Encoding claims in the OAuth 2 state parameter using a JWT
draft-bradley-oauth-jwt-encoded-state-07
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-03-13
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group J. Bradley, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ping
Intended status: Experimental T. Lodderstedt
Expires: September 14, 2017
H. Zandbelt
Ping
March 13, 2017
Encoding claims in the OAuth 2 state parameter using a JWT
draft-bradley-oauth-jwt-encoded-state-07
Abstract
This draft provides a method for a client to encode one or more
elements encoding information about the session into the OAuth 2
"state" parameter.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Bradley, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated-Title March 2017
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The state JSON Web Token claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Validating the state parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Creating a Request Forgery Protection (rfp) claim value. . . 5
4.1. Stateful Clients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Stateless Clients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Responses Initiated by the Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. State Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. State Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. State Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.4. Passing paramaters to the AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
In the OAuth 2.0 Authorization protocol [RFC6749] , the Authorization
server SHOULD perform an exact string comparison of the
"redirect_uri" parameter with the "redirect_uri" parameter registered
by by the client. This is essential for preventing token leakage to
third parties in the OAuth implicit flow.
As a result of this clients can not safely add extra query parameters
to the "redirect_uri" parameter that encode additional client state
information.
The Client MUST use the "state" parameter to encode both Cross Site
Request Forgery protection and any other state information it wishes
to preserve for itself regarding the authorization request.
This draft proposes a mechanism whereby multiple state attributes can
be encoded into a JSON Web Token JWT [RFC7519] for use as the value
Show full document text