Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object

Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> Fri, 10 January 2020 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <panva.ip@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 2E73B120104 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:39:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.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 aucA1kigFx8F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (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 6E9C91200FF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id p9so3381877wmc.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:39:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=KuZPN1Ga+KeBaFW7/MlwoEzzEb9vyvKY3WSPMqJJNJA=; b=WJvdjAWfBhrJ1WXgMzIHk4w2j0TCLkXATFzpqq1yUN79WxDBqHIdexbrPDo0XP+J3U Avz6bLLgStF4VMiaEjvXC0RQzBW3NriEBDMSVw8O64puiUZD/kaLf7DgjLhOxVie88F+ cm15wQdZnEH3t2JShym2xGVFim5heoY8HSweeHjEXjMRCRCUlFHjzPnznIqrwy3fDKxu nN1ys2Mso58Lb7+Q2VxljI99loP5xNRcTfSn23seT29Tdzt2f2UDnU3CyZ4MZNrlCRva SsSfmbHx/JMhwbKWK9RivOoqxquqnuvyxuf3Ni1bh5X8pDbTHsq6Z3W5DR8raUeYrpa5 Hd3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=KuZPN1Ga+KeBaFW7/MlwoEzzEb9vyvKY3WSPMqJJNJA=; b=X6pf8xxFCnF42cG+OhtbOIlG9BPPzPCZejqzK+XcKw4QPUI5FSh10p/j44h6Y7MTg+ rPq46YUfwwhE88afgklW6WssIe3TnT7e9SlVNr1ZI5JqFXota3+bVNbAPfDpnPuAMIxP rMU1j+8tYPWFaDvSYTPtZoS0dxn/fNcVlmDen/pj4EeYoPK3k1uHtgDP9GJaGfNElgqv 3VwJllyYppHu0Zh1OI81T3vi6hEIxaKVs61Cjxl90UFAvwMoIJ3rh2mAJuYgyy5BuLD9 suAipjJ8UAhoqwtJwGIYM6qSBptB5YiNrR1M8AWLaw+zDjzRgkV4lruN0Gr64B62P94C W/HA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUEqIeITDZxjxbxjm/lEE8NV3NeglmQ1CQ+uQscuf5iUJWhg5xz QnIkQDn6x/mZRyb5WX62vhLwQXeNSA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw0QP40eNabQDDjSuiASpOWUKGpl4dmODlKIEF6cg72qazFuIUqZ+fgrRU3tHr4RlgPQg0fJQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:184:: with SMTP id 126mr6155302wmb.127.1578688785819; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.150] (ip-78-45-222-80.net.upcbroadband.cz. [78.45.222.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g18sm3406442wmh.48.2020.01.10.12.39.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:39:44 +0100
Message-Id: <79C4475C-FDEB-42C8-8A44-7BFE4DBF9453@gmail.com>
References: <fc3805e5-e908-00db-a734-990721371ab2@connect2id.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <fc3805e5-e908-00db-a734-990721371ab2@connect2id.com>
To: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/SKwbl5rs2SP72X87PEqfI5kT0XE>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:39:50 -0000

Vladimir, 

For that very case the payload claims may be repeated in the JWE protected header. An implementation wanting to handle this may look for iss/client_id there. 

Odesláno z iPhonu

> 10. 1. 2020 v 21:19, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>om>:
> 
> I just realised there is one class of JARs where it's practially
> impossible to process the request if merge isn't supported:
> 
> The client submits a JAR encrypted (JWT) with a shared key. OIDC allows
> for that and specs a method for deriving the shared key from the
> client_secret:
> 
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Encryption
> 
> If the JAR is encrypted with the client_secret, and there is no
> top-level client_id parameter, there's no good way for the OP to find
> out which client_secret to get to try to decrypt the JWE. Unless the OP
> keeps an index of all issued client_secret's.
> 
> 
> OP servers which require request_uri registration
> (require_request_uri_registration=true) and don't want to index all
> registered request_uri's, also have no good way to process a request_uri
> if the client_id isn't present as top-level parameter.
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> 
>> On 10/01/2020 20:13, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>> 
>>>> Am 10.01.2020 um 16:53 schrieb John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>om>:
>>> 
>>> I think Torsten is speculating that is not a feature people use.   
>> I’m still trying to understand the use case for merging signed and unsigned parameters. Nat once explained a use case, where a client uses parameters signed by a 3rd party (some „certification authority“) in combination with transaction-specific parameters. Is this being done in the wild? 
>> 
>> PS: PAR would work with both modes.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth