[OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9470 (7951)
Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Thu, 30 May 2024 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6EBC14F6B7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tKXhzVxpqwyl for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46820C14F6E9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-36db3a124f3so3783995ab.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=google; t=1717082959; x=1717687759; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UYc3Xf2kew6QCerYWTQTnm5hms7IRsHuyDtXSs6BSwQ=; b=FxQ7bZBtXFdj6x2QdHF8c8H5xV3nC86+ExhSnDzJ02T3zinYQYmnUckHz2EwnxDVGz 4LmejOZcJtSgGeyQXeH/HB60S8vB+FbSPlKtY5XorBCnUYEX/KqhHaaL530sKAkxTMEO QqS8DaeQDaZZ7Oigk/RX6wzzirOCfSoQLnzpTu0kqr1bX5a4wrMc/Dv+a21sYeLSCEXX RLOAVaWi9hYzOp6dXvKXGnzA1ykVeLY1UxmeouBFb+xnKVagYdMv81tLsd+73HHxrSlO hM6uimXYutHvO5d5APSfpFj2Su9v5sDy0EeO2AgvlSYMkHnWSjBLzDMPyGD8pI4XZD3R RdCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717082959; x=1717687759; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UYc3Xf2kew6QCerYWTQTnm5hms7IRsHuyDtXSs6BSwQ=; b=FxzxmqMNI9ni5MAPc7vZ1uO6/JQGJ/oCLIdXQFGQYl9/CisN9l/ogobzbcMSE1HGCO fKTmgjw+w3Oxk0Lkk31ixxr+yd1sJd21GeXZBzyN314UNiDxljiOVlHa2HhA1Ueog6ug 4NRWmPgkQLgyyxB31ChFQ+j3Tssp1f0RUy2EXORgQOKzEtmc6on3fUSFeDHoTZhc5JPx sCVTCSVLShVWZeXoRoGimNNBwNdY2FS+9i1z7ZOf6ywYsGK8CTt6DcERyPKQkjRLHFAx cBs/pgrlnUatQ9daLZVDIgogded7nek+lhhI7hq6s+K1OPNKuzqo8n/QtO52jRDeqGEX XL2A==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUpfyj6HEaHtmXj/83q3Tg9v+gO3Qi2gfsz2dRFmNEyW3zr6E9lw6b85vlplNktUjhOjoDsxEHgzLCViDCSaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyu3ldnyz36uOU+atkfMa+WmHBPwQ0LRkWz+sEC4QBax9EDEFYg ZKp2hPJmOKu0m3zQpI2bpdCTPs3XXBXLwHL6eHhmmDK0gIWD+e4YaUtjanWQPP9RzDMsdlbGawQ r3H34uMq/hr153BJjuOas5+Amg+1Q7ZTFk3+OwehuWyWnbHRO6I1a4Rafi8sENlNkXtz+nMhALK YyjYbHH+0bkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IELchKaiJVPOnZ85DH6dBgu7kgTOEcj7QvmTvzQ8wA62x8K1xTIuD8sxcY8dYt3/Qou0WA0Z1x2ax0kOboYXiU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1a01:b0:36b:837:db0e with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3747dfa7f99mr33040475ab.1.1717082958181; Thu, 30 May 2024 08:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240522183054.DCCFEC000063@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org> <LV8PR01MB8677AC4BEDE87DA9FC70CE3DBDEB2@LV8PR01MB8677.prod.exchangelabs.com> <adf0ff35-11f1-4cc3-bcb6-f745ee988091@man.poznan.pl>
In-Reply-To: <adf0ff35-11f1-4cc3-bcb6-f745ee988091@man.poznan.pl>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 09:28:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCRxxjJJtX1G=xwcwKkJVD0aReS9M7_gRxRb-_PoqfB2Mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tomasz Kuczyński <tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5e60a0619ad87a6"
Message-ID-Hash: ZBCN34QLV4JVA7QP2TKYUP4LEDZHCYGB
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZBCN34QLV4JVA7QP2TKYUP4LEDZHCYGB
X-MailFrom: bcampbell@pingidentity.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-oauth.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "vittorio@auth0.com" <vittorio@auth0.com>, "paul.wouters@aiven.io" <paul.wouters@aiven.io>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9470 (7951)
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/2-B6SoWjhQ_qNlXZL6HzFa91k8E>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:oauth-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:oauth-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:oauth-leave@ietf.org>
I suspect a variety of not-entirely-improbable rational could be provided
to explain why it might make sense. But the reality is that it's just a
mistake in the document where somewhere along the way updates were made to
the examples that didn't fully align with content already in those
examples. I try to be careful with details like that but apparently wasn't
careful enough in this case.
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 5:45 AM Tomasz Kuczyński <
tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl> wrote:
> The introspection response should rather reflect facts related to the
> access token sent for the introspection. So even in case, a new
> authentication event took place after the token issuance, it should not be
> included in the response as the authentication event is not related to the
> introspected access token.
> The inclusion of that information in the introspection response should be
> treated as a vulnerability.
>
> Regardless of the above, the "exp" in response is also earlier than the
> "auth_time", which means that the introspected token is beyond the time
> window of its validity and in fact, the introspection response should
> contain nothing more than {"active": false}.
>
> Best regards
> Tomasz Kuczyński
> W dniu 23.05.2024 o 01:06, Justin Richer pisze:
>
> This seems to be logical - the authentication event would always be before
> the token was issued in the usual case. However, assuming that the AS
> "upgrades" an existing token in-place during a step up, isn't it possible
> for the latest relevant authentication event to come after the token was
> initially issued?
>
> - Justin
> ------------------------------
> *From:* RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2024 2:30 PM
> *To:* vittorio@auth0.com <vittorio@auth0.com> <vittorio@auth0.com>;
> bcampbell@pingidentity.com <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
> <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>; debcooley1@gmail.com <debcooley1@gmail.com>
> <debcooley1@gmail.com>; paul.wouters@aiven.io <paul.wouters@aiven.io>
> <paul.wouters@aiven.io>; hannes.tschofenig@arm.com
> <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com> <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>;
> rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
> <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl <tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl>
> <tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl>; oauth@ietf.org <oauth@ietf.org>
> <oauth@ietf.org>; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9470 (7951)
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9470,
> "OAuth 2.0 Step Up Authentication Challenge Protocol".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7951
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Tomasz Kuczyński <tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl>
> <tomasz.kuczynski@man.poznan.pl>
>
> Section: 6.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> "exp": 1639528912,
> "iat": 1618354090,
> "auth_time": 1646340198,
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> "exp": 1639528912,
> "iat": 1618354090,
> "auth_time": 1618354090,
>
> Notes
> -----
> I noticed a small inconsistency in the example "Figure 7: Introspection
> Response". It seems that the time for the user-authentication event should
> be less than or equal to the time of token issuance to ensure logical
> coherence.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9470 (draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-17)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : OAuth 2.0 Step Up Authentication Challenge Protocol
> Publication Date : September 2023
> Author(s) : V. Bertocci, B. Campbell
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Web Authorization Protocol
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list -- oauth@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to oauth-leave@ietf.org
>
> --
> Tomasz Kuczynski
>
> Applications Division
> Large Scale Applications and Services Department Manager
> Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center
> Polish Academy of Sciences
> Jana Pawla II 10, Room 1.28
> 61-139 Poznan, Poland
> Tel.: +48 693 918 148
>
>
--
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your
computer. Thank you._
- [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9470 (7… RFC Errata System
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC947… Justin Richer
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC947… Tomasz Kuczyński
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC947… Brian Campbell
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC947… Tomasz Kuczyński
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC947… Brian Campbell