X.509 public key identity certificates that bind an identity to a public key;
• X.509 attribute certificates that bind an identity or a public key with some
attribute;
• Kerberos tickets that are encrypted messages binding the holder with some
attribute or privilege.

-12-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Electronic credentials may be stored as data in a directory or database. These credentials
may be digitally signed objects (e.g., X.509 certificates), in which case their integrity
may be verified. In this case, the directory or database may be an untrusted entity, since
the data it supplies is self-authenticating. Alternatively, the directory or database server
may be a trusted entity that authenticates itself to the relying party or verifier. When the
directory or database server is trusted, unsigned credentials may simply be stored as
unsigned data.
5.4. Verifiers
In any authenticated on-line transaction, the verifier must verify that the claimant has
possession and control of the token that verifies his or her identity. A claimant
authenticates his or her identity to a verifier by the use of a token and an authentication
protocol. This is called Proof of Possession (PoP). Many PoP protocols are designed so
that a verifier, with no knowledge of the token before the authentication protocol run,
learns nothing about the token from the run. The verifier and CSP may be the same
entity, the verifier and relying party may be the same entity or they may all three be
separate entities. It is undesirable for verifiers to learn shared secrets unless they are a
part of the same entity as the CSP that registered the tokens. Where the verifier and the
relying party are separate entities, the verifier must convey the result of the authentication
protocol to the relying party. The object created by the verifier to convey this result is
called an assertion.
5.5. Assertions
Assertions can be used to pass information about the claimant or the e-authentication
process from the verifier to a relying party. Assertions contain, at a minimum, the name
of the claimant, as well as identifying information that permits recovery of registration
records. A relying party trusts an assertion based on the source, the time of creation, and
attributes associated with the claimant.
Examples of assertions include:
• SAML assertions, specified using a mark up language intended for describing
security assertions, can be used by a verifier to make a statement to a relying party
about the identity of a claimant. SAML assertions may optionally be digitally
signed.
• Cookies, character strings placed in a web browser’s memory, 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. 1
Assertions may be stored as directory or database objects. Where assertions are digitally
signed objects (e.g., signed SAML assertions), their integrity may be verified.
1

There are specific requirements that agencies must follow when implementing cookies. See 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.

-13-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Alternatively, the directory or database server may be a trusted, authenticated entity.
When the server is trusted, unsigned assertions may be accepted based on the source.
5.6. Relying Parties
A relying party relies on results of an on-line authentication to establish the identity or
attribute of a subscriber for the purpose of some transaction. The verifier and the relying
party may be the same entity, or they may be separate entities. If they are separate
entities, the relying party normally receives an assertion from the verifier. The relying
party ensures that the assertion came from a verifier trusted by the relying party. The
relying party also processes any additional information in the assertion, such as personal
attributes or expiration times.

-14-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

6. Tokens
This guidance recognizes four kinds of claimant tokens for e-authentication. Each type
of token incorporates one or more of the authentication factors (something you know,
something you have, and something you are.) Tokens that provide a higher level of
assurance incorporate two or more factors. The four kinds of tokens are:
•

Hard token – a hardware device that contains a protected cryptographic key.
Authentication is accomplished by proving possession of the device and control
of the key. Hard tokens shall:
o require the entry of a password or a biometric to activate the
authentication key;
o not be able to export authentication keys;
o be FIPS 140-2 validated:
ƒ overall validation at Level 2 or higher,
ƒ physical security at Level 3 or higher.

•

Soft token – a cryptographic key that is typically stored on disk or some other
media. Authentication is accomplished by proving possession and control of the
key. The soft token key shall be encrypted under a key derived from some
activation data. Typically, this activation data will be a password known only to
the user, so a password is required to activate the token. For soft tokens, the
cryptographic module shall be validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher, and may
be either a hardware device or a software module. Each authentication shall
require entry of the password or other activation data and the unencrypted copy of
the authentication key shall be erased after each authentication.
Some “mobility solutions” also allow keys to be stored on servers and
downloaded to subscriber systems as needed. Other mobility solutions employ
key components generated from passwords with key components stored on
servers for use in split signing schemes. Such solutions may provide satisfactory
soft tokens, provided that a subscriber password or other activation data is
required to download and activate the key, that the protocol for downloading the
keys block eavesdroppers and man-in-the-middle attacks, and the authentication
process produces Approved digital signatures or message authentication codes.
These mobility solutions usually present what appear to relying parties to be
ordinary PKI digital signatures, and may be acceptable under this
recommendation provided they meet the PKI cross certification requirements.
This cross certification will require a detailed analysis of the implementation of
the specific mobility scheme.

•

One-time password device token - a personal hardware device that generates “one
time” passwords for use in authentication. The device may or may not have some
kind of integral entry pad, an integral biometric (e.g., fingerprint) reader or a
direct computer interface (e.g., USB port). The passwords shall be generated by
-15-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

using an Approved block cipher or hash algorithm to combine a symmetric key
stored on a personal hardware device with a nonce to generate a one-time
password. The nonce may be a date and time, a counter generated on the device,
or a challenge from the verifier (if the device has an entry capability). The onetime password typically is displayed on the device and manually input to the
verifier as a password (direct electronic input from the device to a computer is
also allowed). The one-time password must have a limited lifetime, on the order
of minutes, although the shorter the better.
•

Password token – a secret that a claimant memorizes and uses to authenticate his
or her identity. Passwords are typically character strings, however some systems
use a number of images that the subscriber memorizes and must identify when
presented along with other similar images.

6.1. Token Threats
If an attacker can gain control of a token, they will be able to masquerade as the token’s
owner. Threats to tokens can be categorized into attacks on the three factors:
• Something you have may be 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 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 this information. Finally,
an attacker may determine the secret through off-line attacks on network traffic
from an authentication attempt.
• Something you are may be replicated. An attacker may obtain a copy of the token
owner’s fingerprint and construct a replica.
There are several complementary strategies to mitigate these threats:
• Multiple factors raise the threshold for successful attacks. If an attacker needs to
steal a cryptographic token and guess a password, the work factor 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.
• Complex passwords may reduce the likelihood of a successful guessing attack.
By requiring use of long passwords that don’t appear in common dictionaries,
attackers may be forced 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.
6.2. Token Levels
Password authentication is easy to implement and familiar to users, so many systems rely
only on a password for authentication. In this case impersonation of an identity requires

-16-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

only that the impersonator obtain the password. Moreover, the ability of humans to
remember long, arbitrary passwords is limited, so password tokens are often vulnerable to
a variety of attacks including guessing, dictionaries of commonly used passwords, and
simple exhaustion of all possibilities. 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.”
Impersonation of an identity using a hard or soft token requires that the impersonator
obtain two separate things: either the key (token) and a password, or the token and the
ability to enter a biometric into the token. Therefore both hard and soft tokens provide
more assurance than passwords by themselves normally provide. Moreover, a hard
token is a physical object and its theft is likely to be noticed by its owner, while a soft
token can sometimes be copied without the owner being aware. Therefore a hard token
offers more assurance than a soft token.
One-time password device tokens are similar to hard tokens. They can be used in
conjunction with a password or activated by a password or a biometric to provide
multifactor authentication, however one-time password devices do not result in the
generation of a shared session authentication key derived from the authentication.
This recommendation requires multifactor authentication for authentication assurance
Levels 3 and 4 and assigns tokens to the four levels corresponding to the OMB guidance
as follows:
•

Password tokens can satisfy the assurance requirements for Levels 1 and 2.

