Federation - Generation and Use of Pairwise Pseudonymous Identifiers, v1.0

All pairwise pseudonymous subject identifiers must be opaque and should be uniquely issued for RPs. In the rare case where there is a legitimate need for shared pairwise pseudonymous identifiers, an IdP must take precautions to avoid the additional risk of fraud.

Assessment Steps (3)

1
RP Unique (RPUnique)
Are all pairwise pseudonymous subject identifiers different for all RPs?
Artifact
A1
Provide evidence (e.g. policies, operational samples) that all assertions that use pairwise pseudonymous subject identifiers generate them uniquely for all RPs.
2
Opaque (Opaque)
All pairwise pseudonymous subject identifiers sufficiently opaque as to preclude being guessable by a malicious third party?
Artifact
A1
Provide evidence (e.g. policies, operational samples) that all assertions that use pairwise pseudonymous subject identifiers generate them opaquely.
3
Shared Protection (SharedProtection)
In the case where pseudonymous subject identifiers are shared, has the IdP taken sufficient care to ensure this does not add additional risk for fraud?
Artifact
A1
Provide evidence (e.g. policies, operational samples) that in the case where pseudonymous subject identifiers are shared the IdP engages in sufficient diligence to ensure this does not lead to fraud.

Conformance Criteria (3)

C1
When using pairwise pseudonymous subject identifiers within the assertions generated by the IdP for the RP, the IdP SHALL generate a different identifier for each RP.
Citation
NIST SP 800-63C
Section 6.3.1
C2
Pairwise pseudonymous identifiers SHALL contain no identifying information about the subscriber. They SHALL also be unguessable by a party having access to some information identifying the subscriber.
Citation
NIST SP 800-63C
Section 6.3.2
C3
Normally, the identifiers SHALL only be known by and used by one pair of endpoints (e.g., IdP-RP). However, an IdP MAY generate the same identifier for a subscriber at multiple RPs at the request of those RPs, provided: (1) Those RPs have a demonstrable relationship that justifies an operational need for the correlation, such as a shared security domain or shared legal ownership; and (2) All RPs sharing an identifier consent to being correlated in such a manner. The IdP SHALL ensure that only intended RPs are correlated; otherwise, a rogue RP could learn of the pseudonymous identifier for a set of correlated RPs by fraudulently posing as part of that set.
Citation
NIST SP 800-63C
Section 6.3.2