[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Web Authorization Protocol                                T. Lodderstedt
Internet-Draft                                                   yes.com
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Campbell
Expires: March 24, 2020                                    Ping Identity
                                                             N. Sakimura
                                               Nomura Research Institute
                                                                D. Tonge
                                           Moneyhub Financial Technology
                                                               F. Skokan
                                                                   Auth0
                                                      September 21, 2019


                OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests
                     draft-lodderstedt-oauth-par-00

Abstract

   This document defines the pushed authorization request endpoint,
   which allows clients to push the payload of an OAuth 2.0
   authorization request to the authorization server via a direct
   request and provides them with a request URI that is used as
   reference to the data in a subsequent authorization request.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Pushed Authorization Request Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Successful Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Error Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.1.  Error responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  "request" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Error responses for Request Object  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.1.  Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Authorization Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Authorization Server Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Request URI Guessing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Request Object Replay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  Client Policy Change  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   In OAuth [RFC6749] authorization request parameters are typically
   sent as URI query parameters via redirection in the user-agent.  This
   is simple but also yields challenges:

   o  There is no cryptographical integrity and authenticity protection,
      i.e. the request can be modified on its way through the user-agent
      and attackers can impersonate legitimate clients.

   o  There is no mechanism to ensure confidentiality of the request
      parameters.




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   o  Authorization request URLs can become quite large, especially in
      scenarios requiring fine-grained authorization data.

   JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq]
   provides solutions for those challenges by allowing OAuth clients to
   wrap authorization request parameters in a signed, and optionally
   encrypted, JSON Web Token (JWT), the so-called "Request Object".

   In order to cope with the size restrictions, JAR introduces the
   "request_uri" parameter that allows clients to send a reference to a
   request object instead of the request object itself.

   This document complements JAR by providing an interoperable way to
   push the payload of a request object directly to the AS in exchange
   for a "request_uri".

   It also allows for clients to push the form encoded authorization
   request parameters to the AS in order to
   exchange them for a request URI that the client can use in a
   subsequent authorization request.

   For example, the following authorization request,

     GET /authorize?response_type=code
      &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=af0ifjsldkj
      &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com


   could be pushed directly to the AS by the client as follows,

     POST /as/par HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
     Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0Mzo3RmpmcDBaQnIxS3REUmJuZlZkbUl3

     response_type=code
     &client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=af0ifjsldkj
     &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb

   The AS responds with a request URI,










Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


     HTTP/1.1 201 Created
     Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
     Content-Type: application/json

     {

       "request_uri": "urn:example:bwc4JK-ESC0w8acc191e-Y1LTC2",
       "expires_in": 90
     }

   which is used by the client in the subsequent authorization request
   as follows,

     GET /authorize?request_uri=
       urn%3Aexample%3Abwc4JK-ESC0w8acc191e-Y1LTC2 HTTP/1.1

   The pushed authorization request endpoint thus fosters OAuth security
   by providing all clients a simple means for an integrity protected
   authorization request, but it also allows clients requiring an even
   higher security level, especially cryptographically confirmed non-
   repudiation, to explicitly adopt JWT-based request objects.

1.1.  Conventions and Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This specification uses the terms "access token", "refresh token",
   "authorization server", "resource server", "authorization endpoint",
   "authorization request", "authorization response", "token endpoint",
   "grant type", "access token request", "access token response", and
   "client" defined by The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749].

2.  Pushed Authorization Request Endpoint

   The pushed authorization request endpoint shall be a RESTful API at
   the authorization server that accepts "x-www-form-urlencoded" POST
   requests.

   The endpoint accepts the parameters defined in [RFC6749] for the
   authorization endpoint as well as all applicable extensions defined
   for the authorization endpoint.  Some examples of such extensions
   include PKCE [RFC7636], Resource Indicators
   [I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-indicators], and OpenID Connect [OIDC].




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   The rules for client authentication as defined in [RFC6749] for token
   endpoint requests, including the applicable authentication methods,
   apply for the pushed authorization request endpoint as well.  If
   applicable, the "token_endpoint_auth_method" client metadata
   parameter indicates the registered authentication method for the
   client to use when making direct requests to the authorization
   server, including requests to the pushed authorization endpoint.

   Note that there's some potential ambiguity around the appropriate
   audience value to use when JWT client assertion based authentication
   is employed.  To address that ambiguity the issuer identifier URL of
   the AS according to [RFC8414] SHOULD be used as the value of the
   audience.  In order to facilitate interoperability the AS MUST accept
   its issuer identifier, token endpoint URL, or pushed authorization
   request endpoint URL as values that identify it as an intended
   audience.

2.1.  Request

   A client can send all the parameters that usually comprise an
   authorization request to the pushed authorization request endpoint.
   A basic parameter set will typically include:

   o  "response_type"

   o  "redirect_uri"

   o  "scope"

   o  "state"

   o  "code_challenge"


   o  "code_challenge_method"


   Depending on client type and authentication method, the request might
   also include the "client_id" parameter.  The "request_uri"
   authorization request parameter MUST NOT be provided in this case
   (see Section 3).