•

Soft cryptographic tokens may be used at authentication assurance Levels 1 to 3,
but must be combined with a password or biometric to achieve Level 3.

•

One-time password devices are considered to satisfy the assurance requirements
for Levels 1 through 3, and must be used with a password or biometric to achieve
Level 3.

•

Hard tokens that are activated by a password or biometric can satisfy assurance
requirements for Levels 1 through 4.

The above list is a general summary of the assurance levels for tokens. Specific
requirements, however, vary with respect to the details of the authentication protocols.
Levels 3 and 4 require two-factor authentication. Typically this means that for Level 3 or
4 a password or biometric is used to activate a key. Alternatively, a password protocol
may be used in conjunction with a soft token, hard token, or one-time password token to

-17-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

achieve two-factor authentication. Detailed level by level token requirements are
described in conjunction with protocol requirements in Section 8.

-18-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

7. Registration and Identity Proofing
In the registration process an applicant undergoes identity proofing by a trusted
registration authority (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.
The RA may be a part of the CSP, or the RA may be a separate and independent entity;
however a trusted relationship always exists between the RA and CSP. Either the RA or
CSP must maintain records of the registration. The RA and CSP may 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 pre-existing relationship (e.g., the applicant is 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 process is designed, to a greater or lesser degree
depending on the assurance level, to ensure that the RA/CSP knows the true identity of
the applicant. Specifically, the requirements include measures to ensure that:
1. A person with the applicant’s claimed attributes exists, and those attributes are
sufficient to uniquely identity a single person;
2. The applicant whose token is registered is in fact the person who is entitled to the
identity;
3. The applicant cannot later repudiate the registration; therefore, if there is a dispute
about a later authentication using the subscriber’s token, the subscriber cannot
successfully deny he or she registered that 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.
7.1. Registration 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, etc.) and are outside the scope of this document.
7.1.1. Threat Model

-19-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

While some impostors may attempt to register as any subscriber in the system and other
impostors may wish to register as a specific subscriber, registration threats can be
categorized as follows:
•
•

Impersonation of a claimed identity – An applicant claims an incorrect identity,
supporting the claim with a specific set of attributes created over time or by
presenting false credentials.
Repudiation of registration – A subscriber denies registration, claiming that
he/she did not register that token.

7.1.2. Resistance to Registration Threats
Registration fraud can be deterred by making it 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, the
applicant is the person who is entitled to that identity and 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.
7.2. Registration Levels
The following sections list the NIST recommendations for registration and identity
proofing for the four levels corresponding to the OMB guidance. As noted in the OMB
guidance, Levels 1 and 2 recognize the use of anonymous credentials. When anonymous
credentials are used to imply membership in a group, the level of proofing should be
consistent with the requirements for the identity credential of that level. Explicit
requirements for registration processes for anonymous credentials are not specified, as
they are unique to the membership criteria for each specific group.
At Level 2 and higher, 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/her
identity, including the evidence required in the sections below. The CSP shall be
prepared to provide records of identity proofing to relying parties as necessary. The
identity proofing and registration process shall be performed according to a written policy
or practice statement that specifies the particular steps taken to verify identities.
If the RA and CSP are remotely located, and communicate over a network, the entire
registration transaction between RA and CSP shall be cryptographically authenticated
using an authentication protocol that meets the requirements for the assurance level of the
registration, and any secrets transmitted shall be encrypted using an Approved encryption
method.
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 and relying parties. At Level 1, the name associated with the
subscriber is provided by the applicant and accepted without verification. At Level 2, the
-20-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

name associated with the subscriber may be pseudonymous but the RA or CSP must
know the actual identity of the subscriber. In addition, pseudonymous Level 2
credentials must be distinguishable from Level 2 credentials that contain meaningful
names. At Level 3 and above, the name associated with the subscriber must be
meaningful. At all levels, personal identifying information collected as part of the
registration process must be protected from unauthorized disclosure or modification.
The following subsection, Section 7.2.1, establishes registration and identity proofing
requirements specific to each level. Records retention requirements for each level are
specified in Section 7.2.2.
7.2.1. Registration and Identity Proofing Requirements
The following text establishes registration requirements specific to each level. 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. Only in-person registration is permitted at Level 4.
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 individual identifying information. Detailed level-by-level identity proofing
requirements are stated in Table 1 below.

-21-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Table 1. Identity Proofing Requirements by Assurance Level
In-Person
Level 2
Basis for
issuing
credentials

RA actions

Level 3
Basis for
issuing
credentials

Remote

Possession of a valid current primary
Government Picture ID that contains
applicant’s picture, and either address of
record or nationality (e.g. driver’s
license or passport)

Possession of a valid Government ID
(e.g. a driver’s license or passport)
number and a financial account number
(e.g., checking account, savings
account, loan or credit card) with
confirmation via records of either
number.
Inspects photo-ID, compare picture to
• Inspects both ID number and
applicant, record ID number, address
account number supplied by
and DoB. If ID appears valid and photo
applicant. Verifies information
matches applicant then:
provided by applicant including ID
a) If ID confirms address of record,
number or account number through
authorize or issue credentials and
record checks either with the
send notice to address of record,
applicable agency or institution or
or;
through credit bureaus or similar
b) If ID does not confirm address of
databases, and confirms that: name,
record, issue credentials in a
DoB, address other personal
manner that confirms address of
information in records are on
record.
balance consistent with the
application and sufficient to
identify a unique individual.
• Address confirmation and
notification:
a) Sends notice to an address
of record confirmed in the
records check or;
b) Issues credentials in a
manner that confirms the
address of record supplied
by the applicant; or
c) Issues credentials in a
manner that confirms the
ability of the applicant to
receive telephone
communications or e-mail at
number or e-mail address
associated with the applicant
in records.
Possession of verified current primary
Government Picture ID that contains
applicant’s picture and either address of

-22-

Possession of a valid Government ID
(e.g. a driver’s license or passport)
number and a financial account number

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

In-Person
record or nationality (e.g. driver’s
license or passport)

RA actions

Level 4
Basis for
issuing
credentials

RA actions

Remote
(e.g., checking account, savings
account, loan or credit card) with
confirmation via records of both
numbers.
Inspects Photo-ID and verify via the
• Verifies information provided by
issuing government agency or through
applicant including ID number and
credit bureaus or similar databases.
account number through record
Confirms that: name, DoB, address and
checks either with the applicable
other personal information in record are
agency or institution or through
consistent with the application.
credit bureaus or similar databases,
Compare picture to applicant, record ID
and confirms that: name, DoB,
number, address and DoB. If ID is valid
address and other personal
and photo matches applicant then:
information in records are
a) If ID confirms address of record,
consistent with the application and
authorize or issue credentials and
sufficient to identify a unique
send notice to address of record,
individual.
or;
• Address confirmation:
b) If ID does not confirm address of
a) Issue credentials in a
record, issue credentials in a
manner that confirms the
manner that confirms address of
address of record supplied
record
by the applicant; or
b) Issue 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.
In-person appearance and verification of
two independent ID documents or
accounts, meeting the requirements of
Level 3 (in-person and remote), one of
which must be current primary
Government Picture ID that contains
applicant’s picture, and either address of
record or nationality (e.g. driver’s
license or passport), and a new
recording of a biometric of the applicant
at the time of application
• Primary Photo ID:
Inspects Photo-ID and verify via the
issuing government agency,

-23-

Not Applicable

Not applicable

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

In-Person
compare picture to applicant, record
ID number, address and DoB.
• Secondary Government ID or
financial account
a) Inspects Photo-ID and if apparently
valid, compare picture to applicant,
record ID number, address and DoB,
or;
b) Verifies financial account number
supplied by applicant through record
checks or through credit bureaus or
similar databases, and confirms that:
name, DoB, address other personal
information in records are on
balance consistent with the
application and sufficient to identify
a unique individual.
• Record Current Biometric
Record a current biometric (e.g.
photograph or fingerprints to ensure
that applicant cannot repudiate
application.
• Confirm Address
Issue credentials in a manner that
confirms address of record.

