Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection and nonce

Neil Madden <> Tue, 09 February 2021 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA92F3A0D18 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:30:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdAkH9ez1LfZ for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7EFA3A0D13 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 13:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u14so23848741wri.3 for <>; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:30:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to :to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qd/qCMskCQDsV5hsHwOmr+4yqnmpC0RJIC9CCv/VQGg=; b=WsB0WJJ9LUEIangsFvLT+NW8BammbRiKe65JQHj6I/u8ZH42CxcYgftyq7jYBrxbhd B4TOBcrT3TGT0M5r1nYfHN5+dwnOJda6kwGv3Gn3vyqMn5LdEhm0tZoAgWOwTXBw7opZ LFIB/AkSVujNmXN3eBws0ku6OTRwsN6Go6o8k=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qd/qCMskCQDsV5hsHwOmr+4yqnmpC0RJIC9CCv/VQGg=; b=LvlMtuhzVYLJkl+XTGHze3T7knNZRdPkYVCcMsWMGl144YSgKcBEdMk33qo7EgFdXF mhX6fnDQu8uVcXpZV/T19+TFogXvpBVJMV9qCt8mKL2ANu8oSp5P2OkurwK4FsDVyg1/ HOpbvKUK46108Am0kKoaON9Vc8wj44hXwjAgRTn+npsKPEjGwELb07Q/sZjgearPQ78M kYMeddNDtfXRQLXbITUBVWQjvu6iOFtytD3R5BLe3wC9xaKd4yT8iSl9VqnM28SeAAkx iRUfg32rWN3STjQgdazX8VNoEclE7qknXJ+I58UHodrUqcKREK+iVFlJsxeDoB+JzIfs +Qgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532fKld/XKoJsfHqQ8gfd+7Hi6Cf6DZeHxwhqaIy4vO3oRLr264e Mfcvk6/OaFHJQMAdncOVPJ/rgDN4hdxvNrL1LAtswUBiVHl+MymdwXKyDpVmOljz6sZkyj1OUg= =
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMEtnKKpsZjMHSkuNdN8hqfUh4dEFNfkhbggzhWa8HDf/qMgE3YfuxyTF0aPB6GtTWQwtc5g==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:9226:: with SMTP id 35mr94100wrj.408.1612906201668; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v15sm13559314wra.61.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:30:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Neil Madden <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 21:29:59 +0000
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: oauth <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Andrii Deinega <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18C66)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-F6FA7394-1F21-4DA1-A4AA-43859DCB803D"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection and nonce
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 21:30:06 -0000

Three points:

1. In many cases the JWT will be verified using a public key fetched over the same TLS channel. 

2. Many proxies can now also produce and consume JWTs for downstream services, so end-to-end JWT is no more guaranteed than end-to-end TLS.

3. The JWT response already contains an iat claim which is sufficient to judge freshness. 

It would be better to concentrate on ensuring end-to-end TLS rather than trying to reinvent the same mechanisms in JWT form on top. 

— Neil

> On 9 Feb 2021, at 20:38, Andrii Deinega <> wrote:
> How can you guarantee that there are always direct TLS connections between a client and an AS hosted say some cloud provider where you have a little control on their infrastructure?
> Even without all those cloud providers, how can you guarantee the same when there are a bunch of different (software and hardware) components that legitimately perform SSL offloading / DPI in front of an AS...  or the client may just use the proxy server?
> Regards,
> Andrii
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:43 AM Neil Madden <> wrote:
>>> On 9 Feb 2021, at 06:55, Andrii Deinega <> wrote:
>>> Hi WG,
>>> I wonder if there are any particular reasons to not make nonce a mandatory parameter for the current JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection draft. Or, at least, force an AS to include the nonce claim in a JWT response when nonce is presented in the introspection request similar to what happens with the similar scenario in the OpenID Connect ID Token?
>>> This will allow to mitigate replay attacks because clients can correlate the response with the initial request
>> ID tokens involve flows using an insecure channel (the browser). This is not the case for introspection requests which happen over a direct TLS connection and so are already protected against replay attacks. 
>> — Neil
>> ForgeRock values your Privacy

ForgeRock values your Privacy <>