Re: [OAUTH-WG] Evaluation of Scope Management in Refresh Token Behavior

Sachin Mamoru <sachinmamoru@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2024 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sachinmamoru@gmail.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 E3359C14F69F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.085 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0Kb-D1inr11x for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1130.google.com (mail-yw1-x1130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1130]) (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 6F632C14F5FE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1130.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-608170eb5efso25268547b3.3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:01:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708426873; x=1709031673; 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=uKG7P2FPxFdWyFQXlLVN0OX1jJKINHQkToueUZpdkUs=; b=Hd6uSvNaS3sHWwEVYAs4gms7Zx4Zh+tAHBAZ9VtSThlyCF40qZeP8QgefsM10dnY3g HYRcA4tAUJJQnl2AGbaBozmR7EWOk5YaO7gt5gc1/HvgQZ5KbVd1sgeLcZlyEBVGF++h Zmsw+/is2DWKNd3ieAkBXG5Ko559cxTr+uN5LoExb/CN8uWcbeO20u+8LbFnvBRwIDY6 cTK+ea9uycPpg0vsmCB3oEIPx46YxecWjjPb+FUAAj1cE7qa+2kds0IDF+0kvuqUAKDR RkpoK6lRQWWi1i57SObIzsy894oEvnlKt/sbKXP5clIFsZ68OMcaK8b+i3ak3+ItApQ8 Nx0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708426873; x=1709031673; 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=uKG7P2FPxFdWyFQXlLVN0OX1jJKINHQkToueUZpdkUs=; b=tVom7M9ebMTHYljtYyBtv99439Ew4Qe3FXxl2TWesILK2pp4tG2F0/m+423J7+XyFt z2rSsI6cyQL/A9Rp5pSXbQcGGwbbCJMMuXJjXmchm7981c74DXh9vGL8ZGWL/HzCCm+P fZaTYQFXknahekzUhB+/n3pebTLLUJ7wXM4NlbHNpXlE6U8wgMq76Od0/zVQPLKgnbml f9lcISLeE87gqahV/XSabC+hHouf0MEqujOEqPpzpp8XRDH2Ea8Z771UJ0zTKdV7NEmS Q0zyWOBN2PY/YYFrBd5T6/exdIGEaYwSA4E11w2JWqZkPT02jJiO7Ht8T9oBsz2Ppk7Z z3hA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzblATsUwIZzb3qsb9pPwdq+pidMFYUS2v9azDVWZ7GRaQdbBQm O47kciQkeVWG9FeKABZigZMz9ZWsZPmQvxKN3q3bb6d48munRWHEDLOuzXVwUYpYcjnNghqY8Xk 9lc+qPGl8Yd2AP/k9WH8R/MiB77kDccIPX+4FIA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFBsJXgC9fu67Jtcm9kpbywbFUADRw4xpII+4qM4w6Jm+EG1k99T2LHZvqxACfVJFsVwkYZmr4D3FpvS8cql1Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:73d6:0:b0:607:60a5:8448 with SMTP id o205-20020a8173d6000000b0060760a58448mr14834206ywc.0.1708426873494; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:01:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD=XBCqr61N_4rz4GVD_19QUO+q3LrzeO-iQ7MGCUx7fMVxy=Q@mail.gmail.com> <9D9E6142-0C87-4140-BB9F-AE3B89A44BCB@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9D9E6142-0C87-4140-BB9F-AE3B89A44BCB@gmail.com>
From: Sachin Mamoru <sachinmamoru@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:31:02 +0530
Message-ID: <CAD=XBCovNxw5YsxxXTyShh64vp_GC1Jn=FhW00bwQWMVBC+4bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neil Madden <neil.e.madden@gmail.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org, janak@wso2.com, thilinasenarath97@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb5ffa0611ce209e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/H0enNnVOWV4p62ltlfeBnAVdC1s>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Evaluation of Scope Management in Refresh Token Behavior
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 20 Feb 2024 11:01:19 -0000

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 12:23, Neil Madden <neil.e.madden@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 20 Feb 2024, at 06:44, Sachin Mamoru <sachinmamoru@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi All,
>
> When we request an access token using 3 scopes (scope1, scope2, scope3).
>
> Then will receive a refresh token (refresh_token1) with the access token.
>
> After that will request another access token with refresh_token1 and
> provide the scope list as scope1 and scope2 (Narrow down scopes).
>
> Similarly, get another refresh token (refresh_token2) with the access
> token.
>
> Now if we request another access token with refresh_token2, we cannot
> request scope3, instead, we can either request both scope1 and scope2 or
> one of them.
>
> But in the specification, didn't able to find anything related to
> narrow-down scopes with refresh token.
>
> From Spec
>
> 1.5.  Refresh Token - Refresh tokens are issued to the client by the
> authorization server and are used to obtain a new access token when the
> current access token becomes invalid or expires or to obtain additional
> access tokens with identical or narrower scope (access tokens may have a
> shorter lifetime and fewer permissions than authorized by the resource
> owner).
>
> 6.  Refreshing an Access Token
>
> The scope of the access request as described by Section 3.3.  The
> requested scope MUST NOT include any scope not originally granted by the
> resource owner, and if omitted is treated as equal to the scope
> originally granted by the resource owner.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749
>
>
> IMO, from a security aspect, the current behaviour is much more secure
> because it is designed to maintain the principle of least privilege, where
> it updates the refresh token authorised scopes based on the requested ones.
>
>
> What should be the correct behaviour?
> narrow-down scope refresh token should also be able to request access
> token with original scope list?
>
>
> Also from section 6:
>
> If a
>    new refresh token is issued, the refresh token scope MUST be
>    identical to that of the refresh token included by the client in the
>    request.
>
>
>
>
>
> — Neil
>
>

-- 

Sachin Mamoru
Software Engineer, WSO2
+94771292681
| sachinmamoru.me  <https://sachinmamoru.me>
sachinmamoru@gmail.com  <sachinmamoru@gmail.com>
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/sachin-mamoru/>
<https://twitter.com/MamoruSachin>