Re: [OAUTH-WG] [token-exchange] exchanging between issuers/domains

Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> Tue, 01 August 2017 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <denis.ietf@free.fr>
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 CE483132301 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, MANY_SPAN_IN_TEXT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K_lXfnu7ToQc for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp6-g21.free.fr (smtp6-g21.free.fr [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40A51322FC for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.13] (unknown [88.182.125.39]) by smtp6-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2D478039B; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:56:35 +0200 (CEST)
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
References: <1b5f403e-aa93-3cfe-ab39-a471cf864e5d@redhat.com> <46fff444-9107-7a43-1854-88c92aaccd90@redhat.com> <CA+k3eCQCKtBct-iqxJCscad3rkUDUyx-MDbGa0Ysb995wX2BUA@mail.gmail.com> <fa2e98ad-cb95-a142-7989-4bfd422de06b@redhat.com> <CA+k3eCTzTO54xvekYoY=TkL4dxYupg+C6-K9dsduqCS9NLspdg@mail.gmail.com> <dafbf97e-1bf5-6314-85aa-58d4f4f6eab8@redhat.com> <CA+k3eCQPkZ-HXUTEj5m0po8P5=W+M6joBdCKTwMLdO=4gQErvA@mail.gmail.com> <e5b0a1d2-5d9e-fd88-bd15-c14fb627b9cf@free.fr> <B5811CA8-064A-4B97-AD20-CEA2C491357D@oracle.com>
From: Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>
Message-ID: <43fcb3b7-f0ea-47f3-b0f4-9d0f33df7d7f@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:56:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B5811CA8-064A-4B97-AD20-CEA2C491357D@oracle.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1F47AAB59A72D6DF3401CE3E"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/5qMQmZU5wHnFPZjzeW7TMJlriV0>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [token-exchange] exchanging between issuers/domains
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:56:43 -0000

Phil,

Originally, with OAuth the AS and the RS were co-located. Many 
additional RFCs made extensions and this assumption is no more valid.

draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-09 is now opening a pandora box where an 
even more complex situation is envisaged (without explicitly stating it)
there would be one client, one RS and several AS/STS with relationships 
between AS/STS from different domains (don't ask me what a domain
might mean in this context).

See my other post about privacy in the case where a single AS/STS is 
involved in a transaction. It is under the following topic :
How could an IdP create an id token for one audience RP without knowing 
for which RP ?
The topic was raised at the last OAuth Workshop in Zürich by a student 
from ETH Zürich.

In OAuth there is currently no RFC which provides a response to that 
question. A specification based on OAuth, OpenID Connect,
is using the concept of an IdP (Identity Provider). Currently, since 
there is no standardized way to address this concern, any IdP will be able
to act as Big  Brother: it will know where the access tokens will be 
used. So tracking the activities of the clients will be straightforward.

Addressing the same question when multiple AS/STS would be involved 
should only be discussed, once we a solution is defined
in the case where a single AS/STS is involved. Before doing this, we 
would need to define an architecture.

10 years ago, the IETF was only dealing with security considerations. 
Nowadays, it also has to deal with privacy considerations.

