Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This page is landing page for a community discussion about Remote Proofing Approaches

  • No labels


  1. Regarding our notary process for proofing guests at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, in recent discussions we have had here we have become of the opinion that with respect to NIST SP800-63 our notary process is actually an in-person vetting and does not fall under the remote vetting guidelines.

  2. Roy

    I got some feedback from the Big Ten auditor community.  Their feedback was (each answer represents a data point but not the consensus of the community):

    1) The notary approach might work

    2) The video approach presents a higher risk profile than the notary approach because it is much harder to detect a forged ID via the video method.  This might be mitigated by tying it back to the issuance of a physical ID with the person's picture on it, but that sort of necessitates "person is present at the RA which took the ID card photo" in-person proofing.  The risk tolerance question here is difficult because it's not just the risk tolerance of the university, but of anyone accepting the IAQ issued by an IdPO that uses this approach.

    3) The eVerify process used for I9 stuff in HR processes is good enough to use for proofing (not remote, really, but OK I think this is good news for existing relationship stuff)

    4) Quote:

    "I don't know how InCommon relates to NIST 800-63, but 800-63 seems clearer.  It says that remote proofing for Level 2 or 3 requires validation of the gov't ID and/or financial acct, plus address validation.  The latter is not a substitute for the former."

    To me that says if you take this to be 800-63 rules, then you also need to validate the ID at LoA2/Silver.  But then again, "Silver is not 800-63 level 2, Silver is Silver."