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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                      H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 9, 2012
Expires: January 10, 2013


  The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Holder-of-the-Key Token Usage
                   draft-tschofenig-oauth-hotk-00.txt

Abstract

   OAuth 2.0 deployments currently rely on bearer tokens for securing
   access to protected resources.  Bearer tokens require Transport Layer
   Security to be used between an OAuth client and the resource server
   when presenting the access token in order to get access.  The
   security model is based on proof-of-possession of the access token:
   access token storage and transfer has to be done with care to prevent
   leakage.

   There are, however, use cases that require a more active involvement
   of the OAuth client to offer increased security, particularly against
   token leakage.  This document specifies an OAuth security framework
   using ephemeral asymmetric credentials that are bound to the access
   token.  A client can create these key pairs dynamically and use them,
   after they are bound to an access token by the authorization server,
   in communication interactions with resource servers.

   This document is discussed at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth.  This initial version of
   the specification shall serve as a discussion starter.

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 http://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 January 10, 2013.




Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Binding a Public Key to an Access Token  . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Accessing a Protected Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Security Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Threat Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  OAuth Parameters Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  The 'hotk' JSON Web Token Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.3.  The 'hotk' OAuth Access Token Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15















Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


1.  Introduction

   At the time of writing the OAuth 2.0 [1] and accompanying protocols
   offer one main security mechanism to access protected resources,
   namely the bearer token.  In [8] a bearer token is defined as

      A security token with the property that any party in possession of
      the token (a "bearer") can use the token in any way that any other
      party in possession of it can.  Using a bearer token does not
      require a bearer to prove possession of cryptographic key material
      (proof-of-possession).

   The bearer token provides sufficient security properties for a number
   of use cases OAuth had been designed for, if certain conditions are
   met (which are documented in [8]).  Some usage scenarios, however,
   require stronger security guarantees and ask for active participation
   of the client software in form of cryptographic computations when
   presenting an access token.

   In addition to the bearer token a MAC token has been specified, see
   [9].  The design of the MAC token was inspired by features in the
   OAuth 1.0 [10].  Unfortunately, the MAC token has not received a lot
   of deployment attention.

   This specification defines a new security mechanism for usage with
   OAuth that combines various existing specifications to offer enhanced
   security properties for OAuth.  The incredients for this security
   solution are:

   1.  A mechanism for on-the-fly provisioning of ephemeral asymmetric
       credentials using the JSON Web Key (JWK) format [2].

   2.  The ability to access a protected resource using this ephemeral
       asymmetric credentials for client authentication using a
       transport layer extension that allows out-of-band key validation
       [3].

   3.  A data structure to bind the emphemeral asymmetric credential to
       an access token.  The structure uses the JSON Web Token (JWT)
       [4].

   The rest of the document describes how these different components
   work together.








Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


2.  Terminology

   The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
   'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
   specification are to be interpreted as described in [5].














































Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


3.  Protocol Specification

   To describe the architecture of the proposed security mechanism it is
   best to start by looking at the main OAuth 2.0 protocol exchange
   sequence.  Figure 1 shows the abstract OAuth 2.0 protocol exchanges
   graphically.  The exchange in this document will focus on two
   interactions, namely

   1.  to allow the client to obtain the ephemeral asymmetric
       credentails in step (D)

   2.  to use the obtained asymmetric credentials for the interaction
       with the resource server in step (E)


        +--------+                               +---------------+
        |        |--(A)- Authorization Request ->|   Resource    |
        |        |                               |     Owner     |
        |        |<-(B)-- Authorization Grant ---|               |
        |        |                               +---------------+
        |        |
        |        |                               +---------------+
        |        |--(C)-- Authorization Grant -->| Authorization |
        | Client |                               |     Server    |
        |        |<-(D)----- Access Token -------|               |
        |        |                               +---------------+
        |        |
        |        |                               +---------------+
        |        |--(E)----- Access Token ------>|    Resource   |
        |        |                               |     Server    |
        |        |<-(F)--- Protected Resource ---|               |
        +--------+                               +---------------+

                Figure 1: Abstract OAuth 2.0 Protocol Flow

3.1.  Binding a Public Key to an Access Token

   OAuth 2.0 offers different ways to obtain an access token, namely
   using authorization grants and using a refresh token.  The core OAuth
   specification defines four authorization grants, see Section 1.3 of
   [1], and [11] adds an assertion-based authorization grant to that
   list.

   This document extends the communication with the token endpoint.  The
   token endpoint, which is described in Section 3.2 of [1], is used
   with every authorization grant except for the implicit grant type
   since an access token is issued directly.  The request contains
   information about the public key the client would like to bind to the



Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


   access token in the JSON Web Key format.  This parameter also
   provides an indication to the authorization servers about the support
   by the client for this specification.  Since the client makes a
   request to the token endpoint by adding a new of parameters using the
   "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format in the HTTP request
   entity-body the public key information must be encoded into a new
   parameter, called 'pk-info'.  A new token type, called 'hotk', is
   also defined by this specification.

