Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT access tokens and the revocation endpoint

vittorio.bertocci@auth0.com Tue, 06 October 2020 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertocci@auth0.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 3BF433A14F5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=auth0.com
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 B9DA2IEFB7S5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056943A14F4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id i3so2244142pjz.4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=auth0.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=batBHv46hE4rzVBMIpRLmrHpMD7C8aJMELPHeG7p3pA=; b=McAeCF+9t96WgcE43HtIxxvT4T+grZGOsE2IxPXT8oIsL4wu7DhLwQJky1zntd5SLz g0GKtBsnpl33TD6dsOgG7724FoTuA5nNopZVr+zOMpFJJa2+C71QBfEqKhfmzpqsqCz3 qtPko0QN24q7rKJ850fw872DB6UGf1DbkAfY9U7OPrCvB9W/MymdPHjN3VOuRutNVxk4 KKa/wxwuJTy8a9xS1phCpgPW3VDmmcNmZ4Rsbo7076BtDMFNQcFrPEI1uw4z+m91m4OO 5jbQn4j4D94WqAcQo8Uc/We/cfzxcPyHL4wHX52ezFTu6o4rKqQwMaSW+3pMe0S6g/WW T3/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=batBHv46hE4rzVBMIpRLmrHpMD7C8aJMELPHeG7p3pA=; b=fiSinDkmioWjdfUr6mI+XO+iome842uYi2c1+Z8aYC8UZUQlTcUbxEsvzyEGcHQstL rbpZsrCSIflCkOAuMpKBF5XfydT+e4IStMSH0FArWGonyIQ3af2A0CoOjhyvrmIBZo9n uQ0i6X41PisyF4LCKEhKAaPGLqvxykDxvuYEKX2ZcBpFttLE6y9a/siodaq53EWpD5sX 4tBfn1rNJQxtGjIG3kVyN8RzgBY8tAJTSnDzdYkwtuZvs8bDA4TrB75bOBnRfP4fdOCn vkGCoO0TDtJqHuhiJtjJuYwMYvmkYjrAli5HGJ/uz6uxaDOe9hmRCtZi0S7jgAeDJ2ir 6oAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323fBAcdRTEI1hgt7QdG+zBC5DkzIEqAiJwhM3+qzp1yQnkBozZ Rk6ryWT/0qh3iUNiJROIKG934+ZvW63xRyt/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPElpbZ8s0dbm/bLGnSm7QEu2cQCeg6ho7YMJg52pXiq9r0EKaX2kYv3SlP31cF26W7wnp6g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:f184:: with SMTP id bv4mr54428pjb.1.1602019320006; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vibrosurface7 (c-67-171-8-60.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [67.171.8.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h12sm117262pfo.68.2020.10.06.14.21.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 14:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: <vittorio.bertocci@auth0.com>
To: "'Jim Manico'" <jim@manicode.com>, "'Nicolas Mora'" <nicolas@babelouest.org>
Cc: <oauth@ietf.org>
References: <a5b45629-c770-2294-4277-73801fff1857@babelouest.org> <13035645-B875-48E5-80DC-C1FD401423E2@manicode.com>
In-Reply-To: <13035645-B875-48E5-80DC-C1FD401423E2@manicode.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 14:21:59 -0700
Message-ID: <060901d69c26$ba2deab0$2e89c010$@auth0.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIOrL5PoOMmS7FkPutnv0CxOSedfQJQ4VslqQhqX5A=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/P3haBkPCztJb7YsbfWm-e02Co2k>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT access tokens and the revocation endpoint
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Oct 2020 21:22:02 -0000

Hey Jim, regarding
> Every logout event should trigger token revocation
That isn’t necessarily the case. An access token represents the ability of a client to access a given resource; the fact that it requires an authentication transaction/session establishment to be issued to the client does not mean that the AT lifetime is tied to the lifetime of that session. Say that I allow LinkedIn to tweet on my behalf. Once I have done that, it doesn’t matter whether I stay logged in their web app or otherwise. Even if I log out of the session in which context I got my twitter AT, I can still post on LinkedIn from my native LinkedIn app and the corresponding post will show up on twitter as well.
Now, one might choose to *explicitly* tie tokens lifetime to originating sessions lifetime, see the discussion on the OpenID Connect group about a possible online_access scope for influencing RTs and Ats (in particular, in the context of SPAs) but that's additional semantic that isn’t defined today.

-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth <oauth-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jim Manico
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 5:17 PM
To: Nicolas Mora <nicolas@babelouest.org>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT access tokens and the revocation endpoint

> In this model, considering that token revocations don't happen a lot...

Just a brief note, a secure piece of software makes the logout feature prominent. Every logout event should trigger token revocation.

I’m mentioning this because a lot of OAuth solutions in the mobile space literally ignore the logout event, such as Facebook’s mobile OAuth solution. 

- Jim

> On Oct 4, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Nicolas Mora <nicolas@babelouest.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
>> Le 20-10-04 à 11 h 27, Thomas Broyer a écrit :
>> 
>>    There might be some kind of pushed events between the AS and the RS when
>>    a JWT AT is revoked, to allow the RS not to introspect a JWT AT at all.
>>    Like this, the RS knows if a JWT AT has been revoked or not.
>> 
>> 
>> If there are some kind of pushed events between the AS and the RS, 
>> then it could push the revoked (and/or expired) opaque AT too, giving 
>> almost no advantage to JWT ATs.
>> 
> Not necessarily, let's say the AS informs the RS only of the revoked 
> ATs, when a RS checks an AT, it verifies the signature first, then the 
> claims, then checks if the AT has been revoked by checking its 
> internal list filled by the AS pushed events.
> 
> In this model, considering that token revocations don't happen a lot, 
> the ratio revoked AT/valid AT is very low, so the advantage of a JWT 
> is important, because it means not so much communication between the 
> AS and the RSs, and a very reliable AT.
> 
> But this means a communication mechanism that isn't standardized yet.
> 
> /Nicolas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth