Network Working Group E. Hammer-Lahav, Ed.
Internet-Draft November 23, 2009
Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 27, 2010
The OAuth Core 1.0 Protocol
draft-hammer-oauth-07
Abstract
OAuth provides a method for clients to access server resources on
behalf of a resource owner (such as a different client or an end-
user). It also provides a process for end-users to authorize third
party access to their server resources without sharing their
credentials (typically, a username and password pair), using user-
agent redirections.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
(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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Redirection-Based Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Temporary Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Resource Owner Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. Token Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Authenticated Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Making Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Verifying Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3. Nonce and Timestamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4. Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.1. Signature Base String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4.2. HMAC-SHA1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.3. RSA-SHA1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.4. PLAINTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.5. Parameter Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.1. Authorization Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5.2. Form-Encoded Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5.3. Request URI Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6. Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1. Credentials Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2. RSA-SHA1 Signature Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3. PLAINTEXT Signature Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4. Confidentiality of Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5. Spoofing by Counterfeit Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.6. Proxying and Caching of Authenticated Content . . . . . . 32
4.7. Plaintext Storage of Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.8. Secrecy of the Client Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.9. Phishing Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.10. Scoping of Access Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.11. Entropy of Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.12. Denial of Service / Resource Exhaustion Attacks . . . . . 34
4.13. Cryptographic Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.14. Signature Base String Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
4.15. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.16. User Interface Redress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.17. Automatic Processing of Repeat Authorizations . . . . . . 35
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A. Differences from the Community Edition . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix C. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
1. Introduction
In the traditional client-server authentication model, the client
uses its credentials to access its resources hosted by the server.
With the increasing use of distributed web services and cloud
computing, third-party applications require access to these server-
hosted resources.
OAuth introduces a third role to the traditional client-server
authentication model: the resource owner. In the OAuth model, the
client (which is not the resource owner, but is acting on its behalf)
requests access to resources controlled by the resource owner, but
hosted by the server. In addition, OAuth allows the server to verify
not only the resource owner authorization, but also the identity of
the client making the request.
OAuth provides a method for clients to access server resources on
behalf of a resource owner (such as a different client or an end-
user). It also provides a process for end-users to authorize third
party access to their server resources without sharing their
credentials (typically, a username and password pair), using user-
agent redirections.
For example, a web user (resource owner) can grant a printing service
(client) access to her private photos stored at a photo sharing
service (server), without sharing her username and password with the
printing service. Instead, she authenticates directly with the photo
sharing service which issues the printing service delegation-specific
credentials.
In order for the client to access resources, it first has to obtain
permission from the resource owner. This permission is expressed in
the form of a token and matching shared-secret. The purpose of the
token is to substitute the need for the resource owner to share its
credentials with the client. Unlike the resource owner credentials,
tokens can be issued with a restricted scope and limited lifetime,
and revoked independently.
This specification consists of two parts. The first part defines a
redirection-based user-agent process for end-users to authorize
client access to their resources, by authenticating directly with the
server and provisioning tokens to the client for use with the
authentication method. The second part defines a method for making
authenticated HTTP [RFC2616] requests using two sets of credentials,
one identifying the client making the request, and a second
identifying the resource owner on whose behalf the request is being
made.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
The use of OAuth with any other transport protocol than [RFC2616] is
undefined.
The OAuth protocol was originally created by a small community of web
developers from a variety of websites and other Internet services,
who wanted to solve the common problem of enabling delegated access
to protected resources. The resulting OAuth protocol was stabilized
at version 1.0 in October 2007 and published at the oauth.net
website [1].
This specification provides an informational documentation of OAuth
Core 1.0 Revision A as finalized in June 2009, addressing several
errata reported since that time, as well as numerous editorial
clarifications. It is not an item of the IETF's OAuth Working Group,
which at the time of writing is working on an OAuth version that can
be appropriate for publication on the standards track.
1.1. Terminology
client
An HTTP client (per [RFC2616]) capable of making OAuth-
authenticated requests (Section 3).
server
An HTTP server (per [RFC2616]) capable of accepting OAuth-
authenticated requests (Section 3).
protected resource
An access-restricted resource (per [RFC2616]) which can be
obtained from the server using an OAuth-authenticated request
(Section 3).
resource owner
An entity capable of accessing and controlling protected
resources by using credentials to authenticate with the server.
token
An unique identifier issued by the server and used by the
client to associate authenticated requests with the resource
owner whose authorization is requested or has been obtained by
the client. Tokens have a matching shared-secret that is used
by the client to establish its ownership of the token, and its
authority to represent the resource owner.
The original community specification used a somewhat different
terminology which maps to this specifications as follows (original
community terms provided on left):
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
Consumer: client
Service Provider: server
User: resource owner
Consumer Key and Secret: client credentials
Request Token and Secret: temporary credentials
Access Token and Secret: token credentials
1.2. Example
Jane (resource owner) has recently uploaded some private vacation
photos (protected resources) to her photo sharing site
'photos.example.net' (server). She would like to use the
'printer.example.com' website (client) to print one of these photos.
Typically, Jane signs-into 'photos.example.net' using her username
and password.
However, Jane does not wish to share her username and password with
the 'printer.example.com' website, which needs to access the photo in
order to print it. In order to provide its users with better
service, 'printer.example.com' has signed-up for a set of
'photos.example.net' client credentials ahead of time:
Client Identifier
dpf43f3p2l4k3l03
Client Shared-Secret:
kd94hf93k423kf44
The 'printer.example.com' website has also configured its application
to use the protocol endpoints listed in the 'photos.example.net' API
documentation, which use the "HMAC-SHA1" signature method:
Temporary Credential Request
https://photos.example.net/initiate
Resource Owner Authorization URI:
https://photos.example.net/authorize
Token Request URI:
https://photos.example.net/token
Before 'printer.example.com' can ask Jane to grant it access to the
photos, it must first establish a set of temporary credentials with
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
'photos.example.net' to identify the delegation request. To do so,
the client sends the following HTTPS [RFC2818] request to the server:
POST /initiate HTTP/1.1
Host: photos.example.net
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://photos.example.net/",
oauth_consumer_key="dpf43f3p2l4k3l03",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131200",
oauth_nonce="wIjqoS",
oauth_callback="http%3A%2F%2Fprinter.example.com%2Fready",
oauth_signature="74KNZJeDHnMBp0EMJ9ZHt%2FXKycU%3D"
The server validates the request and replies with a set of temporary
credentials in the body of the HTTP response (line breaks are for
display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
oauth_token=hh5s93j4hdidpola&oauth_token_secret=hdhd0244k9j7ao03&
oauth_callback_confirmed=true
The client redirects Jane's user-agent to the server's Resource Owner
Authorization endpoint to obtain Jane's approval for accessing her
private photos:
https://photos.example.net/authorize?oauth_token=hh5s93j4hdidpola
The server requests Jane to sign-in using her username and password
and if successful, asks her to approve granting 'printer.example.com'
access to her private photos. Jane approves the request and her
user-agent is redirected to the callback URI provided by the client
in the previous request (line breaks are for display purposes only):
http://printer.example.com/ready?