Remote

At Level 2, employers and educational instructors 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
by inspection of a corporate or school issued picture ID, or through on-line processes,
where notification is via the distribution channels normally used for sensitive, personal
communications.
At Level 2, financial institutions subject to the supervision of the Department of
Treasury’s Office of Comptroller of the Currency may issue credentials to their
customers via the mechanisms normally used for on-line banking credentials and may use
on-line banking credentials and tokens as Level 2 credentials provided they meet the
provisions of Section 8.
In some contexts, agencies may choose to use additional knowledge-based authentication
methods to increase their 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.

-24-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

7.2.2. Records Retention Requirements
A record of the facts of registration (including revocation) shall be maintained by the
CSP or its representative. The minimum record retention period for registration data for
Level 2 credentials is seven years and six months beyond the expiration or revocation
(whichever is later) of the credential. CSPs operated by or on behalf of executive branch
agencies must 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 for registration data is:
•
•

For Levels 2, and 3, seven years and six months beyond the expiration,
and
For Level 4, ten years and six months beyond the expiration.
7.3. Mapping FPKI Certificate Policies to Registration Levels

The identity proofing and certificate issuance processes specified in the Federal PKI
Certificate Policies [FCBA1, FBCA2, FBCA3] may be mapped to the Registration levels
specified in the preceding section. These mappings are as follows:
• The identity proofing and certificate issuance processes of Certification Authorities
cross-certified with the Federal Bridge CA under policies mapped to the Citizen and
Commerce Class policies [FBCA2] are deemed to meet the identity proofing
provisions of Level 2.
• The identity proofing and certificate issuance processes of Certification Authorities
cross-certified with the Federal Bridge CA under policies mapped to the Basic
Certificate Policy [FBCA1] are deemed to meet the identity proofing provisions of
Levels 2 and 3.
• The identity proofing and certificate issuance processes of Certification Authorities
cross-certified with the Federal Bridge CA under policies mapped to the Medium,
Medium-HW, or High Assurance Certificate policies in [FBCA1] or Common-Auth,
Common-SW, Common-HW, and Common-High Certificate Policies in [FBCA3] are
deemed to meet the identity proofing provisions of Levels 2, 3, and 4.
However, agencies are not limited to relying upon only those certificates by CAs crosscertified with the Federal Bridge CA at Levels 1 and 2. At these levels, agencies may
choose to rely on any CA that has been determined to meet the identity proofing and
registration requirements stated in the General Requirements, Section 7.2.1. At Levels 3
and 4, PKI credentials must be issued by a CA cross-certified 2 with the Federal Bridge
CA under one of the certificate policies identified above, or a policy mapped to one of
those policies.

2

Note that bi-directional cross-certification is not required; it is sufficient that a valid certificate path exist
from the Bridge CA to the issuing CA. The reverse certificate path need not exist.

-25-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

8. Authentication Protocols
An authentication protocol is a defined sequence of messages between a claimant and a
verifier that enables the verifier to verify that the claimant has control of a valid token to
establish his/her identity. An exchange of messages between a claimant and a verifier
that results in the authentication (or authentication failure) of the claimant is a protocol
run.
8.1. Authentication Threats
Threats can be divided into those threats that involve attacks against the actual
authentication protocol itself, and other attacks that may reveal either token values, or
compromise confidential information. In general, attacks that reveal the token value are
worse than attacks that simply compromise some information, because the attacker can
then use the token to assume a subscriber’s identity.
8.1.1. Authentication Protocol Threats
Registration Authorities, CSPs, verifiers and relying parties are ordinarily trustworthy (in
the sense of 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, or could become corrupted. Therefore, protocols that expose long-term
authentication secrets more than is absolutely required, even to trusted entities, should be
avoided.
Protocol threats include:
• Eavesdroppers observing authentication protocol runs for later analysis. In some
cases the eavesdropper may intercept messages between a CSP and a verifier, or
other parties rather than between the claimant and the verifier. Eavesdroppers
generally attempt to obtain tokens to pose as claimants;
• Impostors:
o impostor claimants posing as subscribers to verifiers to test guessed tokens or
obtain other information about a specific subscriber;
o impostor verifiers posing as verifiers to legitimate subscriber claimants to
obtain tokens that can then be used to impersonate subscribers to legitimate
verifiers;
o impostor relying parties posing as the Federal IT system to verifiers to obtain
sensitive user information;
• Hijackers who take over an already authenticated session to then:
o pose as subscribers to relying parties to learn sensitive information or input
invalid information;
o pose as relying parties to verifiers to learn sensitive information or output
invalid information.
Eavesdroppers are assumed to be physically able to intercept authentication protocol
runs; however, the protocol may be designed to render the intercepted messages

-26-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

unintelligible, or to resist analysis that would allow the eavesdropper to obtain
information useful to impersonate the claimant. Subscriber impostors need only normal
communications access to verifiers or relying parties. Impostor verifiers may have
special network capabilities to divert, insert or delete packets, but, in many cases, such
attacks can be mounted simply by tricking subscribers with incorrect links in e-mails or
on web pages, or by using domain names similar to those of relying parties or verifiers,
and therefore the impostors need not necessarily have any unusual network capabilities.
Because of their ubiquitous use, and the way they are implemented, users of web browser
clients are particularly vulnerable to impostor verifiers in password protocols. Hijackers
must be able to divert communications sessions, but this capability may be comparatively
easy to achieve today when many subscribers use wireless network access.
Specific attack mechanisms on authentication protocols include:
• Eavesdroppers who listen passively to the authentication protocol exchange, and
then attempt to learn secrets, such as passwords or keys.
• Active on-line attacks against authentication mechanisms including:
o In-band attacks where the attacker assumes the role of a claimant with a
genuine verifier. These include:
ƒ Password guessing attacks, where an impostor attempts to guess a
password in repeated logon trials and succeeds when he/she is able
to log onto a system. A targeted guessing attack is an attack
against the password of a selected user whose name is known.
ƒ Replay attacks, where an attacker records and replays some part of
a previous good protocol run to the verifier.
o Out-of-band attacks where the attacker alters the authentication channel in
some way such as:
ƒ Hijacking sessions after authentication is complete;
ƒ Verifier impersonation attacks where the attacker impersonates the
verifier and induces the claimant to reveal his secret token.
Because of the functional complexity of web browsers, the
complexity of their user interfaces, and the control they give
servers over what users see, users of web browsers are likely to be
vulnerable to password verifier impersonation attacks, even when
using or “apparently using” secure protocols (e.g. TLS) that
authenticate verifiers;
ƒ Man-in-the middle attacks where the attacker inserts himself in the
path of an authentication exchange, to obtain secret tokens.
Because of the functional complexity of web browsers, the
complexity of their user interfaces, and the control they give
servers over what users see, users of web browsers are likely to be
vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks on passwords, even when
using or “apparently using” secure protocols (e.g. TLS) that are
intended to block such attacks;
8.1.2. Resistance to Protocol Threats
This section defines the meaning of resistance to specific protocol threats.

