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

[Jim Manico <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for this message, Vittorio.

 > 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.

Ah, of course. That makes perfect sense.

I should had been a lot more specific. I was commenting more on how many 
mobile apps which use OAuth AuthZ refresh/access tokens from the native 
client RFC do not support logout. I noticed that when I log out of the 
Facebook mobile app, my refresh token is still active and I'm not really 
fully logged out. If I am in a native client triggering a logout event, 
I would expect to see revocation in play!

Also, in an microservice environment where JWT's are used as client side 
sessions, logout events often do not actually revoke currently active 
JWT's. #lazyLogoutBooo

That's all from me. =)

Aloha, Jim

On 10/6/20 11:21 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jim Manico
> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 5:17 PM
> To: Nicolas Mora <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
-- 
Jim Manico
Manicode Security
https://www.manicode.com