oauth_token=hh5s93j4hdidpola&oauth_verifier=hfdp7dh39dks9884
The callback request informs the client that Jane completed the
authorization process. The client then requests a set of token
credentials using its temporary credentials (over a secure TLS
channel):
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: photos.example.net
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://photos.example.net/",
oauth_consumer_key="dpf43f3p2l4k3l03",
oauth_token="hh5s93j4hdidpola",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131201",
oauth_nonce="walatlh",
oauth_verifier="hfdp7dh39dks9884"
oauth_signature="gKgrFCywp7rO0OXSjdot%2FIHF7IU%3D"
The server validates the request and replies with a set of token
credentials in the body of the HTTP response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
oauth_token=nnch734d00sl2jdk&oauth_token_secret=pfkkdhi9sl3r4s00
With a set of token credentials, the client is now ready to request
the private photo:
GET /photos?file=vacation.jpg&size=original HTTP/1.1
Host: photos.example.net
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://photos.example.net/",
oauth_consumer_key="dpf43f3p2l4k3l03",
oauth_token="nnch734d00sl2jdk",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131202",
oauth_nonce="chapoH",
oauth_signature="MdpQcU8iPSUjWoN%2FUDMsK2sui9I%3D"
The 'photos.example.net' sever validates the request and responds
with the requested photo. 'printer.example.com' is able to continue
accessing Jane's private photos using the same set of token
credentials for the duration of Jane's authorization, or until Jane
revokes access.
1.3. Notational Conventions
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 [RFC2119].
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
2. Redirection-Based Authorization
OAuth uses tokens to represent the authorization granted to the
client by the resource owner. Typically, token credentials are
issued by the server at the resource owner's request, after
authenticating the resource owner's identity (usually using a
username and password).
There are many ways in which a server can facilitate the provisioning
of token credentials. This section defines one such way, using HTTP
redirections and the resource owner's user-agent. This redirection-
based authorization method includes three steps:
1. The client obtains a set of temporary credentials from the server
(in the form of an identifier and shared-secret). The temporary
credentials are used to identify the access request throughout
the authorization process.
2. The resource owner authorizes the server to grant the client's
access request (identified by the temporary credentials).
3. The client uses the temporary credentials to request a set of
token credentials from the server, which will enable it to access
the resource owner's protected resources.
The server MUST revoke the temporary credentials after being used
once to obtain the token credentials. It is RECOMMENDED that the
temporary credentials have a limited lifetime. Servers SHOULD enable
resource owners to revoke token credentials after they have been
issued to clients.
In order for the client to perform these steps, the server needs to
advertise the URIs of the following three endpoints:
Temporary Credential Request
The endpoint used by the client to obtain a set of temporary
credentials as described in Section 2.1.
Resource Owner Authorization
The endpoint to which the resource owner is redirected to grant
authorization as described in Section 2.2.
Token Request
The endpoint used by the client to request a set of token
credentials using the set of temporary credentials as described
in Section 2.3.
The three URIs advertised by the server MAY include a query component
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
as defined by [RFC3986] section 3, but if present, the query MUST NOT
contain any parameters beginning with the "oauth_" prefix, to avoid
conflicts with the protocol parameters added to the URIs when used.
The methods in which the server advertises and documents its three
endpoints are beyond the scope of this specification. Clients should
avoid making assumptions about the size of tokens and other server-
generated values, which are left undefined by this specification. In
addition, protocol parameters MAY include values which require
encoding when transmitted. Clients and servers should not make
assumptions about the possible range of their values.
2.1. Temporary Credentials
The client obtains a set of temporary credentials from the server by
making an authenticated (Section 3) HTTP "POST" request to the
Temporary Credential Request endpoint (unless the server advertises
another HTTP request method for the client to use). The client
constructs a request URI by adding the following parameter to the
request (in addition to the other protocol parameters, using the same
parameter transmission method):
oauth_callback: An absolute URI to which the server will redirect
the resource owner back when the Resource Owner Authorization
step (Section 2.2) is completed. If the client is unable to
receive callbacks or a callback URI has been established via
other means, the parameter value MUST be set to "oob" (case
sensitive), to indicate an out-of-band configuration.
Servers MAY specify additional parameters.
When making the request, the client authenticates using only the
client credentials. The client MAY omit the empty "oauth_token"
protocol parameter from the request and MUST use the empty string as
the token secret value.
Since the request results in the transmission of plain text
credentials in the HTTP response, the server SHOULD require the use
of a transport-layer mechanisms such as TLS or SSL. This is true
regardless of the signature method used by the client.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
For example, the client makes the following HTTPS request:
POST /request_temp_credentials HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://server.example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="jd83jd92dhsh93js",
oauth_signature_method="PLAINTEXT",
oauth_callback="http%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.net%2Fcb%3Fx%3D1",
oauth_signature="ja893SD9%26"
The server MUST verify (Section 3.2) the request and if valid,
respond back to the client with a set of temporary credentials (in
the form of an identifier and shared-secret). The temporary
credentials are included in the HTTP response body using the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content type as defined by
[W3C.REC-html40-19980424].
The response contains the following parameters:
oauth_token
The temporary credentials identifier.
oauth_token_secret
The temporary credentials shared-secret.
oauth_callback_confirmed: MUST be present and set to "true". The
parameter is used to differentiate from previous versions of
the protocol.
Note that even though the parameter names include the term 'token',
these credentials are not token credentials, but are used in the next
two steps in a similar manner to token credentials.
For example (line breaks are for display purposes only):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
oauth_token=hdk48Djdsa&oauth_token_secret=xyz4992k83j47x0b&
oauth_callback_confirmed=true
2.2. Resource Owner Authorization
Before the client requests a set of token credentials from the
server, it MUST send the user to the server to authorize the request.
The client constructs a request URI by adding the following query
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
parameter to the Resource Owner Authorization endpoint URI:
oauth_token
REQUIRED. The temporary credentials identifier obtained in
Section 2.1 in the "oauth_token" parameter. Servers MAY
declare this parameter as OPTIONAL, in which case they MUST
provide a way for the resource owner to indicate the identifier
through other means.
Servers MAY specify additional parameters.