   For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS
   (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):


        POST /token HTTP/1.1
        Host: server.example.com
        Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
        Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

        grant_type=authorization_code&code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
        &redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb
        &pk-info=eZQQYbYS6WxS...lxlOB

      whereby the content of the pk-info field represents the following
      structure:

     {"keys":
        [
          {"alg":"RSA",
           "mod": "0vx7agoebGcQSuuPiLJXZptN9nndrQmbXEps2aiAFbWhM78LhWx
      4cbbfAAtVT86zwu1RK7aPFFxuhDR1L6tSoc_BJECPebWKRXjBZCiFV4n3oknjhMs
      tn64tZ_2W-5JsGY4Hc5n9yBXArwl93lqt7_RN5w6Cf0h4QyQ5v-65YGjQR0_FDW2
      QvzqY368QQMicAtaSqzs8KJZgnYb9c7d0zgdAZHzu6qMQvRL5hajrn1n91CbOpbI
      SD08qNLyrdkt-bFTWhAI4vMQFh6WeZu0fM4lFd2NcRwr3XPksINHaQ-G_xBniIqb
      w0Ls1jF44-csFCur-kEgU8awapJzKnqDKgw",
           "exp":"AQAB",
           "kid":"2011-04-29"}
        ]
      }

                Example Request to the Authorization Server

   If the access token request is valid and authorized, the
   authorization server issues an access token and optionally a refresh
   token.  If the request client authentication failed or is invalid,
   the authorization server returns an error response as described in
   Section 5.2 of [1].

   The authorization server also places information about the public key



Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


   used by the client into the access token to create the binding
   between the two.

   An example successful response:


        HTTP/1.1 200 OK
        Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
        Cache-Control: no-store
        Pragma: no-cache

        {
          "access_token":"2YotnFZFE....jr1zCsicMWpAA",
          "token_type":"hotk",
          "expires_in":3600,
          "refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA"
        }

       whereby the content of the 'access_token' field, for example,
       contains an encoded JWT with the following raw structure:

       {"typ":"JWT",
        "alg":"HS256"}
       .
       {"iss":"authorization-server-id",
        "exp":1300819380,
        "hotk": {"keys":
        [
          {"alg":"RSA",
           "mod": "0vx7agoebGcQSuuPiLJXZptN9nndrQmbXEps2aiAFbWhM78LhWx
       4cbbfAAtVT86zwu1RK7aPFFxuhDR1L6tSoc_BJECPebWKRXjBZCiFV4n3oknjhMs
       tn64tZ_2W-5JsGY4Hc5n9yBXArwl93lqt7_RN5w6Cf0h4QyQ5v-65YGjQR0_FDW2
       QvzqY368QQMicAtaSqzs8KJZgnYb9c7d0zgdAZHzu6qMQvRL5hajrn1n91CbOpbI
       SD08qNLyrdkt-bFTWhAI4vMQFh6WeZu0fM4lFd2NcRwr3XPksINHaQ-G_xBniIqb
       w0Ls1jF44-csFCur-kEgU8awapJzKnqDKgw",
           "exp":"AQAB",
           "kid":"2011-04-29"}
        ]
       }
       }
       .
       bbfAAtVT86zwu1RK7aPFFxuhDR1L6tSoc_BJECPebWKRXjBZC

              Example Response from the Authorization Server







Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


3.2.  Accessing a Protected Resource

   The client accesses protected resources by presenting the access
   token to the resource server.  It does so via a Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) secured channel.  Since the client had previously
   bound a public key to an access token it selects this key for usage
   with TLS as described in [3].

   The resource server validates the access token and ensure it has not
   expired and that its scope covers the requested resource.
   Additionally, the resource server verifies that the public key
   presented during the TLS handshake corresponds to the public key that
   is contained in the access token.

   Note that this step confirms that the client is in possession of the
   private key corresponding to the public key previously bound to the
   access token.  Information about the client authentication may be
   contained in the token in case the authorization server added this
   information when it authenticated the client.
































Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


4.  Security Considerations

4.1.  Security Threats

   The following list presents several common threats against protocols
   utilizing some form of tokens.  This list of threats is based on NIST
   Special Publication 800-63 [12].  We exclude a discussion of threats
   related to any form of registration and authentication.

   Token manufacture/modification:  An attacker may craft a fake token
      or modify the token content (such as the authentication or
      attribute statements), causing a resource server to grant
      inappropriate access to the attacker.  For example, an attacker
      may modify the token to extend the validity period or the scope to
      have extended access to information.

   Token disclosure:  Tokens may contain authentication and attribute
      statements that include sensitive information.

   Token redirect:  An attacker uses a token generated for consumption
      by one resource server to gain access to a different resource
      server that mistakenly believes the token to be for it.

   Token reuse:  An attacker attempts to use a token that has already
      been used with that resource server in the past.

4.2.  Threat Mitigation

   A large range of threats can be mitigated by protecting the contents
   of the access token by using a digital signature or a Message
   Authentication Code (MAC).  Consequently, the token integrity
   protection MUST be sufficient to prevent the token from being
   modified.

