The Gold Standard

The following is an excerpt from the book Designing Secure Software: A Guide for Developers by Loren Kohnfelder, Copyright 2022, No Starch Press

If C-I-A is the goal of secure systems, the Gold Standard describes the means to that end. Aurum is Latin for gold, hence the chemical symbol “Au,” and it just so happens that the three important principles of security enforcement start with those same two letters:

Authentication: High-assurance determination of the identity of a principal

Authorization: Reliably only allowing an action by an authenticated principal

Auditing: Maintaining a reliable record of actions by principals for inspection

Jargon alert: because the words are so long and similar, you may encounter the handy abbreviations authN (for authentication) and authZ (for authorization) as short forms that plainly distinguish them.

A principal is any reliably authenticated entity: a person, business or organization, government entity, application, service, device, or any other agent with the power to act.

Authentication is the process of reliably establishing the validity of the credentials of a principal. Systems commonly allow registered users to authenticate by proving that they know the password associated with their user account, but authentication can be much broader. Credentials may be something the principal knows (a password) or possesses (a smart card), or something they are (biometric data); we’ll talk more about them in the next section.

Data access for authenticated principals is subject to authorization decisions, either allowing or denying their actions according to prescribed rules. For example, filesystems with access control settings may make certain files read-only for specific users. In a banking system, clerks may record transactions up to a certain amount, but might require a manager to approve larger transactions.

If a service keeps a secure log that accurately records what principals do, including any failed attempts at performing some action, the administrators can perform a subsequent audit to inspect how the system performed and ensure that all actions are proper. Accurate audit logs are an important component of strong security, because they provide a reliable report of actual events. Detailed logs provide a record of what happened, shedding light on exactly what transpired when an unusual or suspicious event takes place. For example, if you discover that an important file is gone, the log should ideally provide details of who deleted it and when, providing a starting point for further investigation.

The Gold Standard acts as the enforcement mechanism that protects C-I-A. We defined confidentiality and integrity as protection against unauthorized disclosure or tampering, and availability is also subject to control by an authorized administrator. The only way to truly enforce authorization decisions is if the principals using the system are properly authenticated. Auditing completes the picture by providing a reliable log of who did what and when, subject to regular review for irregularities, while holding the acting parties responsible.

Secure designs should always cleanly separate authentication from authorization, because combining them leads to confusion, and audit trails are clearer when these stages are cleanly divided. These two real-world examples illustrate why the separation is important:

  • “Why did you let that guy into the vault?” “I have no idea, but he looked legit!”

  • “Why did you let that guy into the vault?” “His ID was valid for ‘Sam Smith’ and he had a written note from Joan.”

The second response is much more complete than the first, which is of no help at all, other than proving that the guard is a nitwit. If the vault was compromised, the second response would give clear details to investigate: did Joan have authority to grant vault access and write the note? If the guard retained a copy of the ID, then that information helps identify and find Sam Smith. By contrast, if Joan’s note had just said, “let the bearer into the vault”—authorization without authentication—after security was breached, investigators would have had little idea what happened or who the intruder was.


An authentication process tests a principal’s claims of identity based on credentials that demonstrate they really are who they claim to be. Or the service might use a stronger form of credentials, such as a digital signature of a challenge, which proves that the principal possesses a private key associated with the identity, which is how browsers authenticate web servers using HTTPS. The digital signature is stronger authentication because the principal can prove they know the secret without divulging it.

Evidence suitable for authentication falls into the following categories:

  • Something you know, like a password

  • Something you have, like a secure token, or in the analog world some kind of certificate, passport, or signed document that is unforgeable

  • Something you are—that is, biometrics (fingerprint, iris pattern, and so forth)

  • Somewhere you are—your verified location, such as a connection to a private network in a secure facility

Many of these methods are quite fallible. Something you know can be revealed, something you have can be stolen or copied, your location can be manipulated in various ways, and even something you are can potentially be faked (and if it’s compromised, you can’t later change what you are). On top of those concerns, in today’s networked world authentication almost always happens across a network, making the task more difficult than in-person authentication. On the web, for instance, the browser serves as a trust intermediary, locally authenticating and only if successful then passing along cryptographic credentials to the server. Systems commonly use multiple authentication factors to mitigate these concerns, and auditing these frequently is another important backstop. Two weak authentication factors are better than one (but not a lot better).

Whenever feasible, rely on existing trustworthy authentication services, and do not reinvent the wheel unnecessarily. Even simple password authentication is quite difficult to do securely, and dealing securely with forgotten passwords is even harder. Generally speaking, the authentication process should examine credentials and provide either a pass or fail response. Avoid indicating partial success, since this could aid an attacker zeroing in on the credentials by trial and error. To mitigate the threat of brute force guessing, a common strategy is to make authentication inherently computationally heavyweight, or to introduce increasing delay into the process.

After authenticating the user, the system must find a way to securely bind the identity to the principal. Typically, an authentication module issues a token to the principal that they can use in lieu of full authentication for subsequent requests. The idea is that the principal, via an agent such as a web browser, presents the authentication token as shorthand assurance of who they claim to be, creating a “secure context” for future requests. This context binds the stored token for presentation with future requests on behalf of the authenticated principal. Websites often do this with a secure cookie associated with the browsing session, but there are many different techniques for other kinds of principals and interfaces.