-27-

Special Publication 800-63

•

•

•
•

•

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Eavesdropping resistance: An authentication protocol is resistant to
eavesdropping attacks if an eavesdropper who records all the messages passing
between a claimant and a verifier or relying party finds that it is impractical to
learn the private key, secret key or password or to otherwise obtain information
that would allow the eavesdropper to impersonate the claimant. Eavesdropping
resistant protocols make it impractical 3 for an attacker to carry out an off-line
attack where he/she records an authentication protocol run then analyses it on
his/her own system for an extended period, for example by systematically
attempting to try every password in a large dictionary, or by brute force
exhaustion.
Password guessing resistance: An authentication protocol is resistant to password
guessing attacks if it is impractical for the attacker, with no a priori knowledge of
the password, to find the password by repeated authentication attempts with
guessed passwords. Both the entropy of the password and the protocol itself
contribute to this property. Password authentication systems can make targeted
password guessing impractical by requiring use of high-entropy passwords (see
Appendix A) and limiting the number of unsuccessful authentication attempts, or
by controlling the rate at which attempts can be carried out. To resist untargeted
password attacks, a verifier may supplement these controls with network security
controls.
Replay resistance: An authentication protocol resists replay attacks if it is
impractical to achieve a successful authentication by recording and replaying a
previous authentication message.
Hijacking resistance: A property of both the authentication protocol and the
subsequent session protocol used to transfer data. An authentication and transfer
protocol in combination is resistant to hijacking if the authentication is bound to
the transfer in a manner that prevents an adversary capable of inserting, deleting,
or rerouting messages from altering the contents of any information sent between
the claimant and the relying party without being detected. This is usually
accomplished by generating a per-session shared secret during the authentication
process that is subsequently used by the claimant and the relying party to
authenticate the transfer of all sensitive information.
Verifier impersonation resistance: In a verifier impersonation attack, the attacker
poses as a legitimate verifier. It may be comparatively easy to impersonate a
verifier by “name spoofing,” or some more advanced network attack may be
required (wireless LAN access today makes these “advanced” network attacks
relatively easy for attackers in many circumstances). An authentication protocol
is resistant to verifier impersonation if the impersonator does not learn the value
of any token when acting as the verifier. However, even secure protocols can
sometimes be bypassed by fooling the claimant into using another protocol or

3

“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.

-28-

Special Publication 800-63

•

Electronic Authentication Guideline

overriding security controls (for example by accepting unverified server
certificates).
Man-in-the-middle resistance: In a man-in-the-middle attack on an authentication
protocol, the attacker interposes himself between the claimant and verifier, posing
as the verifier to the claimant, and as the claimant to the verifier. The attacker
thereby learns the value of the authentication token. Authentication protocols are
resistant to a man-in-the-middle attack when both parties (e.g., claimant and
verifier) are authenticated to the other in a manner that prevents the undetected
participation of a third party. However, even secure protocols can sometimes be
bypassed by fooling the claimant into using another protocol or overriding
security controls (for example by accepting unverified server certificates).

8.1.3. Other Threats
Attacks are not limited to the authentication protocol itself. Other attacks include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Malicious code attacks that may compromise authentication tokens;
Intrusion attacks that obtain credentials or tokens by penetrating the
subscriber/claimant, CSP or verifier system;
Insider threats that may compromise authentication tokens;
Out–of-band attacks that obtain tokens in some other manner, such as social
engineering to get a subscriber to reveal his password to the attacker, or
“shoulder-surfing;”
Attacks that fool claimants into using an insecure protocol, when they think that
they are using a secure protocol, or trick them into overriding security controls
(for example, by accepting server certificates that cannot be validated);
Intentional repudiation by subscribers who deliberately compromise their tokens.

Malicious code could be introduced into the claimant’s computer system for the purpose
of compromising the claimant’s authentication 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 document. Hardware tokens prevent malicious software from
extracting and copying the authentication secret token from the token. However,
malicious code may still misuse the token, particularly if activation data is presented to
the token via the computer. Similarly, the cryptographic tokens at least make it difficult
to trick a user into verbally giving away his authentication secret, making social
engineering more difficult, while many kinds of passwords are readily expressed over the
telephone.
Insider threats are a major concern in many IT systems; however, good security,
personnel, and auditing practices may mitigate these risks. General good practice to
mitigate insider threats is outside the scope of this document.
From a protocol perspective, shared secrets must be closely held and carefully protected
by CSPs. In general, at assurance Levels 2, 3 and 4 independent verifiers must not be

-29-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

given long-term shared secrets by CSPs, as this increases exposure to insider attacks.
Independent verifiers may be given one time challenge-response information, provided
that the shared secret is a cryptographic key 4 . If the shared secret is a password,
challenge-response mechanisms are vulnerable to insider or penetration attacks.
Network intrusion attacks are similar in many ways to insider threats, and are a risk for
all on-line IT systems. Much information is available on the use of preventive measures
such as firewalls, system configuration, and intrusion detection to mitigate the risks of
network intrusion attacks (see sections 10.2 and 10.3 for some helpful references). Note
that subscriber/claimant systems are also subject to network intrusion attacks, but
appropriate authentication mechanisms are one defense against such attacks.
The most serious consequence of a network intrusion attack is that it might allow an
attacker to gain possession or control of tokens used in authentication protocols. A
general treatment of methods for mitigating intrusion attacks is outside the scope of this
document. However, as with insider threats, some elements of the design of an
authentication service can increase or mitigate penetration risks to the authentication
service itself. Hardware tokens and cryptographic modules provide protection for keys
and passwords against penetration attacks, due to the constrained environment that holds
the keys. Other authentication mechanisms may be vulnerable to an attacker who has
access to or can penetrate the claimant’s system. However, shared secret mechanisms are
potentially subject to penetration attacks against the verifier or CSP as well, where the
attacker may find files of many shared secrets. Public key mechanisms are usually less
vulnerable to attacks against verifiers or CSPs. Encryption of files containing long-term
shared secrets reduces the risks of a successful penetration attack.
Subscribers may intentionally compromise tokens to repudiate authentication. A full
discussion of repudiation is outside the scope of this document; typically, however,
safeguarding the authentication protocol against other threats will also help to restrict
repudiation. A variety of measures will reduce the risk of repudiation, including periodic
confirmations that a user has complied with security requirements, confirmations of
transactions through a separate channel (such as electronic mail), and reminders to users
that delegation of tokens is prohibited. Additional discussion appears in DOJ 2000.

8.2. Authentication Mechanism Requirements
This section covers the mechanical authentication process of a claimant who already has
registered a token. Identity proofing and registration are dealt with separately in Section
7. The authentication process shall provide sufficient information to the relying party to

4

Cell phone systems commonly employ such shared secret challenge-response authentication mechanisms.
A shared secret key is maintained on the cell phone and at the home service provider’s “home location
register.” When a user roams and registers with a base station of another host provider, the home service
provider generates a challenge and a reply and sends it to the host service provider to be used to
authenticate the roaming user. If the shared secret keys have sufficient entropy, insider offline attacks at the
host service provider are impractical.