   The client adds the parameters in "x-www-form-urlencoded" format with
   a character encoding of UTF-8 as described in Appendix B of [RFC6749]
   to the body of a HTTP POST request.  If applicable, the client also
   adds client credentials to the request header or the request body
   using the same rules as for token endpoint requests.




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   This is illustrated by the following example

     POST /as/par HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
     Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0Mzo3RmpmcDBaQnIxS3REUmJuZlZkbUl3

     response_type=code&
     state=af0ifjsldkj&
     client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&
     redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb&
     code_challenge=K2-ltc83acc4h0c9w6ESC_rEMTJ3bww-uCHaoeK1t8U&
     code_challenge_method=S256&
     scope=ais

   The AS MUST process the request as follows:

   1.  The AS MUST authenticate the client in same way as at the token
       endpoint.

   2.  The AS MUST validate the request the same way as at the
       authorization endpoint.  For example, the authorization server
       checks whether the redirect URI matches one of the redirect URIs
       configured for the "client_id".  It may also check whether the
       client is authorized for the "scope" for which it is requesting
       access.  This validation allows the authorization server to
       refuse unauthorized or fraudulent requests early.

2.2.  Successful Response

   If the verification is successful, the server shall generate a
   request URI and return a JSON response that contains "request_uri"
   and "expires_in" members at the top level with "201 Created" HTTP
   response code.

   o  "request_uri" : The request URI corresponding to the authorization
      request posted.  This URI is used as reference to the respective
      request data in the subsequent authorization request only.  The
      way the authorization process obtains the authorization request
      data is at the discretion of the authorization server and out of
      scope of this specification.  There is no need to make the
      authorization request data available to other parties via this
      URI.

   o  "expires_in" : A JSON number that represents the lifetime of the
      request URI in seconds.  The request URI lifetime is at the
      discretion of the AS.




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   The "request_uri" value MUST be generated using a cryptographically
   strong pseudorandom algorithm such that it is computationally
   infeasible to predict or guess a valid value.

   The "request URI" MUST be bound to the "client_id" of the client that
   posted the authorization request.

   Since the request URI can be replayed, its lifetime SHOULD be short
   and preferably limited to one-time use.

   The following is an example of such a response:

     HTTP/1.1 201 Created
     Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 15:22:31 GMT
     Content-Type: application/json

     {
       "request_uri": "urn:example:bwc4JK-ESC0w8acc191e-Y1LTC2",
       "expires_in": 3600
     }

2.3.  Error Response

2.3.1.  Error responses

2.3.1.1.  Authentication required

   If the client authentication fails, the authorization server shall
   return "401 Unauthorized" HTTP error response.

2.3.1.2.  Authorization required

   If the client is not authorized to perform the authorization request
   it wanted to post, the authorization server shall return "403
   Forbidden" HTTP error response.

2.3.1.3.  Invalid request

   If the request object received is invalid, the authorization server
   shall return "400 Bad Request" HTTP error response.

2.3.1.4.  Method not allowed

   If the request did not use POST, the authorization server shall
   return "405 Method Not Allowed" HTTP error response.






Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


2.3.1.5.  Request entity too large

   If the request size was beyond the upper bound that the authorization
   server allows, the authorization server shall return a "413 Request
   Entity Too Large" HTTP error response.

2.3.1.6.  Too many requests

   If the request from the client per a time period goes beyond the
   number the authorization server allows, the authorization server
   shall return a "429 Too Many Requests" HTTP error response.

3.  "request" Parameter

   Clients MAY use the "request" parameter as defined in JAR to push a
   request object to the AS.  The rules for signing and encryption of
   the request object as defined in JAR [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq] apply.

   Clients MUST NOT combine other authorization request parameters with
   the "request" parameter at the pushed authorization request endpoint
   other than the "client_id" parameter which may be a part of the
   client authentication mechanism.

   The following is an example of a request using a signed request
   object.  The client is authenticated using its client secret "BASIC"
   authorization:

     POST /as/par HTTP/1.1
     Host: as.example.com
     Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
     Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0Mzo3RmpmcDBaQnIxS3REUmJuZlZkbUl3