The client directs the resource owner to the constructed URI using an
HTTP redirection response, or by other means available to it via the
resource owner's user-agent. The request MUST use the HTTP "GET"
method.
For example, the client redirects the resource owner's user-agent to
make the following HTTPS request:
GET /authorize_access?oauth_token=hdk48Djdsa HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
The way in which the server handles the authorization request,
including whether it uses a secure channel such as TLS/SSL is beyond
the scope of this specification. However, the server MUST first
verify the identity of the resource owner.
When asking the resource owner to authorize the requested access, the
server SHOULD present to the resource owner information about the
client requesting access based on the association of the temporary
credentials with the client identity. When displaying any such
information, the server SHOULD indicate if the information has been
verified.
After receiving an authorization decision from the resource owner,
the server redirects the resource owner to the callback URI if one
was provided in the "oauth_callback" parameter or by other means.
To make sure that the resource owner granting access is the same
resource owner returning back to the client to complete the process,
the server MUST generate a verification code: an unguessable value
passed to the client via the resource owner and REQUIRED to complete
the process. The server constructs the request URI by adding the
following parameter to the callback URI query component:
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
oauth_token
The temporary credentials identifier received from the client.
oauth_verifier
The verification code.
If the callback URI already includes a query component, the server
MUST append the OAuth parameters to the end of the existing query.
For example, the server redirects the resource owner's user-agent to
make the following HTTP request:
GET /cb?x=1&oauth_token=hdk48Djdsa&oauth_verifier=473f82d3 HTTP/1.1
Host: client.example.net
If the client did not provide a callback URI, the server SHOULD
display the value of the verification code, and instruct the resource
owner to manually inform the client that authorization is completed.
If the server knows a client to be running on a limited device it
SHOULD ensure that the verifier value is suitable for manual entry.
2.3. Token Credentials
The client obtains a set of token credentials from the server by
making an authenticated (Section 3) HTTP "POST" request to the Token
Request endpoint (unless the server advertises another HTTP request
method for the client to use). The client constructs a request URI
by adding the following parameter to the request (in addition to the
other protocol parameters, using the same parameter transmission
method):
oauth_verifier
The verification code received from the server in the previous
step.
When making the request, the client authenticates using the client
credentials as well as the temporary credentials. The temporary
credentials are used as a substitute for token credentials in the
authenticated request and transmitted using the "oauth_token"
parameter.
Since the request results in the transmission of plain text
credentials in the HTTP response, the server SHOULD require the use
of a transport-layer mechanisms such as TLS or SSL. This is true
regardless of the signature method used by the client.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
For example, the client makes the following HTTPS request:
POST /request_token HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://server.example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="jd83jd92dhsh93js",
oauth_signature_method="PLAINTEXT",
oauth_verifier="473f82d3",
oauth_signature="ja893SD9%26xyz4992k83j47x0b"
The server MUST verify (Section 3.2) the validity of the request,
ensure that the resource owner has authorized the provisioning of
token credentials to the client, and ensure that the temporary
credentials have not expired or been used before. The server MUST
also verify the verification code received from the client. If the
request is valid and authorized, the token credentials are included
in the HTTP response body using the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content type as defined by
[W3C.REC-html40-19980424].
The response contains the following parameters:
oauth_token
The token identifier.
oauth_token_secret
The token shared-secret.
For example:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
oauth_token=j49ddk933skd9dks&oauth_token_secret=ll399dj47dskfjdk
The token credentials issued by the server MUST reflect the exact
scope, duration, and other attributes approved by the resource owner.
Once the client receives and stores the token credentials, it can
proceed to access protected resources on behalf of the resource owner
by making authenticated request (Section 3) using the client
credentials together with the token credentials received.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
3. Authenticated Requests
The HTTP authentication methods defined by [RFC2617], enable clients
to make authenticated HTTP requests. Clients using these methods
gain access to protected resources by using their credentials
(typically a username and password pair), which allows the server to
verify their authenticity. Using these methods for delegation
requires the client to assume the role of the resource owner.
OAuth provides a method designed to include two sets of credentials
with each request, one to identify the client, and another to
identify the resource owner. Before a client can make authenticated
requests on behalf of the resource owner, it must obtain a token
authorized by the resource owner. Section 2 provides one such method
through which the client can obtain a token authorized by the
resource owner.
The client credentials take the form of a unique identifier, and an
associated shared-secret or RSA key pair. Prior to making
authenticated requests, the client establishes a set of credentials
with the server. The process and requirements for provisioning these
are outside the scope of this specification. Implementers are urged
to consider the security ramifications of using client credentials,
some of which are described in Section 4.8.
Making authenticated requests requires prior knowledge of the
server's configuration. OAuth includes multiple methods for
transmitting protocol parameters with requests (Section 3.5), as well
as multiple methods for the client to prove its rightful ownership of
the credentials used (Section 3.4). The way in which clients
discover the required configuration is outside the scope of this
specification.
3.1. Making Requests
An authenticated request includes several protocol parameters. Each
parameter name begins with the "oauth_" prefix, and the parameter
names and values are case sensitive. Clients make authenticated
requests by calculating the values of a set of protocol parameters
and adding them to the HTTP request as follows:
1. The client assigns value to each of these REQUIRED (unless
specified otherwise) protocol parameters:
oauth_consumer_key
The identifier portion of the client credentials
(equivalent to a username). The parameter name reflects a
deprecated term (Consumer Key) used in previous revisions
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
of the specification, and has been retained to maintain
backward compatibility.
oauth_token
The token value used to associate the request with the
resource owner. If the request is not associated with a
resource owner (no token available), clients MAY omit the
parameter.
oauth_signature_method
The name of the signature method used by the client to sign
the request, as defined in Section 3.4.
oauth_timestamp
The timestamp value as defined in Section 3.3. The
parameter MAY be omitted when using the "PLAINTEXT"
signature method.
oauth_nonce
The nonce value as defined in Section 3.3. The parameter
MAY be omitted when using the "PLAINTEXT" signature method.
oauth_version
OPTIONAL. If present, MUST be set to "1.0". Provides the
version of the authentication process as defined in this
specification.
2. The protocol parameters are added to the request using one of the
transmission methods listed in Section 3.5. Each parameter MUST
NOT appear more than once per request.
3. The client calculates and assigns the value of the
"oauth_signature" parameter as described in Section 3.4 and adds
the parameter to the request using the same method used in the
previous step.
4. The client sends the authenticated HTTP request to the server.
For example, to make the following HTTP request authenticated:
GET /request?b5=%3D%253D&a3=a&c%40=&a2=r%20b HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
c2&a3=2+q
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
The client assigns values to the following protocol parameters using
its client credentials, token credentials, the current timestamp, a
uniquely generated nonce, and indicates it will use the "HMAC-SHA1"
signature method:
oauth_consumer_key: 9djdj82h48djs9d2
oauth_token: kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7
oauth_signature_method: HMAC-SHA1
oauth_timestamp: 137131201
oauth_nonce: 7d8f3e4a
The client adds the protocol parameter to the request using the OAuth
HTTP Authorization header:
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="9djdj82h48djs9d2",
oauth_token="kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131201",
oauth_nonce="7d8f3e4a"
Then calculates the value of the "oauth_signature" parameter, adds it
to the request, and sends the HTTP request to the server:
GET /request?b5=%3D%253D&a3=a&c%40=&a2=r%20b HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="9djdj82h48djs9d2",
oauth_token="kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131201",
oauth_nonce="7d8f3e4a",
oauth_signature="djosJKDKJSD8743243%2Fjdk33klY%3D"
c2&a3=2+q
3.2. Verifying Requests
Servers receiving an authenticated request MUST validate it by:
o Recalculate the request signature independently as described in
Section 3.4 and compare it to the value received from the client
via the "oauth_signature" parameter.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
o If using the "HMAC-SHA1" or "RSA-SHA1" signature methods, ensure
that the combination of nonce/timestamp/token (if present)
received from the client has not been used before in a previous
request (the server MAY reject requests with stale timestamps as
described in Section 3.3).
o If a token is present, verify the scope and status of the client
authorization as represented by the token (the server MAY choose
to restrict token usage to the client to which it was issued).
o If the "oauth_version" parameter is present, ensure its value is
"1.0".
If the request fails verification, the server SHOULD respond with the
appropriate HTTP response status code. The server MAY include
further details about why the request was rejected in the response
body.
The server SHOULD return a 400 (bad request) status code when
receiving a request with unsupported parameters, unsupported
signature method, missing parameters, or duplicated protocol
parameters. The server SHOULD return a 401 (unauthorized) status
code when receiving a request with invalid client credentials,
invalid or expired token, invalid signature, or invalid or used
nonce.
3.3. Nonce and Timestamp
The timestamp value MUST be a positive integer. Unless otherwise
specified by the server's documentation, the timestamp is expressed
in the number of seconds since January 1, 1970 00:00:00 GMT.
A nonce is a random string, uniquely generated by the client to allow
the server to verify that a request has never been made before and
helps prevent replay attacks when requests are made over a non-secure
channel. The nonce value MUST be unique across all requests with the
same timestamp, client credentials, and token combinations.
To avoid the need to retain an infinite number of nonce values for
future checks, servers MAY choose to restrict the time period after
which a request with an old timestamp is rejected. Servers applying
such a restriction SHOULD provide a way for the client to sync its
clock with the server's clock, which is beyond the scope of this
specification.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
3.4. Signature
OAuth-authenticated requests can have two sets of credentials: those
passed via the "oauth_consumer_key" parameter and those in the
"oauth_token" parameter. In order for the server to verify the
authenticity of the request and prevent unauthorized access, the
client needs to prove that it is the rightful owner of the
credentials. This is accomplished using the shared-secret (or RSA
key) part of each set of credentials.
OAuth provides three methods for the client to prove its rightful
ownership of the credentials: "HMAC-SHA1", "RSA-SHA1", and
"PLAINTEXT". These methods are generally referred to as signature
methods, even though "PLAINTEXT" does not involve a signature. In
addition, "RSA-SHA1" utilizes an RSA key instead of the shared-
secrets associated with the client credentials.
OAuth does not mandate a particular signature method, as each
implementation can have its own unique requirements. Servers are
free to implement and document their own custom methods.
Recommending any particular method is beyond the scope of this
specification. Implementers should review the Security
Considerations section (Section 4) before deciding on which method to
support.
The client declares which signature method is used via the
"oauth_signature_method" parameter. It then generates a signature
(or a string of an equivalent value), and includes it in the
"oauth_signature" parameter. The server verifies the signature as
specified for each method.
The signature process does not change the request or its parameters,
with the exception of the "oauth_signature" parameter.
3.4.1. Signature Base String
The signature base string is a consistent, reproducible concatenation
of several of the HTTP request elements into a single string. The
string is used as an input to the "HMAC-SHA1" and "RSA-SHA1"
signature methods.
The signature base string includes the following components of the
HTTP request:
o The HTTP request method (e.g. "GET", "POST", etc.).
o The authority as declared by the HTTP "Host" request header.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
o The path and query components of the request resource URI.
o The protocol parameters excluding the "oauth_signature".
o Parameters included in the request entity-body if they comply with
the strict restrictions defined in Section 3.4.1.3.
The signature base string does not cover the entire HTTP request.
Most notably, it does not include the entity-body in most requests,
nor does it include most HTTP entity-headers. It is important to
note that the server cannot verify the authenticity of the excluded
request components without using additional protections such as SSL/
TLS or other methods.
3.4.1.1. String Construction
The signature base string is constructed by concatenating together,
in order, the following HTTP request elements:
1. The HTTP request method in uppercase. For example: "HEAD",
"GET", "POST", etc. If the request uses a custom HTTP method, it
MUST be encoded (Section 3.6).
2. An "&" character (ASCII code 38).
3. The base string URI from Section 3.4.1.2, after being encoded
(Section 3.6).
4. An "&" character (ASCII code 38).
5. The request parameters as normalized in Section 3.4.1.3.2, after
being encoded (Section 3.6).
For example, the HTTP request:
GET /request?b5=%3D%253D&a3=a&c%40=&a2=r%20b HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="9djdj82h48djs9d2",
oauth_token="kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131201",
oauth_nonce="7d8f3e4a",
oauth_signature="djosJKDKJSD8743243%2Fjdk33klY%3D"
c2&a3=2+q
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
Is represented by the following signature base string (line breaks
are for display purposes only):
GET&http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Frequest&a2%3Dr%2520b%26a3%3D2%2520q%
26a3%3Da%26b5%3D%253D%25253D%26c%2540%3D%26c2%3D%26oauth_consumer_k
ey%3D9djdj82h48djs9d2%26oauth_nonce%3D7d8f3e4a%26oauth_signature_me
thod%3DHMAC-SHA1%26oauth_timestamp%3D137131201%26oauth_token%3Dkkk9
d7dh3k39sjv7
3.4.1.2. Base String URI
The scheme, authority, and path of the request resource URI [RFC3986]
are included by constructing an "http" or "https" URI representing
the request resource (without the query or fragment) as follows:
1. The scheme and host MUST be in lowercase.
2. The host and port values MUST match the content of the HTTP
request "Host" header.
3. The port MUST be included if it is not the default port for the
scheme, and MUST be excluded if it is the default. Specifically,
the port MUST be excluded when making an HTTP request [RFC2616]
to port 80 or when making an HTTPS request [RFC2818] to port 443.
All other non-default port numbers MUST be included.
For example, the HTTP request:
GET /r%20v/X?id=123 HTTP/1.1
Host: EXAMPLE.COM:80
is represented by the base string URI: "http://example.com/r%20v/X".
In another example, the HTTPS request:
GET /?q=1 HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.net:8080
is represented by the base string URI:
"https://www.example.net:8080/".
3.4.1.3. Request Parameters
In order to guarantee a consistent and reproducible representation of
the request parameters, the parameters are collected and decoded to
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
their original decoded form. They are then sorted and encoded in a
particular manner which is often different from their original
encoding scheme, and concatenated into a single string.
3.4.1.3.1. Parameter Sources
The parameters from the following sources are collected into a single
list of name/value pairs:
o The query component of the HTTP request URI as defined by
[RFC3986] section 3.4. The query component is parsed into a list
of name/value pairs by treating it as an
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" string, separating the names
and values and decoding them as defined by
[W3C.REC-html40-19980424] section 17.13.4.
o The OAuth HTTP Authorization header (Section 3.5.1) if present.
The header's content is parsed into a list of name/value pairs
excluding the "realm" parameter if present. The parameter values
are decoded as defined by Section 3.5.1.
o The HTTP request entity-body, but only if all of the following
conditions are met:
* The entity-body is single-part.
* The entity-body follows the encoding requirements of the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content-type as defined by
[W3C.REC-html40-19980424].
* The HTTP request entity-header includes the "Content-Type"
header set to "application/x-www-form-urlencoded".
The entity-body is parsed into a list of decoded name/value pairs
as described in [W3C.REC-html40-19980424] section 17.13.4.
The "oauth_signature" parameter MUST be excluded from the signature
base string if present. Parameters not explicitly included in the
request MUST be excluded from the signature base string (e.g. the
"oauth_version" parameter when omitted).
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
For example, the HTTP request:
GET /request?b5=%3D%253D&a3=a&c%40=&a2=r%20b HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="9djdj82h48djs9d2",
oauth_token="kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_timestamp="137131201",
oauth_nonce="7d8f3e4a",
oauth_signature="djosJKDKJSD8743243%2Fjdk33klY%3D"
c2&a3=2+q
Contains the following (fully decoded) parameters used in the
signature base sting:
+------------------------+------------------+
| Name | Value |
+------------------------+------------------+
| b5 | =%3D |
| a3 | a |
| c@ | |
| a2 | r b |
| oauth_consumer_key | 9djdj82h48djs9d2 |
| oauth_token | kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7 |
| oauth_signature_method | HMAC-SHA1 |
| oauth_timestamp | 137131201 |
| oauth_nonce | 7d8f3e4a |
| c2 | |
| a3 | 2 q |
+------------------------+------------------+
Note that the value of "b5" is "=%3D" and not "==". Both "c@" and
"c2" have empty values. While the encoding rules specified in this
specification for the purpose of constructing the signature base
string exclude the use of a "+" character (ASCII code 43) to
represent an encoded space character (ASCII code 32), this practice
is widely used in "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" encoded values,
and MUST be properly decoded, as demonstrated by one of the "a3"
parameter instances (the "a3" parameter is used twice in this
request).
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
3.4.1.3.2. Parameters Normalization
The parameters collected in Section 3.4.1.3 are normalized into a
single string as follows:
1. First, the name and value of each parameter are encoded
(Section 3.6).
2. The parameters are sorted by name, using ascending byte value
ordering. If two or more parameters share the same name, they
are sorted by their value.
3. The name of each parameter is concatenated to its corresponding
value using an "=" character (ASCII code 61) as separator, even
if the value is empty.
4. The sorted name/value pairs are concatenated together into a
single string by using an "&" character (ASCII code 38) as
separator.
For example, the list of parameters from the previous section would
be normalized as follows:
Encoded:
+------------------------+------------------+
| Name | Value |
+------------------------+------------------+
| b5 | %3D%253D |
| a3 | a |
| c%40 | |
| a2 | r%20b |
| oauth_consumer_key | 9djdj82h48djs9d2 |
| oauth_token | kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7 |
| oauth_signature_method | HMAC-SHA1 |
| oauth_timestamp | 137131201 |
| oauth_nonce | 7d8f3e4a |
| c2 | |
| a3 | 2%20q |
+------------------------+------------------+
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
Sorted:
+------------------------+------------------+
| Name | Value |
+------------------------+------------------+
| a2 | r%20b |
| a3 | 2%20q |
| a3 | a |
| b5 | %3D%253D |
| c%40 | |
| c2 | |
| oauth_consumer_key | 9djdj82h48djs9d2 |
| oauth_nonce | 7d8f3e4a |
| oauth_signature_method | HMAC-SHA1 |
| oauth_timestamp | 137131201 |
| oauth_token | kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7 |
+------------------------+------------------+
Concatenated Pairs:
+-------------------------------------+
| Name=Value |
+-------------------------------------+
| a2=r%20b |
| a3=2%20q |
| a3=a |
| b5=%3D%253D |
| c%40= |
| c2= |
| oauth_consumer_key=9djdj82h48djs9d2 |
| oauth_nonce=7d8f3e4a |
| oauth_signature_method=HMAC-SHA1 |
| oauth_timestamp=137131201 |
| oauth_token=kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7 |
+-------------------------------------+
And concatenated together into a single string (line breaks are for
display purposes only):
a2=r%20b&a3=2%20q&a3=a&b5=%3D%253D&c%40=&c2=&oauth_consumer_key=9dj
dj82h48djs9d2&oauth_nonce=7d8f3e4a&oauth_signature_method=HMAC-SHA1
&oauth_timestamp=137131201&oauth_token=kkk9d7dh3k39sjv7
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
3.4.2. HMAC-SHA1
The "HMAC-SHA1" signature method uses the HMAC-SHA1 signature
algorithm as defined in [RFC2104]:
digest = HMAC-SHA1 (key, text)
The HMAC-SHA1 function variables are used in following way:
text
is set to the value of the signature base string from
Section 3.4.1.1.
key
is set to the concatenated values of:
1. The client shared-secret, after being encoded
(Section 3.6).
2. An "&" character (ASCII code 38), which MUST be included
even when either secret is empty.
3. The token shared-secret, after being encoded
(Section 3.6).
digest
is used to set the value of the "oauth_signature" protocol
parameter, after the result octet string is base64-encoded per
[RFC2045] section 6.8.
