Control statement
Require users to re-authenticate when [Organization-defined: circumstances or situations].
Discussion
In addition to the re-authentication requirements associated with device locks, organizations may require re-authentication of individuals in certain situations, including when roles, authenticators or credentials change, when security categories of systems change, when the execution of privileged functions occurs, after a fixed time period, or periodically.
Organization-defined parameters
These values must be resolved through the organization’s tailoring and governance process. Bracketed parameter references in the control text identify where a decision is required.
From control text to operational evidence
Use Re-authentication as a testable risk decision. Translate the official statement into accountable people, repeatable processes, configured technology, and evidence that demonstrates the outcome over time. In this family, pay particular attention to identity proofing, authentication strength, credential lifecycle, and trusted identity assertions.
Implementation workflow
- Define the control boundary, responsible owner, inherited portions, and systems or processes in scope.
- Resolve each organization-defined parameter before declaring the control implemented.
- Document how the implementation satisfies every clause of the official control statement.
- Collect evidence as a normal byproduct of operation rather than only before an assessment.
- Review exceptions, changes, and monitoring results on a risk-based cadence.
Evidence examples
- identity-proofing records
- authenticator issuance and revocation logs
- MFA and federation configuration
- credential inventory and rotation evidence
Common failure patterns
- strong authentication applied only to interactive users
- service credentials without ownership or rotation
- weak recovery paths that bypass MFA
- federated trust not reviewed after partner changes
Questions practitioners should ask
- What risk decision is this control intended to support in this system?
- Which parts are implemented locally, inherited, shared, or not applicable—and what evidence supports that decision?
- Do the documented narrative, deployed configuration, operating process, and collected evidence agree?
- What event or threshold requires the implementation to be reviewed or changed?
Assessment objectives and methods
Show the assessment objective
users are required to re-authenticate when [Organization-defined: circumstances or situations].
Examine
- Identification and authentication policy
- procedures addressing user and device re-authentication
- system security plan
- system design documentation
- system configuration settings and associated documentation
- list of circumstances or situations requiring re-authentication
- system audit records
- other relevant documents or records
Interview
- Organizational personnel with system operations responsibilities
- organizational personnel with information security responsibilities
- system/network administrators
- system developers
- organizational personnel with identification and authentication responsibilities
Test
- Mechanisms supporting and/or implementing identification and authentication capabilities
Related controls
These relationships come from the official OSCAL catalog. They indicate useful dependencies or context, not automatic inheritance or equivalence.
Related NIST SP 800-171 requirements
These Rev. 3 requirements cite this base control or one of its enhancements as a source. The relationship does not by itself determine contractual applicability or complete implementation.
Authoritative sources
Bare Metal Cyber is an independent educational publisher and is not affiliated with or endorsed by NIST. Official control requirements and interpretations remain with NIST and the responsible authorizing organization.