Denis

> Denis,
>
> Why is privacy a concern? OAuth is designed to have the Authorization 
> Server be the issuer of tokens for a specific set of resource servers. 
>  The AS represents users on the Resource server.  It does not 
> represent users of the client - though they are often the same 
> physical person, they are often different authenticated subjects.
>
> Of course, there are profiles of OAuth which change this relationship, 
> but the foundational assumption in RFC6749 is the AS is usually 
> associated with the RS.
>
> Phil
>
> Oracle Corporation, Identity Cloud Services Architect & Standards
> @independentid
> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com>
> phil.hunt@oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com>
>
>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:53 AM, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr 
>> <mailto:denis.ietf@free.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Brian,
>>
>>> I don't think that's what I'm saying. Some of these concepts are 
>>> difficult to reason about on a mailing list so I apologize for any 
>>> miss or poor communication.
>>>
>>> When requesting a token, the resource or audience parameter can be 
>>> used to indicate the target service where the client intends to use 
>>> the token that it is requesting.  Audience is a logical name that 
>>> says where the client wants to use the requested token. As a a 
>>> logical name, the parties involved do need to know about the name. 
>>> The resource parameter lets the client indicate to the AS/STS where 
>>> it intends to use the issued token by providing the location, 
>>> typically as an https URL, in the token exchange request in the same 
>>> form that will be used to access that resource (again, an HTTPS 
>>> URL). And the resource URL or audience can certinally indicate 
>>> something that's external. Those parameters allow the AS/STS to 
>>> determine where the token is going to be used (including externally) 
>>> and produce the the appropriate token for that target based on 
>>> configuration and policy.  The text 
>>> inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-09#section-2.1 
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-09#section-2.1>about 
>>> those parameters attempts to describe that in an intelligible way. 
>>> Though there's likely always room for improvement.
>>
>> Bear in mind, that they are cases where privacy is a concern, and for 
>> these cases the resource or audience parameter*cannot*be used to 
>> indicate the target service where the client intends to use the token 
>> that it is requesting.
>>
>>> In general OAuth, the structure, content, style, etc. of access 
>>> tokens is not defined. That stuff has to be agreed on between the AS 
>>> and RS.
>>
>> RFC 7515 defines the major fields of a JWT.
>>
>>> Although Token Introspection (RFC 7662) 
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662>has since been defined to give 
>>> a more standardized option for the RS to query the AS for status and 
>>> meta-information about an access token. Even with introspection, 
>>> however, an RS effectively can only use access tokens from one AS 
>>> because there's nothing standard provided by OAuth to indicate where 
>>> the token is from when it's presented to the RS.
>>
>> RFC 7515 defines the "x5c" (X.509 Certificate Chain) Header Parameter 
>> in section 4.1.6: this parameter indicates where the token is from.
>>
>>> For an AS/STS to validate an OAuth access token from a different AS, 
>>> it is in a similar situation as an RS.
>> The key point is coming from the following proposed definition: "A 
>> Security Token Service (STS) is a service capable of*validating 
>> and*issuing security tokens".
>> Up to now, the following definition applies: "A Security Token 
>> Service (STS) is a service capable of issuing security tokens".A 
>> given RS is free to trust (or not to trust)
>> any AS/STS.
>>
>>> It would need to know the issuer of the access token - this is, I 
>>> think, what you've pointed out with suggesting "subject_issuer" and 
>>> "actor_issuer".
>>
>> I believe that I am now starting to understand why you made these 
>> suggestions.
>>
>>> There are maybe different ways that could be conveyed but some means 
>>> at least would be needed to indicate the access token issuer.
>>
>> The "x5c" Header Parameter is such another way. When used, it should 
>> not conflict with any other parameter.
>>
>>> Then the receiving AS/STS would have to call the issuing AS's token 
>>> introspectionendpoint (unless it somehow knew how to validate an 
>>> access token from that issuer locally). The complexity of all that 
>>> is one reason why token exchange scoped validation (and issuance) of 
>>> access tokens to only access tokens from the AS/STS involved in the 
>>> exchange (and not directly supporting OAuth access token to OAuth 
>>> access token cross-domain exchanges). Also the assertion based 
>>> authorization grants (RFC7523 
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7523>&7522 
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7522>) are largely intended to 
>>> facilitate acquiring an access token from an external AS. The 
>>> thinking (fro me anyway) was that token exchange would be used with 
>>> a local STS to obtain an assertion suitable to be used at an 
>>> external AS with an assertion grant to get an access token from that 
>>> AS. That pattern is something that exists today. Cross domain could 
>>> also be achieved with JWTs, for which a token type value of 
>>> "urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:jwt" is defined.
>>>
>>> It's difficult to articulate but that's an attempt to explain how 
>>> things are in the draft today and why.
>>
>> If we introduce relationships between AS/STSs, we are opening a 
>> pandora box where trust relationships is a concern and where privacy 
>> is also a concern.
>>
>> Do we want a local AS/STS to be aware of all the RSs accessed by a 
>> client ? Do we want an external AS/STS to be aware of all the RSs 
>> accessed by a client ?
>> What would mean a "local" AS/STS versus an "external" AS/STS ? It is 
>> from the point of view of the client or of the RS ?
>>
>> It is normal that an AS/STS issuing access token knows some 
>> attributes related to its clients. Would it be appropriate if another 
>> AS/STS would knowsome attributes from "external" clients and, in 
>> addition, where the access tokens will be used ? We need to take care 
>> of_not building a system_where/by construction/"Big Brother would be 
>> watching you".
>>
>> The core of problem is well beyond the simple addition of one or two 
>> parameters.
>>
>>> I guess I would have to defer to the larger working group here as to 
>>> the question of if token exchange should support exchanges of an 
>>> OAuth access token from a different AS for an OAuth access token 
>>> issued by the AS/STS doing the exchange?
>>
>> In order to progress on this topic, I believe that we first need an 
>> architecture paper with a clear description of the trust 
>> relationships and an identification of the privacy issues.
