Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Interim Meeting - April 12 - Security BCP

[Denis <[e-mail]>]

Hi Steinar,

Please read first the response just posted to Daniel.

> Hi Denis, I don't understand the attack or the countermeasures you are 
> describing completely - but that doesn't really matter.

Since it does not matter, let us continue. :-)

> As far as I know OAuth doesn't require a specific token format, so the 
> countermeasure you describe is based on an assumption that the AT is a 
> JWT.

It is correct that the proposed text refers to countermeasures that are 
obtained using JWT access tokens.
However, the countermeasures that are explained can easily be 
generalized to any form of access token.


> If that's the case, isn't what you are describing as a countermeasure 
> related and already covered by the work being done in the JWT spec for 
> Access Tokens?

I would like that, unfortunately this is not the case. I copied and 
pasted only the "good" sentences of the JWT spec for Access Token and 
purposely omitted
to copied and paste the sentences that do not allow to protect against 
this attack. In particular that one:

    (...) if a solution requires preventing a resource server from
    correlating the principal’s activity within the resource itself,
           the authorization server should assign different "sub" values
    for every JWT access token issued.

In such a case, it would be rather easy to transmit an access token 
including a claim saying that the subject is over 18 without the RS 
being able to notice
that the access token which is being presented is the result of a client 
collaboration attack.