The secure binding of an authenticated identity can be compromised in two fundamentally different ways. The obvious one is where an attacker usurps the victim’s identity. Alternatively, the authenticated principal may collude and try to give away their identity or even foist it off on someone else. An example of the latter case is the sharing of a paid streaming subscription. The web does not afford very good ways of defending against this because the binding is loose and depends on the cooperation of the principal.


A decision to allow or deny critical actions should be based on the identity of the principal as established by authentication. Systems implement authorization in business logic, an access control list, or some other formal access policy.

Anonymous authorization (that is, authorization without authentication) can be useful in rare circumstances; a real-world example might be possession of the key to a public locker in a busy station. Access restrictions based on time (for example, database access restricted to business hours) are another common example.

A single guard should enforce authorization on a given resource. Authorization code scattered throughout a codebase is a nightmare to maintain and audit. Instead, authorization should rely on a common framework that grants access uniformly. A clean design structure can help the developers get it right. Use one of the many standard authorization models rather than confusing ad hoc logic wherever possible.

Role-based access control (RBAC) bridges the connection between authentication and authorization. RBAC grants access based on roles, with roles assigned to authenticated principals, simplifying access control with a uniform framework. For example, roles in a bank might include these: clerk, manager, loan officer, security guard, financial auditor, and IT admin. Instead of choosing access privileges for each person individually, the system designates one or more roles based on each person’s identity to automatically and uniformly assign them associated privileges. In more advanced models, one person might have multiple roles and explicitly select which role they chose to apply for a given access.

Authorization mechanisms can be much more granular than the simple read/write access control that operating systems traditionally provide. By designing more robust authorization mechanisms, you can strengthen your security by limiting access without losing useful functionality. These more advanced authorization models include attribute-based access control (ABAC) and policy-based access control (PBAC), and there are many more.

Consider a simple bank teller example to see how fine-grained authorization might tighten up policy:

Rate-limited: Tellers may do up to 20 transactions per hour, but more would be considered suspicious.

Time of day: Teller transactions must occur during business hours, when they are at work.

No self-service: Tellers are forbidden to do transactions with their own personal accounts.

Multiple principals: Teller transactions over $10,000 require special manager approval (eliminating the risk of one bad actor moving a lot of money at once).

Finally, even read-only access may be too high a level for certain data, like passwords. Systems usually check for login passwords by comparing hashes, which avoids any possibility of leaking the actual plaintext password. The username and password go to a frontend server that hashes the password and passes it to an authentication service, quickly destroying any trace of the plaintext password. The authentication service cannot read the plaintext password from the credentials database, but it can read the hash, which it compares to what the frontend server provided. In this way, it checks the credentials, but the authentication service never has access to any passwords, so even if compromised, the service cannot leak them. Unless interface design affords these alternatives, they will miss these opportunities to mitigate the possibility of data leakage.


In order for an organization to audit system activity, the system must produce a reliable log of all events that are critical to maintaining security. These include authentication and authorization events, system startup and shutdown, software updates, administrative accesses, and so forth. Audit logs must also be tamper-resistant, and ideally even difficult for administrators to meddle with, to be considered fully reliable records. Auditing is a critical leg of the Gold Standard, because incidents do happen, and authentication and authorization policies can be flawed. Auditing can also serve as mitigation for inside jobs in which trusted principals cause harm, providing necessary oversight.

If done properly, audit logs are essential for routine monitoring, to measure system activity level, to detect errors and suspicious activity, and, after an incident, to determine when and how an attack actually happened and gauge the extent of the damage. Remember that completely protecting a digital system is not simply a matter of correctly enforcing policies, it’s about being a responsible steward of information assets. Auditing ensures that trusted principals acted properly within the broad range of their authority.

In May 2018, Twitter disclosed an embarrassing bug: they had discovered that a code change had inadvertently caused raw login passwords to appear in internal logs. It’s unlikely that this resulted in any abuse, but it certainly hurt customer confidence and should never have happened. Logs should record operational details but not store any actual private information so as to minimize the risk of disclosure, since many members of the technical staff may routinely view the logs. For a detailed treatment of this requirement, see the sample design document in Appendix A detailing a logging tool that addresses just this problem.

The system must also prevent anyone from tampering with the logs to conceal bad acts. If the attacker can modify logs, they’ll just clean out all traces of their activity. For especially sensitive logs at high risk, an independent system under different administrative and operational control should manage audit logs in order to prevent the perpetrators of inside jobs from covering their own tracks. This is difficult to do completely, but often the mere presence of independent oversight serves as a powerful disincentive to any funny business, just as a modest fence and conspicuous video surveillance camera can be an effective deterrent to trespassing.

Furthermore, any attempt to circumvent the system would seem highly suspicious, and any false move would result in serious repercussions for the offender. Once caught, they would have a hard time repudiating their guilt.

Non-repudiability is an important property of audit logs; if the log shows that a named administrator ran a certain command at a certain time and the system crashed immediately, it’s hard to point fingers at others. By contrast, if an organization allowed multiple administrators to share the same account (a terrible idea), it would have no way of definitively knowing who actually did anything, providing plausible deniability to all.

Ultimately, audit logs are useful only if you monitor them, analyze unusual events carefully, and follow up, taking appropriate actions when necessary. To this end, it’s important to log the right amount of detail by following the Goldilocks principle. Too much logging bloats the volume of data to oversee, and excessively noisy or disorganized logs make it difficult to glean useful information. On the other hand, sparse logging with insufficient detail might omit critical information, so finding the right balance is an ongoing challenge.