-30-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

uniquely identify the registration information provided by the subscriber and verified by
the RA in the issuance of the credential.
Four assurance levels are defined, numbered 1 to 4. Level 4 provides the highest level of
authentication assurance, while Level 1 provides the least assurance. The technical
requirements for authentication mechanisms (tokens, protocols and security protections)
are stated in this section.
8.2.1. Level 1
Although there is no identity proofing requirement at this level, the authentication
mechanism provides some assurance that the same claimant 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 token methods of Levels 2, 3 or 4. Successful
authentication requires that the claimant shall prove, through a secure authentication
protocol, that he/she 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.
Common protocols that meet Level 1 requirements include APOP [RFC 1939], S/KEY
[SKEY], and Kerberos [KERB]. 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.
8.2.1.1.Credential Lifetime, Status or Revocation
There are no stipulations about the revocation or lifetime of credentials at Level 1.
8.2.1.2.Assertions
Relying parties may accept assertions that are:
• digitally signed by a trusted entity (e.g., the verifier); or
• obtained directly from a trusted entity (e.g. a repository or the verifier) using a
protocol where the trusted entity authenticates to the relying party using a secure
protocol (e.g. TLS) that cryptographically authenticates the verifier and protects
the assertion;
8.2.1.3.Protection of Long-Term Shared Secrets
Files of shared secrets used by verifiers at Level 1 authentication shall be protected by
discretionary access controls that limit access to administrators and only 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

-31-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

addition, any method allowed for the protection of long-term shared secrets at Levels 2, 3
or 4 may be used at Level 1.
8.2.1.4.Password Strength
For password (or PIN) based Level 1 authentication systems, the probability of success of
a targeted on-line password guessing attack by an attacker who has no a priori
knowledge of the password, but knows the user name of the target, shall not exceed 2-10
(1 in 1024), over the life of the password. There are no min-entropy requirements for
Level 1. Appendix A contains information about estimating the entropy of passwords.
8.2.1.5.Example Implementations
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.
8.2.2. 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 3 or 4, as well as passwords.
Successful authentication requires that the claimant shall prove, through a secure
authentication protocol, that he/she controls the token. Eavesdropper, replay, and on-line
guessing attacks shall be prevented. Approved cryptography is required to prevent
eavesdroppers.
8.2.2.1.Credential and Token Lifetime, Status or Revocation
CSPs shall provide a secure mechanism, such as a digitally signed revocation list or a
status responder, to allow verifiers or relying parties to ensure that the credentials are still
valid. Verifiers or relying parties shall check to ensure that the credentials they use are
valid. Shared secret based authentication systems may simply remove revoked
subscribers from the verification database.
CSPs shall revoke 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 deregistration of the password can be accomplished in no more than 72 hours and that the
use of that password in authentication shall fail.
CAs cross-certified with the Federal Bridge CA at the Basic, Medium, High, Citizen and
Commerce Class, or Common Certificate Policy levels are considered to meet credential
status and revocation provisions of this level.
8.2.2.2.Assertions
Relying parties may accept assertions that are:
• digitally signed by a trusted entity (e.g., the verifier); or

-32-

Special Publication 800-63

•

Electronic Authentication Guideline

obtained directly from a trusted entity (e.g. a repository or the verifier) using a
protocol where the trusted entity authenticates to the relying party using a secure
protocol (e.g. TLS) that cryptographically authenticates the verifier and protects
the assertion;

Assertions generated by a verifier shall expire after 12 hours and should not be accepted
thereafter by the relying party.
8.2.2.3.Protection of Long-term Shared Secrets
Long term shared authentication secrets, if used, shall never be revealed to any party
except the subscriber and CSP (including verifiers operated as a part of the CSP),
however session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided by the CSP to independent
verifiers.
Files of shared secrets used by CSPs at Level 2 shall be protected by discretionary access
controls that limit access to administrators and only those applications that require access.
Such shared secret files shall not contain the plaintext passwords or secret; two
alternative methods may be used to protect the shared secret:
1. Passwords may be concatenated to a salt and/or username and then hashed with a
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.
2. Store shared secrets in encrypted form using Approved encryption algorithms and
modes and decrypt the needed secret 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.
8.2.2.4.Password Strength
For password based Level 2 authentication systems, the probability of success of an online password guessing attack by an attacker who has no a priori knowledge of the
password, but knows the user name of the target, shall not exceed 2-14 (1 in 16,384), over
the life of the password. Level 2 passwords shall have at least 10 bits of min-entropy.
Appendix A contains information about estimating the entropy of passwords.
8.2.2.5.Example Implementations
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). This prevents eavesdropper attacks, but
generally does not adequately block not man-in-the middle attacks or verification
impersonation attacks because common web browser clients offer many avenues to fool
or trick users. After a successful authentication, the verifier then puts a security assertion
for the claimant in a secure server, and sends a “handle” for that assertion to a relying
party in an HTTP referral.

-33-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

8.2.3. Level 3
Level 3 authentication is based on proof of possession of a cryptographic key using a
cryptographic protocol. Level 3 authentication assurance requires cryptographic strength
mechanisms that protect the primary authentication token (a secret key or a private key)
against compromise by the following protocol threats defined in section 8.1.1:
eavesdropper, replay, on-line guessing, verifier impersonation and man-in-the-middle
attacks. Level 3 also requires two factor authentication; in addition to the key, the user
must employ a password or biometric to activate the key.
Three kinds of tokens described below may be used to meet Level 3 requirements:
•

Soft cryptographic token: a cryptographic key stored on a general-purpose
computer. Hardware tokens validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher may also be
used to hold the key and perform cryptographic operations. The claimant shall be
required to activate the key before using it with a password or biometric, or,
alternatively shall use a password as well as the key in an authentication protocol
with the verifier. If a password is employed to unlock the soft token key, the key
shall be kept encrypted under a key derived from a password meeting the
requirements for Level 2 authentication, and decrypted only for actual use in
authentication. Alternatively, if a password protocol is employed with the verifier,
the use of the password shall meet the requirements for Level 2 authentication
assurance.

•

Hard token: a cryptographic key stored on a special hardware device. Tokens
must be validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher overall. The claimant shall be
required to activate the key before using it with a password or biometric, or,
alternatively, shall use a password as well as the key in an authentication protocol
with the verifier. The authentication mechanism used to authenticate the claimant
to unlock token shall be validated as meeting the operator authentication
requirements for FIPS 140-2 Level 2. Alternatively, if a password protocol is
employed with a verifier, the use of the password shall meet the requirements for
Level 1 authentication assurance.

•

One-time password device tokens: the authentication depends on a symmetric key
stored on a personal hardware device that is a cryptographic module validated at
FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher overall. The device combines a nonce with a
cryptographic key to produce an output that is sent to the verifier as a password.
The password shall be used only once and is cryptographically generated;
therefore it needs no additional eavesdropper protection. The one-time password
output by the device shall have at least 106 possible values. The verifier must be
authenticated cryptographically to the claimant, for example using a TLS server.
To protect against the use of a stolen token, one of the following measures shall
be used:
•

The authentication mechanism used to authenticate the claimant to the token
shall be validated as meeting the operator authentication requirements for
FIPS 140-2 Level 2.