>>
>> Denis
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Bill Burke<bburke@redhat.com 
>>> <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>>wrote:
>>>
>>>     So, you're saying the STS has to define a subject_type for each
>>>     external token the client wants to exchange from?  A type that
>>>     is potentially proprietary and different between each and every
>>>     STS?  On the opposite end, when you want to convert to an
>>>     external token, the STS either has 3 options for the client to
>>>     specify that it wants an external token.  1) a proprietary
>>>     response type, 2) a proprietary resource scheme, 3) a
>>>     proprietary audience scheme.
>>>
>>>     Don't you think at minimum, the token-exchange spec should
>>>     define a standard way to do OAuth to OAuth cross-domain
>>>     exchanges?  Right now cross-domain exchanges are proprietary and
>>>     completely up to the target STS on how it wants the client to
>>>     formulate a cross-domain exchange.  I still think a
>>>     "subject_issuer" and "requested_issuer" are the clearest and
>>>     simplest way to enable such an interaction.
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 7/28/17 6:28 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>>>>     The urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access_token type is an
>>>>     "indicator that the token is a typical OAuth access token
>>>>     issued by the authorization server in question" (see near the
>>>>     end ofsection 3
>>>>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-09#section-3>)
>>>>     so the issuer is the given STS in that case. Cross domain is
>>>>     possible by use of other token types that are not opaque to the
>>>>     STS where the issuer can be inferred from the token.
>>>>
>>>>     On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Bill Burke<bburke@redhat.com
>>>>     <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks for replying,
>>>>
>>>>         The Introduction of the spec implies that
>>>>         inter-security-domain exchange is supported: "
>>>>
>>>>           A Security Token Service (STS) is a service capable of validating and
>>>>             issuing security tokens, which enables clients to obtain appropriate
>>>>             access credentials for resources in heterogeneous environments or
>>>>             across security domains.
>>>>         "
>>>>
>>>>         But with the current API if you want to exchange an external token to an internal one, there is no way for the STS to identify where the subject_token originated.  Are you saying that an STS cannot accept tokens from an external domain?
>>>>
>>>>         i.e
>>>>
>>>>         subject_token: <opaque-string>
>>>>
>>>>         subject_token_type:
>>>>         urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access-token
>>>>
>>>>         There's just no way for the STS to know where the
>>>>         subject_token came from because the subject_token can be
>>>>         completely opaque.
>>>>
>>>>         Now, on the flip side, if you are converting from an
>>>>         internal token to an external one, the audience parameter
>>>>         is just too undefined.  For example, how could you specify
>>>>         that you want a token for an external client of an external
>>>>         issuer.  Client ids are opaque in OAuth, and issuer id
>>>>         isn't even something that is defined at all.  In OpenID
>>>>         connect, an issuer id can be any URL.
>>>>
>>>>         IMO, adding optional "subject_token_issuer" and
>>>>         "requested_issuer" parameters only clarifies and simplifies
>>>>         the cross-domain case.   If you don't like "issuer" maybe
>>>>         "domain" is a better word?
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks for replying,
>>>>
>>>>         Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On 7/28/17 4:39 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>         In general, an instance of an AS/STS can only issue tokens
>>>>>         from itself. The audience/resource parameters tell the
>>>>>         AS/STS where the requested token will be used, which will
>>>>>         influence the audience of the token (and maybe other
>>>>>         aspects). But the issuer of the requested token will be
>>>>>         the AS/STS that issued it. A cross domain exchange could
>>>>>         happen by a client presenting a subject_token from a
>>>>>         different domain/issuer (that the AS/STS trusts) and
>>>>>         receiving a token issued by that AS/STS suitable for the
>>>>>         target domain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bill
>>>>>         Burke<bburke@redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Should probably have a "subject_issuer" and
>>>>>             "actor_issuer" as well as the "requested_issuer" too.
>>>>>
>>>>>             FYI, I'm actually applying this spec to write a token
>>>>>             exchange service to connect various product stacks
>>>>>             that have different and often proprietary token
>>>>>             formats and architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             On 7/26/17 6:44 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I'm looking at Draft 9 of the token-exchange
>>>>>                 spec.  How would one build a request to:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 * exchange a token issued by a different domain to
>>>>>                 a client managed by the authorization server.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 * exchange a token issued by the authorization
>>>>>                 server (the STS) for a token of a different issuer
>>>>>                 and different client.  In other words, for a token
>>>>>                 targeted to a specific client in a different
>>>>>                 authorization server or realm or domain or
>>>>>                 whatever you want to call it.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 * exchange a token issued by a different issuer
>>>>>                 for a token of a different issuer and client.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Is the spec missing something like a
>>>>>                 "requested_issuer" identifier?  Seems that
>>>>>                 audience is too opaque of a parameter for the
>>>>>                 authz server to determine how to exchange the token.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>>                 OAuth mailing list
>>>>>                 OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>                 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>             OAuth mailing list
>>>>>             OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         /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./
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     /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./
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /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 mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>