     request=eyJraWQiOiJrMmJkYyIsImFsZyI6IlJTMjU2In0.eyJpc3MiOiJzNkJoZ
     FJrcXQzIiwiYXVkIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zZXJ2ZXIuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iLCJyZXNwb2
     5zZV90eXBlIjoiY29kZSIsImNsaWVudF9pZCI6InM2QmhkUmtxdDMiLCJyZWRpcmV
     jdF91cmkiOiJodHRwczovL2NsaWVudC5leGFtcGxlLm9yZy9jYiIsInNjb3BlIjoi
     YWlzIiwic3RhdGUiOiJhZjBpZmpzbGRraiIsImNvZGVfY2hhbGxlbmdlIjoiSzItb
     HRjODNhY2M0aDBjOXc2RVNDX3JFTVRKM2J3dy11Q0hhb2VLMXQ4VSIsImNvZGVfY2
     hhbGxlbmdlX21ldGhvZCI6IlMyNTYifQ.O49ffUxRPdNkN3TRYDvbEYVr1CeAL64u
     W4FenV3n9WlaFIRHeFblzv-wlEtMm8-tusGxeE9z3ek6FxkhvvLEqEpjthXnyXqqy
     Jfq3k9GSf5ay74ml_0D6lHE1hy-kVWg7SgoPQ-GB1xQ9NRhF3EKS7UZIrUHbFUCF0
     MsRLbmtIvaLYbQH_Ef3UkDLOGiU7exhVFTPeyQUTM9FF-u3K-zX-FO05_brYxNGLh
     VkO1G8MjqQnn2HpAzlBd5179WTzTYhKmhTiwzH-qlBBI_9GLJmE3KOipko9TfSpa2
     6H4JOlMyfZFl0PCJwkByS0xZFJ2sTo3Gkk488RQohhgt1I0onw

   The AS needs to take the following steps beyond the processing rules
   defined in Section 2.1:




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   1.  If applicable, the AS decrypts the request object as specified in
       JAR [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq], section 6.1.

   2.  The AS validates the request object signature as specified in JAR
       [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq], section 6.2.

   3.  If the client is a confidential client, the authorization server
       MUST check whether the authenticated "client_id" matches the
       "client_id" claim in the request object.  If they do not match,
       the authorization server MUST refuse to process the request.  It
       is at the authorization server's discretion to require the "iss"
       claim to match the "client_id" as well.

3.1.  Error responses for Request Object

   This section gives the error responses that go beyond the basic
   Section 2.3.

3.1.1.  Authentication Required

   If the signature validation fails, the authorization server shall
   return "401 Unauthorized" HTTP error response.  The same applies if
   the "client_id" or, if applicable, the "iss" claims in the request
   object do not match the authenticated "client_id".

4.  Authorization Request

   The client uses the "request_uri" value as returned by the
   authorization server as authorization request parameter
   "request_uri".

     GET /authorize?request_uri=
       urn%3Aexample%3Abwc4JK-ESC0w8acc191e-Y1LTC2 HTTP/1.1

   Clients are encouraged to use the request URI as the only parameter
   in order to use the integrity and authenticity provided by the pushed
   authorization request.

5.  Authorization Server Metadata

   If the authorization server has a pushed authorization request
   endpoint, it SHOULD include the following OAuth/OpenID Provider
   Metadata parameter in discovery responses:

   "pushed_authorization_request_endpoint" : The URL of the pushed
   authorization request endpoint at which the client can exchange a
   request object for a request URI.




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Request URI Guessing

   An attacker could attempt to guess and replay a valid request URI
   value and try to impersonat the respective client.  The AS MUST
   consider the considerations given in JAR [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq],
   section 10.2, clause d on request URI entropy.

6.2.  Request Object Replay

   An attacker could replay a request URI captured from a legit
   authorization request.  In order to cope with such attacks, the AS
   SHOULD make the request URIs one-time use.

6.3.  Client Policy Change

   The client policy might change between the lodging of the request
   object and the authorization request using a particular request
   object.  It is therefore recommended that the AS checks the request
   parameter against the client policy when processing the authorization
   request.

7.  Acknowledgements

   This specification is based on the work towards Pushed Request
   Objects [1] conducted at the Financial Grade API working group at the
   OpenID Foundation.  We would would like to thank the members of this
   WG for their valuable contributions work.

   We would like to thank ... for their valuable feedback on this draft.

8.  IANA Considerations

   ...

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-jwsreq]
              Sakimura, N. and J. Bradley, "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
              Framework: JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR)",
              draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-19 (work in progress), June 2019.







Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8414]  Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0
              Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, June 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8414>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-indicators]
              Campbell, B., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Resource
              Indicators for OAuth 2.0", draft-ietf-oauth-resource-
              indicators-08 (work in progress), September 2019.

   [OIDC]     Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
              C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating
              errata set 1", Nov 2014,
              <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.

   [RFC7636]  Sakimura, N., Ed., Bradley, J., and N. Agarwal, "Proof Key
              for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients", RFC 7636,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7636, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7636>.

9.3.  URIs

   [1] https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/
       Financial_API_Pushed_Request_Object.md

Appendix A.  Document History

   [[ To be removed from the final specification ]]

   -00

   o  first draft




Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  oauth-par                 September 2019


Authors' Addresses

   Torsten Lodderstedt
   yes.com

   Email: torsten@lodderstedt.net


   Brian Campbell
   Ping Identity

   Email: bcampbell@pingidentity.com


   Nat Sakimura
   Nomura Research Institute

   Email: nat@sakimura.org


   Dave Tonge
   Moneyhub Financial Technology

   Email: dave@tonge.org


   Filip Skokan
   Auth0

   Email: panva.ip@gmail.com





















Lodderstedt, et al.      Expires March 24, 2020                [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/