Skip to main content

IAC-05.1: In-Person or Trusted Third-Party Registration

IAC 9 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to conduct in-person or trusted third-party identity verification before user accounts for third-parties are created.

Renumbered: Formerly IAC-10.3 in SCF 2025.4.

Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, IAC-05.1 was Sharing Identification & Authentication Information. That control is now IAC-36.1.

Control Question: Does the organization conduct in-person or trusted third-party identify verification before user accounts for third-parties are created?

General (7)
Framework Mapping Values
NIST 800-53 R4 IA-5(3)
NIST 800-53 R5.2 IA-05(16) IA-12(04)
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) IA-12(04)
NIST 800-82 R3 IA-05(16) IA-12(04)
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay IA-12(04)
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.05.12.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.05.12.a
US (2)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 IA-5(3)
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) IA-12(04)
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada ITSP-10-171 2025 03.05.12.A

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Identification & Authentication (IAC) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with IAC domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IAM controls are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards) to manage accounts and permissions. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel identify and implement IAM cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAC domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Identity & Access Management (IAM)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines) to enforce Logical Access Control (LAC). ▪ IAM may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel to implement Role Based Access Control (RBAC) practices for the management of user, group and system accounts, including privileged accounts. ▪ A directory services technology is used to centrally manage identities and permissions with RBAC. Due to technical or business limitations, asset/process owners are empowered to operate a decentralized access control program for their specific Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that cannot be integrated into directory services. ▪ Configuration management and IAM functions collaborate to ensure Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) enforce “least privileges” on TAAS.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Identification & Authentication (IAC) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with IAC domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with IAC domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Identity & Access Management (IAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IAC domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of IAM operations (e.g., directory services, Authenticate, Authorize and Audit (AAA) solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IAC domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to conduct in-person or trusted third-party identify verification before user accounts for third-parties are created.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. IAC-05.1_A01 the validation and verification of identity evidence is conducted in person before a designated registration authority.
  2. IAC-05.1_A02 in-person or trusted third-party identity verification is completed before user accounts for third-parties are created.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Verify identity in-person or via trusted third party for sensitive accounts

Small

  • In-person or trusted third-party identity proofing for high-assurance accounts

Medium

  • Formal identity proofing process for high-assurance accounts
  • NIST IAL2/IAL3 compliance

Large

  • Formal identity proofing program
  • Third-party identity verification service
  • NIST SP 800-63A compliance

Enterprise

  • Enterprise identity proofing solution (e.g., ID.me, Jumio)
  • NIST IAL3 compliance
  • Remote proofing capabilities

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.