3.4.3. RSA-SHA1
The "RSA-SHA1" signature method uses the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signature
algorithm as defined in [RFC3447] section 8.2 (also known as PKCS#1),
using SHA-1 as the hash function for EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5. To use this
method, the client MUST have established client credentials with the
server which included its RSA public key (in a manner which is beyond
the scope of this specification).
The signature base string is signed using the client's RSA private
key per [RFC3447] section 8.2.1:
S = RSASSA-PKCS1-V1_5-SIGN (K, M)
Where:
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
K
is set to the client's RSA private key,
M
is set to the value of the signature base string from
Section 3.4.1.1, and
S
is the result signature used to set the value of the
"oauth_signature" protocol parameter, after the result octet
string is base64-encoded per [RFC2045] section 6.8.
The server verifies the signature per [RFC3447] section 8.2.2:
RSASSA-PKCS1-V1_5-VERIFY ((n, e), M, S)
Where:
(n, e)
is set to the client's RSA public key,
M
is set to the value of the signature base string from
Section 3.4.1.1, and
S
is set to the octet string value of the "oauth_signature"
protocol parameter received from the client.
3.4.4. PLAINTEXT
The "PLAINTEXT" method does not employ a signature algorithm and does
not provide any security on its own as it transmits secrets in the
clear. It SHOULD only be used with a transport-layer mechanism such
as TLS or SSL as explained in Section 4.3. It does not utilize the
signature base string nor the "oauth_timestamp" and "oauth_nonce"
parameters.
The "oauth_signature" protocol parameter is set to the concatenated
value of:
1. The client shared-secret, after being encoded (Section 3.6).
2. An "&" character (ASCII code 38), which MUST be included even
when either secret is empty.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
3. The token shared-secret, after being encoded (Section 3.6).
3.5. Parameter Transmission
When making an OAuth-authenticated request, protocol parameters as
well as any other parameter using the "oauth_" prefix SHALL be
included in the request using one and only one of the following
locations, listed in order of decreasing preference:
1. The HTTP "Authorization" header as described in Section 3.5.1.
2. The HTTP request entity-body as described in Section 3.5.2.
3. The HTTP request URI query as described in Section 3.5.3.
In addition to these three methods, future extensions MAY define
other methods for including protocol parameters in the request.
3.5.1. Authorization Header
Protocol parameters can be transmitted using the HTTP "Authorization"
header as defined by [RFC2617] with the auth-scheme name set to
"OAuth" (case-insensitive).
For example:
Authorization: OAuth realm="http://server.example.com/",
oauth_consumer_key="0685bd9184jfhq22",
oauth_token="ad180jjd733klru7",
oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1",
oauth_signature="wOJIO9A2W5mFwDgiDvZbTSMK%2FPY%3D",
oauth_timestamp="137131200",
oauth_nonce="4572616e48616d6d65724c61686176",
oauth_version="1.0"
Protocol parameters SHALL be included in the "Authorization" header
as follows:
1. Parameter names and values are encoded per Parameter Encoding
(Section 3.6).
2. Each parameter's name is immediately followed by an "=" character
(ASCII code 61), a """ character (ASCII code 34), the parameter
value (MAY be empty), and another """ character (ASCII code 34).
3. Parameters are separated by a "," character (ASCII code 44) and
OPTIONAL linear whitespace per [RFC2617].
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
4. The OPTIONAL "realm" parameter MAY be added and interpreted per
[RFC2617] section 1.2.
Servers MAY indicate their support for the "OAuth" auth-scheme by
returning the HTTP "WWW-Authenticate" response header upon client
requests for protected resources. As per [RFC2617] such a response
MAY include additional HTTP "WWW-Authenticate" headers:
For example:
WWW-Authenticate: OAuth realm="http://server.example.com/"
The realm parameter defines a protection realm per [RFC2617] section
1.2.
3.5.2. Form-Encoded Body
Protocol parameters can be transmitted in the HTTP request entity-
body, but only if the following REQUIRED conditions are met:
o The entity-body is single-part.
o The entity-body follows the encoding requirements of the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content-type as defined by
[W3C.REC-html40-19980424].
o The HTTP request entity-header includes the "Content-Type" header
set to "application/x-www-form-urlencoded".
For example (line breaks are for display purposes only):
oauth_consumer_key=0685bd9184jfhq22&oauth_token=ad180jjd733klr
u7&oauth_signature_method=HMAC-SHA1&oauth_signature=wOJIO9A2W5
mFwDgiDvZbTSMK%2FPY%3D&oauth_timestamp=137131200&oauth_nonce=4
572616e48616d6d65724c61686176&oauth_version=1.0
The entity-body MAY include other request-specific parameters, in
which case, the protocol parameters SHOULD be appended following the
request-specific parameters, properly separated by an "&" character
(ASCII code 38).
3.5.3. Request URI Query
Protocol parameters can be transmitted by being added to the HTTP
request URI as a query parameter as defined by [RFC3986] section 3.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
For example (line breaks are for display purposes only):
GET /example/path?oauth_consumer_key=0685bd9184jfhq22&
oauth_token=ad180jjd733klru7&oauth_signature_method=HM
AC-SHA1&oauth_signature=wOJIO9A2W5mFwDgiDvZbTSMK%2FPY%
3D&oauth_timestamp=137131200&oauth_nonce=4572616e48616
d6d65724c61686176&oauth_version=1.0 HTTP/1.1
The request URI MAY include other request-specific query parameters,
in which case, the protocol parameters SHOULD be appended following
the request-specific parameters, properly separated by an "&"
character (ASCII code 38).
3.6. Percent Encoding
Existing percent-encoding methods do not guarantee a consistent
construction of the signature base string. The following percent-
encoding method is not defined to replace the existing encoding
methods defined by [RFC3986] and [W3C.REC-html40-19980424]. It is
used only in the construction of the signature base string and the
authorization header (Section 3.5.1).
This specification defines the following method for percent-encoding
strings:
1. Text values are first encoded as UTF-8 octets per [RFC3629] if
they are not already. This does not include binary values which
are not intended for human consumption.
2. The values are then escaped using the [RFC3986] percent-encoding
(%XX) mechanism as follows:
* Characters in the unreserved character set as defined by
[RFC3986] section 2.3 (ALPHA, DIGIT, "-", ".", "_", "~") MUST
NOT be encoded.
* All other characters MUST be encoded.
* The two hexadecimal characters used to represent encoded
characters MUST be upper case.
This method is different from the encoding scheme used by the
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" content-type (for example, it
encodes space characters as "%20" and not using the "+" character).