-34-

Special Publication 800-63

•

Electronic Authentication Guideline

The claimant sends the verifier a personal password meeting the requirements
for (E-authentication) Level 1 with the one-time password.

Authentication requires that the claimant shall prove through a secure authentication
protocol that he or she controls the token. 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. Approved
cryptographic techniques shall be used for all operations.
Each of the three token types has somewhat different utility and security properties. Soft
token solutions are easily realized in “thin clients” with TLS and client certificates.
Moreover this solution allows not only initial authentication of claimants, but also allows
the entire session, or as much of it as is security critical, to be cryptographically
authenticated by a key created during the authentication process. Hard token solutions
provide the additional assurance of a physical token, and users should know if their token
has been stolen. Like soft tokens, hard tokens allow not only initial authentication of
claimants, but also allows the entire session, or as much of it as is security critical, to be
cryptographically authenticated by a key created during the authentication process. Onetime password device token systems are commercially available, portable and work easily
with any browser client. Like hard tokens, one-time password device tokens have the
security advantage that the token is a tangible, physical object. Subscribers should know
if their token is stolen, and the key is not vulnerable to network, shoulder-surfing or
keyboard sniffer attacks. Unlike soft tokens or hard tokens, a session key is not created
from the authentication process to authenticate subsequent data transfers.
All three token types present the eavesdroppers with similar strong cryptographic
protection. Each has its advantages and disadvantages against various types of attacks.
All three offer considerably greater strength than Level 2 solutions. Application
implementers with specific Level 3 authentication requirements, who need to select a
particular technology should chose the one that best suits the functional needs and risks
of their application.
8.2.3.1. Credential/Token Lifetime, Status or Revocation
CSPs shall provide a secure mechanism to allow verifiers or relying parties to ensure that
the credentials are valid. Such mechanisms may include: revocation lists, on-line
validation servers, and the use of credentials with short life-times or the involvement of
CSP servers that have access to status records in authentication transactions. Shared
secret based authentication systems may simply remove revoked subscribers from the
verification database. Verifiers shall check to ensure that the credentials they use are
valid.
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.

-35-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Verifiers shall ensure that the tokens they rely upon are either freshly issued (within 24
hours) or still valid.
8.2.3.2. Assertions
Relying parties may accept assertions that are:
• digitally signed by a trusted entity (e.g., the verifier); or
• obtained directly from a trusted entity (e.g. a repository or the verifier) using a
protocol where the trusted entity authenticates to the relying party using a secure
protocol (e.g. TLS) that cryptographically authenticates the verifier and protects
the assertion;
Assertions generated by a verifier shall expire after 2 hours and should not be accepted
thereafter by the relying party.
8.2.3.3.Protection of Long-term Shared Secrets
Files of long-term shared secrets used by CSPs or verifiers at Level 3 shall be protected
by discretionary access controls that limit access to administrators and only 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.
3. Shared secrets are split by a cryptographic secret sharing method between m
separate verifier systems, so that the cooperation of n (where 2 ≤ n ≤ m) systems
in a secure protocol is required to perform the authentication and an attacker who
learns n-1 of the secret shares, learns nothing about the secret (except, perhaps, its
size).
Temporary session authentication keys may be generated from long-term shared secret
keys by CSPs and distributed to third party verifiers, in an appropriate protocol, but longterm shared secrets shall not be shared with any third parties, including third party
verifiers. 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 protocols are permitted
at this level provided that all keys preserve at least 80-bits of entropy and approved
cryptographic algorithms (e.g., AES, SHA-1, SHA256, HMAC) are used for all
operations.

-36-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

8.2.3.4.Example Implementations
Level 3 assurance can be satisfied by client authenticated TLS (implemented in all
modern browsers), with claimants who have public key certificates. Other protocols with
similar properties can also be used. Level 3 authentication assurance can also be met by
tunneling the output of a one-time password device and a Level 1 personal password
through a TLS session.
8.2.4. 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. Level 4 is similar to Level 3 except that only “hard”
cryptographic tokens are allowed, FIPS 140-2 cryptographic module validation
requirements are strengthened, and subsequent critical data transfers must be
authenticated via a key bound to the authentication process. The token shall be a
hardware cryptographic module validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at
least FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. By requiring a physical token, which cannot
readily be copied and since FIPS 140-2 requires operator authentication at Level 2 and
higher, this level ensures good, two factor remote authentication.
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. Authentication requires that the claimant shall prove through a secure
authentication protocol that he or she controls the token. The protocol threats defined in
section 8.1.1 above (eavesdropper, replay, on-line guessing, verifier impersonation and
man-in-the-middle attacks) shall be prevented. In addition, the token shall protect the
secret from compromise by the malicious code threat as described in section 8.1.3 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 relying parties by the CSP. Strong, Approved cryptographic
techniques shall be used for all operations. All sensitive data transfers shall be
cryptographically authenticated using keys derived in the authentication process.
8.2.4.1.Credential/Token Lifetime, Status or Revocation
CSPs shall provide a secure mechanism to allow verifiers or relying parties to ensure that
the credentials are valid. Such mechanisms may include: revocation lists, on-line
validation servers, and the use of credentials with short life-times or the involvement of
CSP servers that have access to status records in authentication transactions. Shared
secret based authentication systems may simply remove revoked subscribers from the
verification database. Verifiers shall check to ensure that the credentials they use are
either freshly issued or still valid.
CSPs shall have a procedure to revoke credentials within 24 hours. Verifiers or relying
parties 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].

-37-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

At this level 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.
8.2.4.2.Protection of Long-term Shared Secrets
Files of long-term shared secrets used by CSPs or verifiers at Level 4 shall be protected
in the same manner as long-term shared secrets for Level 3 (specified in section 8.2.3.3
above.)

8.2.4.3.Example Implementations
Level 4 assurance can be satisfied by client authenticated TLS (implemented in all
modern browsers), with claimants who have public key hard tokens. Other protocols
with similar properties can also be used.

9. Summary of Technical Requirements by level
This section summarizes the technical requirements for each level in tabular form. Table
2 shows the types of tokens that may be used at each authentication assurance level.
Table 3 identifies the protections that are required at each level. Protections are defined
in section 8.1.2 above. Table 4 summarizes the requirements for the resistance of
passwords to on-line password guessing attacks. Table 5 identifies the types of
authentication protocols that are applicable to each assurance level. Table 6 identifies
additional required protocol and system properties at each level.