Denis






>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12#page-5 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12#page-5>
>
> S
>
> man. 12. apr. 2021 kl. 14:58 skrev Denis <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>
>     Hi Daniel,
>
>>     Denis,
>>
>>     I was awaiting your mail and I admire your perseverence with
>>     bringing this topic to our attention.
>
>     [Denis] I admire your perseverence with constantly refusing to
>     include this attack. :-)
>>
>>     To your points:
>>
>>     Am 12.04.21 um 13:36 schrieb Denis:
>>>     The case where two clients collude to mount an attack against a
>>>     RS is not addressed. It now needs to be addressed.
>>>
>>>
>>>     This should be added in section 1 ( Introduction)
>>>
>>     No.
>>
>>
>>>     The first sentence of section 3 (The Updated OAuth 2.0 Attacker
>>>     Model) clearly states:
>>>
>>>         " In the following, this attacker model is updated (...) to
>>>     include new types of attackers and to define the attacker model
>>>     more clearly".
>>>
>>>     Section 3 should include the case of a collusion or a
>>>     collaboration attack between clients against a RS, where one of
>>>     them is a legitimate client
>>>     voluntarily "helping" another client to use or to request access
>>>     tokens that would normally "belong" to the legitimate client.
>>>
>>
>>     As I'm sure you have noticed, we have updated Section 3 following
>>     your last input. It now explicitly says:
>>
>>         Attackers can collaborate to reach a common goal.
>>
>>     It also says
>>
>>        Note that in this attacker model, an attacker (see A1) can be
>>     a RO or
>>        act as one.  For example, an attacker can use his own browser to
>>        replay tokens or authorization codes obtained by any of the
>>     attacks
>>        described above at the client or RS.
>>
>>     Your scenario is therefore covered. It was already before, but
>>     that was obviously too implicit, so we made it more clear with
>>     the recent update.
>>
>     [Denis] I don't believe that the scenario is covered with the
>     above sentences.
>
>
>>>     Finally, section 4 (Attacks and Mitigations) should include an
>>>     additional subsection, e.g. section 4.16, addressing the case of
>>>     a collaboration attack
>>>     between clients against a RS.
>>>
>>     If I remember correctly, you first presented this attack at the
>>     OAuth Security Workshop in 2017.
>>     Since then, it has been brought up countless times on this
>>     mailing list, both with regards to the Security BCP as well as
>>     for the JWT Token draft.
>>
>>     There has been practically no positive resonance at the meeting
>>     2017 or here on the mailing list as to including this in either
>>     of the drafts.
>>
>>     A number of reasons come to mind, but first and foremost, I think
>>     that what you describe is not perceived as an attack, or, worded
>>     differently,
>>     it is obvious that what you describe in the "attack" is possible.
>>
>     [Denis] Here after comes the important sentence which is wrong:
>
>
>>     *There is no expectation that OAuth would defend against this
>>     kind of thin**g*,
>>     just as there is no mitigation against password sharing in
>>     password-based authentication.
>>
>     [Denis] In the section 4.16.2 there is a clear proposal that
>     explains how *"OAuth can successfully defend against this kind of
>     thin**g"*. *So* *there **IS **a solution*.
>
>     Currently, when reading the text, an implementer might consider to
>     deliver an access token that contains a claim such as "older the
>     18" without any "sub" or equivalent claim.
>     Such an access token would be transferable to anyone and the RS
>     would not be able to identify the attack.
>
>     I therefore propose to proceed with the Security BCP *with the
>     inclusion of this attack*.
>
>>     Even though the Security BCP attacker model includes the general
>>     setting required for the attack, the attack does not violate an
>>     expected security property.
>>
>>     I therefore propose to proceed with the Security BCP without
>>     including this attack.
>>
>>     -Daniel
>>
>     [Denis] Since you have deleted the remaining of my email, I copy
>     it again. If you respond to this email, please DO NOT delete it.
>
>         Section 4 (Attacks and Mitigations) should include an
>         additional subsection, e.g. section 4.16, addressing the case
>         of a collaboration attack
>         between clients against a RS.
>
>         This sub-section would need to include to other sub-sections:
>
>         4.16.1Attack Description
>         4.16.2Countermeasures
>
>         The following text is a skeleton proposed for these subsections:
>
>         *4.16****Collaboration attack between clients against a RS*
>
>         The goal of the attack is for an illegitimate client to obtain
>         an access token from an authorization server with the help of
>         a client of the authorization server.
>
>         *4.16.1****Attack Description*
>
>         The legitimate client performs in real time all the
>         cryptographic computations needed by the illegitimate client
>         to get an access token and to present it to a RS.
>         This attack is not a replay of a access token, but the use of
>         a legitimate access token by an illegitimate client with the
>         complicity of the legitimate client.
>
>         It should be observed that protecting some private keys into a
>         secure element is ineffective to counter this kind of attack,
>         since the legitimate client can perform
>         all the computations needed by the illegitimate client,
>         without the need to know or to transfer the values of these
>         private keys.
>
>         *4.16.2****Countermeasures*
>
>         This attack may be countered by using a "sub" claim into the
>         access token. It should be observed that the "sub" claim is a
>         REQUIRED claim in the JWT access token
>         data structure. See section 2.2 from JSON Web Token (JWT)
>         Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens.
>
>         Section 5 (Security Considerations) from JSON Web Token (JWT)
>         Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens states:
>
>         Authorization servers should prevent scenarios where clients
>         can affect the value of the "sub" claim in ways that could
>         confuse resource servers.
>
>         This statement is correct but insufficient, since it does not
>         say how resources servers cannot get confused.
>
>         Section 6(Privacy Considerations) states:
>
>         This profile mandates the presence of the "sub" claim in every
>         JWT access token, making it possible for resource servers to
>         rely on that information
>              for correlating incoming requests with data stored
>         locally for the authenticated principal.
>
>         This statement is correct but is unclear. To be more precise,
>         in order to counter the collaboration attack between clients
>         against a RS, the RS should manage
>         user accounts associated either with a globally unique
>         identifier or an identifier specific to an AS-RS pair while
>         the "sub" claim shall contain either
>         a globally unique identifier or an identifier specific to an
>         AS-RS pair which shall be compared with the identifier of the
>         user account. If there is no match,
>         the access token shall be discarded.
>
>         In this way, the access token will be linked to the user
>         account of the legitimate client and the illegitimate client
>         cannot take advantage of the claims
>         contained into the access token.
>
>     Denis
>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     https://danielfett.de  <https://danielfett.de>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OAuth mailing list
>>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OAuth mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Vennlig hilsen
>
> Steinar Noem
> Partner Udelt AS
> Systemutvikler
> | [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> | [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>  | [phone] | www.udelt.no 
> <http://www.udelt.no/> |