It MAY be different from the percent-encoding functions provided by
web development frameworks (e.g. encode different characters, use
lower case hexadecimal characters).
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
4. Security Considerations
As stated in [RFC2617], the greatest sources of risks are usually
found not in the core protocol itself but in policies and procedures
surrounding its use. Implementers are strongly encouraged to assess
how this protocol addresses their security requirements.
4.1. Credentials Transmission
This specification does not describe any mechanism for protecting
tokens and shared-secrets from eavesdroppers when they are
transmitted from the server to the client during the authorization
phase. Servers should ensure that these transmissions are protected
using transport-layer mechanisms such as TLS or SSL.
4.2. RSA-SHA1 Signature Method
Authenticated requests made with "RSA-SHA1" signatures do not use the
token shared-secret, or any provisioned client shared-secret. This
means the request relies completely on the secrecy of the private key
used by the client to sign requests.
4.3. PLAINTEXT Signature Method
When used with the "PLAINTEXT" method, the protocol makes no attempt
to protect credentials from eavesdroppers or man-in-the-middle
attacks. The "PLAINTEXT" method is only intended to be used in
conjunction with a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS or
SSL which does provide such protection.
4.4. Confidentiality of Requests
While this protocol provides a mechanism for verifying the integrity
of requests, it provides no guarantee of request confidentiality.
Unless further precautions are taken, eavesdroppers will have full
access to request content. Servers should carefully consider the
kinds of data likely to be sent as part of such requests, and should
employ transport-layer security mechanisms to protect sensitive
resources.
4.5. Spoofing by Counterfeit Servers
This protocol makes no attempt to verify the authenticity of the
server. A hostile party could take advantage of this by intercepting
the client's requests and returning misleading or otherwise incorrect
responses. Service providers should consider such attacks when
developing services using this protocol, and should require
transport-layer security for any requests where the authenticity of
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
the server or of request responses is an issue.
4.6. Proxying and Caching of Authenticated Content
The HTTP Authorization scheme (Section 3.5.1) is optional. However,
[RFC2616] relies on the "Authorization" and "WWW-Authenticate"
headers to distinguish authenticated content so that it can be
protected. Proxies and caches, in particular, may fail to adequately
protect requests not using these headers.
For example, private authenticated content may be stored in (and thus
retrievable from) publicly-accessible caches. Servers not using the
HTTP Authorization header (Section 3.5.1) should take care to use
other mechanisms, such as the "Cache-Control" header, to ensure that
authenticated content is protected.
4.7. Plaintext Storage of Credentials
The client shared-secret and token shared-secret function the same
way passwords do in traditional authentication systems. In order to
compute the signatures used in methods other than "RSA-SHA1", the
server must have access to these secrets in plaintext form. This is
in contrast, for example, to modern operating systems, which store
only a one-way hash of user credentials.
If an attacker were to gain access to these secrets - or worse, to
the server's database of all such secrets - he or she would be able
to perform any action on behalf of any resource owner. Accordingly,
it is critical that servers protect these secrets from unauthorized
access.
4.8. Secrecy of the Client Credentials
In many cases, the client application will be under the control of
potentially untrusted parties. For example, if the client is a
desktop application with freely available source code or an
executable binary, an attacker may be able to download a copy for
analysis. In such cases, attackers will be able to recover the
client credentials.
Accordingly, servers should not use the client credentials alone to
verify the identity of the client. Where possible, other factors
such as IP address should be used as well.
4.9. Phishing Attacks
Wide deployment of this and similar protocols may cause resource
owners to become inured to the practice of being redirected to
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
websites where they are asked to enter their passwords. If resource
owners are not careful to verify the authenticity of these websites
before entering their credentials, it will be possible for attackers
to exploit this practice to steal resource owners' passwords.
Servers should attempt to educate resource owners about the risks
phishing attacks pose, and should provide mechanisms that make it
easy for resource owners to confirm the authenticity of their sites.
Client developers should consider the security implications of how
they interact with a user-agent (e.g. separate window, embedded), and
the ability of the end-user to verify the authenticity of the server
website.
4.10. Scoping of Access Requests
By itself, this protocol does not provide any method for scoping the
access rights granted to a client. However, most applications do
require greater granularity of access rights. For example, servers
may wish to make it possible to grant access to some protected
resources but not others, or to grant only limited access (such as
read-only access) to those protected resources.
When implementing this protocol, servers should consider the types of
access resource owners may wish to grant clients, and should provide
mechanisms to do so. Servers should also take care to ensure that
resource owners understand the access they are granting, as well as
any risks that may be involved.
4.11. Entropy of Secrets
Unless a transport-layer security protocol is used, eavesdroppers
will have full access to authenticated requests and signatures, and
will thus be able to mount offline brute-force attacks to recover the
credentials used. Servers should be careful to assign shared-secrets
which are long enough, and random enough, to resist such attacks for
at least the length of time that the shared-secrets are valid.
For example, if shared-secrets are valid for two weeks, servers
should ensure that it is not possible to mount a brute force attack
that recovers the shared-secret in less than two weeks. Of course,
servers are urged to err on the side of caution, and use the longest
secrets reasonable.
It is equally important that the pseudo-random number generator
(PRNG) used to generate these secrets be of sufficiently high
quality. Many PRNG implementations generate number sequences that
may appear to be random, but which nevertheless exhibit patterns or
other weaknesses which make cryptanalysis or brute force attacks
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
easier. Implementers should be careful to use cryptographically
secure PRNGs to avoid these problems.
4.12. Denial of Service / Resource Exhaustion Attacks
This specification includes a number of features which may make
resource exhaustion attacks against servers possible. For example,
this protocol requires servers to track used nonces. If an attacker
is able to use many nonces quickly, the resources required to track
them may exhaust available capacity. And again, this protocol can
require servers to perform potentially expensive computations in
order to verify the signature on incoming requests. An attacker may
exploit this to perform a denial of service attack by sending a large
number of invalid requests to the server.
Resource Exhaustion attacks are by no means specific to this
specification. However, implementers should be careful to consider
the additional avenues of attack that this protocol exposes, and
design their implementations accordingly. For example, entropy
starvation typically results in either a complete denial of service
while the system waits for new entropy or else in weak (easily
guessable) secrets. When implementing this protocol, servers should
consider which of these presents a more serious risk for their
application and design accordingly.