   To deal with token redirect, it is important for the authorization
   server to include the identity of the intended recipients (the
   audience), typically a single resource server (or a list of resource
   servers), in the token.  Restricting the use of the token to a
   specific scope is also RECOMMENDED.

   The authorization server MUST implement TLS.  Which version(s) ought
   to be implemented will vary over time, and depend on the widespread
   deployment and known security vulnerabilities at the time of
   implementation.  At the time of this writing, TLS version 1.2 [6] is
   the most recent version.  The client MUST validate the TLS
   certificate chain when making requests to protected resources,
   including checking the Certificate Revocation List (CRL) [7].  In
   addition, this specificatio requires a TLS extension for usage with



Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


   out-of-band validation [3] to be used that allows clients to present
   raw public keys.

   With the usage of the holder-of-the-key concept it is not possible
   for any party other than the legitimate client to use a token and to
   re-use it without knowing the corresponding asymmetric key pair.
   This mechanism prevents against token disclosure.  In some
   deployments, including those utilizing load balancers, the TLS
   connection to the resource server terminates prior to the actual
   server that provides the resource.  This could leave the token
   unprotected between the front end server where the TLS connection
   terminates and the back end server that provides the resource.  Even
   in such deployments, token leakage is not a problem.

   Client implementations must be carefully implemented to avoid leaking
   the ephemeral asymmetric key pair.

   Token replay is also not possible since an eavesdropper will also
   have to obtain the corresponding asymmetric key pair that corresponds
   to the access token.  Nevertheless, it is good practice to limit the
   lifetime of the and therefore the lifetime of the ephemeral
   asymmetric key associated with it.

4.3.  Summary of Recommendations

   The following three items represent the main recommendations:

   Safeguard the private key:  Client implementations MUST ensure that
      the ephemeral private key is not leaked to third parties, since
      those will be able to use the access together with the key pair to
      gain access to protected resources.

   Switch keying material regularly:  Clients can at any time create a
      new ephemeral key pair and request the public key to be associated
      with the access token.  For example, a client presents a new
      public key when requesting an access token with the help of a
      refresh token.  Nevertheless, the lifetime of these access token
      may be longer than the lifetime of bearer tokens.

   Issue scoped bearer tokens:  Token servers SHOULD issue bearer tokens
      that contain an audience restriction, scoping their use to the
      intended relying party or set of relying parties.









Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires IANA to take the following actions.

5.1.  OAuth Parameters Registration

   This specification registers the 'pk-info' parameter in the OAuth
   Parameters Registry established by [1].

   Parameter name:  pk-info

   Parameter usage location:  token request

   Change controller:  IETF

   Specification document(s):  [[ this document ]]

   Related information:  None

5.2.  The 'hotk' JSON Web Token Claims

   [4] established the IANA JSON Web Token Claims registry for reserved
   JWT Claim Names and this document adds the 'hotk' name to that
   registry.

5.3.  The 'hotk' OAuth Access Token Type

   Section 11.1 of [1] defines the OAuth Access Token Type Registry and
   this document adds another token type to this registry.

   Type name:  hotk

   Additional Token Endpoint Response Parameters:  (none)

   HTTP Authentication Scheme(s):  Holder of the key confirmation using
      TLS

   Change controller:  IETF

   Specification document(s):  [[ this document ]]











Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


6.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank the OAuth working group and
   participants of the Internet Identity Workshop for their discussion
   input that lead to this document.














































Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Hammer-Lahav, E., Recordon, D., and D. Hardt, "The OAuth 2.0
         Authorization Framework", draft-ietf-oauth-v2-28 (work in
         progress), June 2012.

   [2]   Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)",
         draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-03 (work in progress), July 2012.

   [3]   Wouters, P., Gilmore, J., Weiler, S., Kivinen, T., and H.
         Tschofenig, "TLS Out-of-Band Public Key Validation",
         draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-03 (work in progress), April 2012.

   [4]   Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
         (JWT)", draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-01 (work in progress),
         July 2012.

   [5]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [6]   Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
         Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [7]   Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley,
         R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
         Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile",
         RFC 5280, May 2008.

7.2.  Informative References

   [8]   Jones, M., Hardt, D., and D. Recordon, "The OAuth 2.0
         Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage",
         draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-21 (work in progress), June 2012.

   [9]   Hammer-Lahav, E., "HTTP Authentication: MAC Access
         Authentication", draft-ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac-01 (work in
         progress), February 2012.

   [10]  Hammer-Lahav, E., "The OAuth 1.0 Protocol", RFC 5849,
         April 2010.

   [11]  Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
         "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0",
         draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-04 (work in progress), July 2012.

   [12]  Burr, W., Dodson, D., Perlner, R., Polk, T., Gupta, S., and E.



Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


         Nabbus, "NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, INFORMATION
         SECURITY", December 2008.

















































Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         OAuth 2.0 HOTK Token Usage              July 2012


Author's Address

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at








































Tschofenig              Expires January 10, 2013               [Page 15]


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