-38-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Table 2. Token Types Allowed at Each Assurance Level
Token type
Hard crypto token
One-time password device
Soft crypto token
Passwords & PINs

Level 1
√
√
√
√

Level 2
√
√
√
√

Level 3
√
√
√

Level 4
√

Table 3. Required Protections

Protect against
On-line guessing
Replay
Eavesdropper
Verifier impersonation
Man-in-the-middle
Session hijacking

Level 1
√
√

Level 2
√
√
√

Level 3
√
√
√
√
√

Level 4
√
√
√
√
√
√

Table 4. Minimum Online Password Guessing Resistance
Attack Type
Targeted Attack: Maximum chance of an
attacker guessing the password of a
selected user over the life of the password
with no a priori knowledge other than the
username
Untargeted Attack: min-entropy

Level 1

Level 2

one in 210
(1/1024)

one in 214
(1/16384)

-

10-bits

-39-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Table 5. Authentication Protocol Types
Protocol Type
Private key PoP
Symmetric key PoP
Tunneled or Zero knowledge
password
Challenge-response password

Level 1
√
√
√

Level 2
√
√
√

Level 3
√
√

Level 4
√
√

√

Table 6. Additional Required Properties
Required Property
Shared secrets not revealed to third
parties by verifiers or CSPs
Multi-factor authentication
Sensitive data transfer authenticated

Level 1

-40-

Level 2
√

Level 3
√

Level 4
√

√

√
√

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

9.1.1. Relationship of PKI Policies to E-authentication Assurance
Levels
Agencies are, in general, issuing certificates under the policies specified in the Common
Policy Framework [FBCA3] to satisfy FIPS 201. Table 7 summarizes how certificates
issued under these policies correspond to the E-authentication assurance levels. Note that
the Card Authentication and Common Device policies are not listed; these policies
support authentication of a system or a cryptographic module rather than a person.

Table 7. E-authentication Assurance Levels and the Common Policy Framework
E-auth
Level
Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Selected Policy Components
Identity
Token
Status
Proofing
Reporting
Common-Auth, Common-Auth,
Common-Auth,
Common-SW,
Common-SW,
Common-SW,
Common-HW,
Common-HW,
Common-HW,
and Commonand Commonand CommonHigh Certificate High Certificate
High Certificate
Policies
Policies
Policies
Common-Auth, Common-Auth,
Common-Auth,
Common-SW,
Common-SW,
Common-SW,
Common-HW,
Common-HW,
Common-HW,
and Commonand Commonand CommonHigh Certificate High Certificate
High Certificate
Policies
Policies
Policies
Common-Auth, Common-Auth,
Common-Auth,
Common-SW,
Common-HW,
Common-SW,
Common-HW,
and CommonCommon-HW,
and CommonHigh Certificate
and CommonHigh Certificate Policies
High Certificate
Policies
Policies

Overall
Equivalence
Common-Auth,
Common-SW,
Common-HW,
and CommonHigh Certificate
Policies
Common-Auth,
Common-SW,
Common-HW,
and CommonHigh Certificate
Policies
Common-Auth,
Common-HW,
and CommonHigh Certificate
Policies

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]. Table 8 below summarizes how these 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

-41-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

determined to meet the Level 2 identify proofing, token and status reporting
requirements.
Table 8. E-authentication Assurance Levels and PKI Certificate Policy Mappings
E-auth
Level
Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Selected Policy Components
Identity
Token
Status
Proofing
Reporting
Basic, Citizen
Rudimentary,
Basic, Citizen
and Commerce
Basic, Citizen and and Commerce
Class, Medium, Commerce Class, Class, Medium,
Medium-HW, or Medium,
Medium-HW or
High Certificate Medium-HW, or
High Certificate
Policy or other
High Certificate
Policy or certs.
policies that
Policy, any cert
issued by other
meet level 2 ID
with at least 1024- CAs with a 72
proofing
bit RSA key &
hour or smaller
requirements
SHA1 or
CRL or
equivalent.
revocation cycle
Basic, Medium, Rudimentary,
Basic, Medium,
Medium-HW, or Basic, Citizen and Medium-HW, or
High Certificate Commerce Class, High Certificate
Policy
Medium,
Policy
Medium-HW, or
High Certificate
Policy
Medium,
Medium-HW or
Medium,
Medium-HW,
High Certificate
Medium-HW, or
or High
Policy
High Certificate
Certificate
Policy
Policy

Overall
Equivalence
Basic, Citizen
and Commerce
Class, Medium,
Medium-HW, or
High Certificate
Policy or other
policies that meet
all level 2
requirements

Basic, Medium,
Medium-HW, or
High Certificate
Policy

Medium-HW or
High Certificate
Policy

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.

-42-

Special Publication 800-63

10.

Electronic Authentication Guideline

References

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

[OCC]

Customer Identification Programs for Banks, Savings Associations, Credit
Unions and Certain Non-Federally Regulated Banks. Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, 12 CFR Part 21. May 2003. Available at:
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/03joint326.pdf

[OMB 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 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 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

[RFC2560]

IETF, RFC 2560, X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
Certificate Status Protocol – OCSP, available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2560.txt

[RFC 3280]

IETF, RFC 3280, Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
CRL Profile, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3280.txt

[RFC 3546]

IETF, RFC 3546, Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions, June 2003,
available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3546.txt

[SKEY]

IETF, RFC 1760, The S/KEY One Time Password System, February
1995, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1760.txt

10.2.
NIST ITL Bulletins
NIST ITL Bulletins are available at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistbul/index.html.
The following bulletins may be of particular interest to those implementing systems of
applications requiring e-authentication.
[ITL Dec02] ITL Bulletin, Security of Public Webservers, Dec. 2002

-43-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

[ITL July02] ITL Bulletin, Overview: The Government Smartcard Interoperability
Specification, July 2002
[ITL Jan02]

ITL Bulletin, Guideline on Firewalls and Firewall Policy, January 2002

[ITL Feb00]

ITL Bulletin, Guideline for Implementing Cryptography in the Federal
Government, February 2000

[ITL Dec99] ITL Bulletin, Operating System Security: Adding to the Arsenal of
Security Techniques, December 1999
[ITL Nov99] ITL Bulleting, Acquiring and Deploying Intrusion Detection Systems,
November 1999
[ITL Sep99]

ITL Bulletin, Securing Web Servers, September 1999

[ITL May99] ITL Bulletin, Computer Attacks: What They Are and How to Defend
Against Them, May 1999

10.3.
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 800-31]

NIST Special Publication, 800-31, Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS),
November 2001

[SP 800-32]

NIST Special Publication, 800-32, Introduction to Public Key Technology
and the Federal PKI Infrastructure, February 2001

[SP 8000-33] NIST Special Publication 800-33, Underlying Technical Models for
Information Technology Security, December 2001
[SP 800-40]

NIST Special Publication 800-40, Procedures for Handling Security
Patches, September 2002

[SP 800-41]

NIST Special Publication 800-41, Guidelines on Firewalls and Firewall
Policy, January 2002

[SP 800- 42] NIST Special Publication 800-42, Guideline on Network Security Testing,
draft
[SP 800-43]

NIST Special Publication 800-43, Guide to Securing Windows 2000
Professional, November 2002

[SP 800-44]

NIST Special Publication 800-44, Guidelines on Securing Public Web
Servers, September 2002

[SP 800- 47] NIST Special Publication 800-47, Security Guide for Interconnecting
Information Technology Systems, September 2002

-44-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

[SP 800- 52] NIST Special Publication 800-52, Guidelines for the Selection and Use of
Transport Layer Security Implementations, draft.
10.4.
Federal Information Processing Standards
FIPS can be found at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/
[FIPS 46-3]

Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 46-3, Data
Encryption Standard (DES), NIST, October 25, 1999

[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 Publication197, Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES), NIST, November 2001.

[FIPS 198]

Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 198, Keyed-Hash
Message Authentication Code (HMAC), NIST, March 2002.

10.5.
Certificate Policies
These certificate policies can be found at: http://www.cio.gov/fpkipa/policies.htm.
[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

[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

-45-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Appendix A: Estimating Password Entropy and Strength
Claude Shannon coined the use of the term “entropy 5 ” 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.” 6
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) log 2 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
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.
5

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
6
C. E. Shannon, “Prediction and Entropy of Printed English”, Bell System Technical Journal, v.30, n. 1,
1951, pp. 50-64.

