BaselineWatch
Desk

2.1 Common FAL Requirements

NIST PIV and digital identity SP 800-63C-4 against SP 800-63C
All changes in this version
added 2 Federation Assurance Level (FAL) part of 2

Title changed

Before · SP 800-63C

After · SP 800-63C-4

Common FAL Requirements

Control changed

Before · SP 800-63C

After · SP 800-63C-4

If no FAL is specified by the trust agreement or federation transaction, the requirements of this section still apply.

At all FALs, all federation transactions SHALL comply with the requirements in Sec. 3 to deliver an assertion to the RP and create an authenticated session at the RP. Examples of assertions used in federation protocols include the ID Token in OpenID Connect [OIDC] and the Security Assertion Markup Language [SAML] Assertion format.

At all FALs, the RP SHALL validate the assertion from the IdP, since the RP needs to trust the IdP to provide valid assertions representing the subscriber’s authentication event.

All parties in the federation SHALL employ security controls, as discussed in Sec. 3.11 . An IdP or RP can be capable of operating at multiple FALs simultaneously, depending on use case and needs. For example, an IdP could provide federation transactions at FAL3 to an RP that provides access to a set of high-risk functionality while simultaneously providing FAL2 to an RP with a lower risk profile. Similarly, an RP could require FAL2 for normal actions but require the subscriber to successfully complete an FAL3 federation transaction for higher impact or more sensitive actions at the RP. This capability extends to other dimensions, as an IdP could simultaneously have access to subscriber accounts that have been proofed at any IAL and allow authentication at any AAL. An RP talking to that IdP would normally have restrictions on the lowest IAL and AAL that it is willing to accept for access. As a consequence, trust agreements are required to establish the xALs allowed and required for different use cases (see Sec. 2.5 ).