Closed jmanico closed 3 days ago
To be honest, having read the relevant section of NIST and also read the requirements, I think these are ok. The point the NIST standard makes is that the CSP and RP will have different session mechanisms so a simple session timeout is not quite the right answer here.
Bottom line, I think these requirements are ok as they are at this point...
I would prefer a requirement that says something like "session validity should be synchronized between servers", without getting into how this is implemented.
I would prefer a requirement that says something like "session validity should be synchronized between servers", without getting into how this is implemented.
That feels like it might end up a little oversimplified whilst not being specific enough to understand how to implement. Do you have a suggested wording @Sjord ?
@Sjord any suggestion on this?
@set-reminder 3 weeks make a decision how to proceed if no response
⏰ Reminder Wednesday, December 28, 2022 12:00 AM (GMT+01:00)
make a decision how to proceed if no response
No, not other than what I said above. I think the requirements should specify application behaviour and not implementation.
I just spent even more time trying to re-word these requirements and it is not easy. NIST is referring to a very specific case here and there seem to be some subtleties but it seems to be something like the following:
I am not inclined to spend too much more time on this as these are level 3 requirements anyway. If you can think of a specific simplification suggestion then I am open to it but otherwise I think we need to move on :)
🔔 @tghosth
make a decision how to proceed if no response
So with no further improvement suggestions, I am going to close this for now. At least if someone searches the issues for these requirements they will hopefully find this thread :)
@tghosth it is now 2024 and we have indeed found this thread. For an updated reference, consider the second public draft of NIST 800-63C-4.
In conjunction with #2102, I would like to propose simplifying this into a single requirement. Consider the following:
Verify that session lifetime and termination between Relying Parties (RPs) and Credential Service Providers (CSPs) behave as documented, requiring re-authentication as necessary such as when the maximum time between CSP authentication events is reached.
Looks good to me
So lets go to PR.
1) Modify 3.6.1 to Ryan's new text 2) Delete 3.6.2 3) Add a new doc requirement.
Enough of this "process" crap let's go right to PR, Ryan!
@tghosth See #2320. I created #2321 for the inevitable section text update.
These seem implementation details on how to implement session timeout (required in 3.3.2), when having authentication separate from the application. I think requiring session timeouts is sufficient, and specifying how that should be implemented between RPs and CSPs is not up to the ASVS.