-46-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

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.
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, in band password guessing
attacks.

-47-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

In this guidance, 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.
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. 7 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 5th or later letters 8 .
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
7

Thomas Schurmann and Peter Grassberger, “Entropy estimation of symbol sequences,”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0203/0203436.pdf
8
ibid.

-48-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

improve the resistance of user chosen passwords to such dictionary or rule driven
password guessing attacks. For the purposes of this guidance 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 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
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;

-49-

Special Publication 800-63

•
•

•

Electronic Authentication Guideline

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 thee 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
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.

-50-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

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 to character 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 minentropy, with a longer user-chosen password.
A.2

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.
A.3

Examples

The intent of this guidance is to allow designers and implementers flexibility in designing
password authentication systems. System designers can trade off password length, rules
and measures imposed to limit the number of guesses an adversary can attempt.
The approach of this recommendation to password strength is that it is a measure of the
probability that an attacker, who knows nothing but a user’s name, can discover the
user’s password by means of “in-band” password guessing attack. That is the attacker
attempts to try different passwords until he/she authenticates successfully. At each level
given below, the maximum probability that, over the life of the password, an attacker
with no a priori knowledge of the password will succeed in an in-band password
guessing attack is:
1. Level 1- 2-10 (1 in 1024)
2. Level 2 - 2-14 (1 in 16,384)
Consider a system that assigns subscribers 6 character passwords, randomly selected
from an alphabet of 94 printable keyboard characters. From Table A.1 we see that such a
password is considered to have 39.5 bits of entropy. If the authentication system limits
the number of possible unsuccessful authentication trials to 239.5/214 = 225.5 trials, the
password strength requirements of Level 2 are satisfied. The authentication system
could, for example, simply maintain a counter that locked the password after 225.5 (about

-51-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

forty-five million) total unsuccessful trials. An alternative scheme would be to lock out
the claimant for a minute after three successive failed authentication attempts. Such a
lock out would suffice to limit automated attacks to 3 trials a minute and it would take
about 90 years to carryout 225.5 trials. If the system required that password authentication
attempts be locked for one minute after three unsuccessful trials and that passwords be
changed every ten years, then the targeted password guessing attack requirements of
Level 2 would be comfortably satisfied. Because the min-entropy of a randomly chosen
password is the same as the guessing entropy, the min-entropy requirements of level two
are met.
Consider a system that used:
• a minimum of 8 character passwords, selected by subscribers from an alphabet of
94 printable characters,
• required subscribers to include at least one upper case letter, one lower case letter,
one number and one special character, and;
• Used a dictionary to prevent subscribers from including common words and
prevented permutations of the username as a password.
Such a password would meet the composition and dictionary rules for user-selected
passwords in Appendix A, and from Table A.1 we estimate guessing entropy at 30 bits.
Any system that limited a subscriber to less than 216 (about 65,000) failed authentication
attempts over the life of the password would satisfy the targeted guessing attack
requirements of Level 2. For example, consider a system that required passwords to be
changed every two years and limited trials by locking an account for 24 hours after 6
successive failed authentication attempts. An attacker could get 2 × 365 × 6 = 4,380
attempts during the life of the password and this would easily meet the targeted attack
requirements of Level 2. Because of the dictionary test, this would also meet the minentropy rules for Level 2.
It will be very hard to impose dictionary rules on longer passwords, and many people
may prefer to memorize a relatively long “pass-phrases” of words, rather than a shorter,
more arbitrary password. An example might be: “IamtheCapitanofthePina4”.
As an alternative to imposing some arbitrary specific set of rules, an authentication
system might grade user passwords, using the rules stated above, and accept any that
meet some minimum entropy standard. For example, suppose passwords with at least 24bits of entropy were required. We can calculate the entropy estimate of
“IamtheCapitanofthePina4” by observing that the string has 23 characters and would
satisfy a composition rule requiring upper case and non-alphabetic characters. Table A.1
estimates 45 bits of guessing entropy for this password.

-52-

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Table A.1 – Estimated Password Guessing Entropy in bits vs. Password Length
Randomly Chosen
10 char. alphabet
94 char
alphabet

User Chosen
94 Character Alphabet

estimated bits of entropy

Length
Char.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
30
40

No Checks
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
38
40
46
56

Dictionary
Rule
14
17
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
46
56

Dict. &
Comp. Rule
16
20
23
27
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
52
62

3
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
35
45

3.3
6.7
10.0
13.3
16.7
20.0
23.3
26.6
33.3
40.0
46.6
53.3
59.9
66.6
73.3
79.9
99.9
133.2

60
50
40

no checks

30

dictionary rule

20

comp & dictionary

10
0
0

10

20

30

Password length in characters

Figure A.1 - Estimated User Selected Password Entropy vs. Length

-53-

6.6
13.2
19.8
26.3
32.9
39.5
46.1
52.7
65.9
79.0
92.2
105.4
118.5
131.7
144.7
158.0
197.2
263.4

Special Publication 800-63

Electronic Authentication Guideline

Appendix B: Errata
Appendix B.1: Errata for Version 1.0.1
1. Cover page: Changed Version number from 1.0 to 1.0.1.
2. Cover page: Changed date from June 2004 to September 2004.
3. Page vii: Clarified text to indicate Level 3 authentication may be supported using
one-time passwords, but not reusable passwords.
4. Definition of “Approved” revised to include FIPS 140-2 validation of
cryptographic modules and include a URL pointing to the list of validated
modules.
5. Page 26: Clarified meaning of “cross-certification” with the Federal Bridge CA
by adding a footnote to explicitly state that cross-certification with the Federal
Bridge CA need not be bi-directional for the purposes of this guideline.
6. Page 40, Table 2: Clarified that PINS, a form of passwords, are allowed at Levels
1 and 2.
In addition, minor editorial changes (e.g., capitalization, spelling, and punctuation) have
been made throughout, and some links have been fixed.
Appendix B.2: Errata for Version 1.0.2
1. Cover page: Changed Version number from 1.0.1 to 1.0.2.
2. Cover page: Changed date from September 2004 to April 2006.
3. Cover page: Specified William Jeffrey as NIST Director and Robert Cresanti as
Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Technology
4. Page 25: Updated mapping of FPKI Certificate Policies to 800-63 registration
levels to reflect changes in FBCA Basic Assurance Level and incorporate three
new FPKI certificate policies (FBCA Medium Hardware policy, Common
Authentication, and Common-High). FBCA Basic was upgraded by the Federal
PKI Policy Authority to meet Level 3 registration requirements; the new policies
satisfy Level 4 Registration requirements.
5. Page 41: A new Table 7 was inserted to clarify the relationship of the certificate
policies in the Common Policy Framework with the E-Authentication Assurance
Levels. New introductory text associated with this table explains that the Card
Authentication and Common Device policies are excluded from consideration,
since these policies support authentication of devices.
6. Page 42: Table 8 (Table 7 in version 1.0.1) was updated to reflect the
modifications in the Basic certificate policy, which now satisfies Level 3. The
new Medium-HW certificate policy, which satisfies Level 4, was also added to
this table. Certificate policies from the Common Policy Framework were deleted
from this table, since they are specified in the new Table 7.
7. Page 45: URLs for FPKI certificate policies have been updated.

-54-