FIPS-201 Improvements Reviewed

A new version of FIPS-201 is being introduced, but does the update make it more relevant to the physical security industry? To a large extent, FIPS-201 has been responsible for issuing large numbers of new credential cards, but has failed to change physical access control systems. Does the update rectify this? In this note, we examine the draft update and analyze what it means for the physical security industry.

Key Changes

One of FIPS-201's coauthors, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has hosted several webinars and events circulating the revised standard, named FIPS-201-2. We joined one webinar in a series hosted by NIST that discuss the proposed changes with public participants, and while no agenda or minutes of that webinar were published, we cover the pieces most relevant to physical security below:

• Credentials can be issued for 6 years, instead of 5.
• Guidelines for implementing biometrics (fingerprints) into PIV cards are now included.
• Guidelines for introducing 'E-Authentication' on cellphones or other flexible electronic devices are now included.
• The physical access FIPS-201 compliant products is limited to a handful of vendors due to poor specifications

While the full impact of proposed changes to existing credential process is being evaluated, the draft changes do not obsolete any currently issued credentials.

History of Update: When FIPS 201 was initially introduced in 2005, its focus was predominantly on standardizing Logical Access credentials first. Supporting the standardization of Physical Access credentials fall under FIPS-201 scope, but the vastness of the effort has delayed much tangible focus. As a result, the importance/implementation of FIPS-201 has been mixed on the physical access side, and to date has primarily focused on issuing new 'PIV compliant' credentials. This update bridges some of the gaps on the Physical Access side by providing guidelines on how to properly issue and administrate biometric and electronic credentials.

Biometrics: This draft tightens up biometrics implementation by describing how they are used in '3 factor' verification, which the standard describes as:

• "Something You Know": Personal ID Number
• "Something You Have": Provisioned Access or Clearance by Higher Authorities
• "Something You Are": Biometric Information, like Fingerprint Scan Information

The draft standard requires at least two fingerprint scans for biometric analysis. While the standard also mentions a 'facial image', this conveys a picture image and not iris or facial biometric scans. New biometric information is to be collected every time a PIV credential is issued, which is a maximum of 6 years.

E-Authentication: The revised standard opens the door for potential NFC style PIV credentials. While the standard does not specifically identify NFC technology, a new section mirroring OMB's 'E-Authentication Guidance' [link no longer available] standard is included. This proposed authentication methods include guidelines for issuing E-Credentials with 'Very High Confidence', meaning that the highest level of credential can be extended to this technology.

Criticism

Poor Specification means No Products: During the session, a physical security member criticised the standard, claiming the difficulty manufacturers face when designing FIPS 201 compliant products. The member point out, and the panel validated, that the 'approved product list' for FIPS 201 is limited to only a few vendors. Because the specification is difficult to interpret for many manufacturers, they choose to avoid designing compliant products. Consensus that better design specifications need to be published in order for many physcial security companies to 'enter the game'.

Market Impact

The update does little to change to current implementation of FIPS-201, and requires no new additional equipment or credentials. It does however, expand the current standard to include emerging credentials technologies like NFC. While this new standard has yet to be formally approved, it does not appear to substantially change physical access systems.

Standardizing FIPS-201 between logical and physical access control remains a huge obstacle, apparently to be addressed by future updates. While the overarching guidelines supporting new technology are helpful, this draft does nothing to bridge the gap between logical access and physical access control systems. We expect this change to be received as a minor update by physical security managers and executives.