4.13. Cryptographic Attacks
SHA-1, the hash algorithm used in "HMAC-SHA1" signatures, has been
shown [SHA1-CHARACTERISTICS] to have a number of cryptographic
weaknesses that significantly reduce its resistance to collision
attacks. Practically speaking, these weaknesses are difficult to
exploit, and by themselves do not pose a significant risk to users of
this protocol. They may, however, make more efficient attacks
possible, and NIST has announced [SHA-COMMENTS] that it will phase
out use of SHA-1 by 2010. Servers should take this into account when
considering whether SHA-1 provides an adequate level of security for
their applications.
4.14. Signature Base String Limitations
The signature base string has been designed to support the signature
methods defined in this specification. Those designing additional
signature methods, should evaluated the compatibility of the
signature base string with their security requirements.
Since the signature base string does not cover the entire HTTP
request, such as most request entity-body, most entity-headers, and
the order in which parameters are sent, servers should employ
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
additional mechanisms to protect such elements.
4.15. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is a web-based attack whereby HTTP
requests are transmitted from a user that the website trusts or has
authenticated. CSRF attacks on authorization approvals can allow an
attacker to obtain authorization to protected resources without the
consent of the User. Servers SHOULD strongly consider best practices
in CSRF prevention at all the protocol authorization endpoints.
CSRF attacks on OAuth callback URIs hosted by clients are also
possible. Clients should prevent CSRF attacks on OAuth callback URIs
by verifying that the resource owner at the client site intended to
complete the OAuth negotiation with the server. The methods for
preventing such CSRF attacks are beyond the scope of this
specification.
4.16. User Interface Redress
Servers should protect the authorization process against UI Redress
attacks (also known as "clickjacking"). As of the time of this
writing, no complete defenses against UI redress are available.
Servers can mitigate the risk of UI redress attacks through the
following techniques:
o Javascript frame busting.
o Javascript frame busting, and requiring that browsers have
javascript enabled on the authorization page.
o Browser-specific anti-framing techniques.
o Requiring password reentry before issuing OAuth tokens.
4.17. Automatic Processing of Repeat Authorizations
Servers may wish to automatically process authorization requests
(Section 2.2) from clients which have been previously authorized by
the resource owner. When the resource owner is redirected to the
server to grant access, the server detects that the resource owner
has already granted access to that particular client. Instead of
prompting the resource owner for approval, the server automatically
redirects the resource owner back to the client.
If the client credentials are compromised, automatic processing
creates additional security risks. An attacker can use the stolen
client credentials to redirect the resource owner to the server with
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
an authorization request. The server will then grant access to the
resource owner's data without the resource owner's explicit approval,
or even awareness of an attack. If no automatic approval is
implemented, an attacker must use social engineering to convince the
resource owner to approve access.
Servers can mitigate the risks associated with automatic processing
by limiting the scope of token credentials obtained through automated
approvals. Tokens credentials obtained through explicit resource
owner consent can remain unaffected. Clients can mitigate the risks
associated with automatic processing by protecting their client
credentials.
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Appendix A. Differences from the Community Edition
This specification includes the following changes made to the
original community document in order to correct mistakes and
omissions identified since the document has been published:
o Adjusted nonce language to indicate it is unique per token/
timestamp/client combination.
o Removed the requirement for timestamps to be equal to or greater
than the timestamp used in the previous request.
o Changed the nonce and timestamp parameters to OPTIONAL when using
the "PLAINTEXT" signature method.
o Extended signature base string coverage which includes
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" entity-body parameters when
the HTTP method used is other than "POST" and URI query parameters
when the HTTP method used is other than "GET".
o Incorporated corrections to the instructions in each signature
method to encode the signature value before inserting it into the
"oauth_signature" parameter, removing errors which would have
caused double-encoded values.
o Allowed omitting the "oauth_token" parameter when empty.
o Permitted sending requests for temporary credentials with an empty
"oauth_token" parameter.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
o Removed the restrictions from defining additional "oauth_"
parameters.
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
This specification is directly based on the OAuth Core 1.0 Revision A
community specification which in turn was modeled after existing
proprietary protocols and best practices that have been independently
implemented by various companies.
The community specification was edited by Eran Hammer-Lahav and
authored by: Mark Atwood, Dirk Balfanz, Darren Bounds, Richard M.
Conlan, Blaine Cook, Leah Culver, Breno de Medeiros, Brian Eaton,
Kellan Elliott-McCrea, Larry Halff, Eran Hammer-Lahav, Ben Laurie,
Chris Messina, John Panzer, Sam Quigley, David Recordon, Eran
Sandler, Jonathan Sergent, Todd Sieling, Brian Slesinsky, and Andy
Smith.
The editor would like to thank the following individuals for their
invaluable contribution to the publication of this edition of the
protocol: Lisa Dusseault, Justin Hart, Avshalom Houri, Chris Messina,
Mark Nottingham, Peter Saint-Andre, Joseph Smarr, and Paul Walker.
Appendix C. Document History
[[ To be removed by the RFC editor before publication as an RFC. ]]
-07
o Corrected typos.
o Changed examples to use HTTPS in authorization step.
o Clarified the use of 'oauth_' tokens in the three static endpoint
URIs.
o Edited abstract and introduction.
-06
o Moved parameter section into client instructions.
o Added more examples in the delegation section, including more
complete HTTP responses.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
o Removed language about restricting the use of the 'oauth_' prefix.
o Changed the nonce and timestamp parameters to optional when using
PLAINTEXT.
o Allowed empty token in temporary credentials requests.
-05
o Replaced the word 'lexicographical' with 'ascending' in sorting
instructions.
o Added note that the 'a3' parameter appears twice in the example.
o Made the note about the encoding scheme being different from most
common implementations more explicit.
o Moved and cleaned up the example from appendix to introduction.
Removed crypto details from the example.
-04
o Corrected typo and other minor editorial changes.
o Added warning about token sizes.
o Clarified that all 'oauth_' parameters must be transmitted using
the same method.
o Added explicit requirement to exclude parameters not transmitted
in a request in the signature base string (for example
oauth_version when omitted).
o Explicitly set OAuth to use HTTP 1.1.
o Rearranged the signature base string section to provide a better
narrative of how the HTTP request is normalized. Added the
protocol parameters to the examples to better demonstrate how they
are incorporated in practice.
o Flipped the document order between authentication and
authorization.
o Removed the requirement for timestamps to be equal or greater than
previous timestamps.
-03
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
o Updated draft with changes from OAuth Core 1.0 Revision A to fix a
session fixation exploit.
o Small editorial corrections.
o Removed confusing language from 'Denial of Service / Resource
Exhaustion Attacks'.
o Added new 'Differences from the Community Edition' appendix.
o Updated acknowledgements section.
-02
o Corrected mistake in parameter sorting order (c%40 comes before
c2).
o Added requirement to normalize empty paths as '/'.
-01
o Complete rewrite of the entire specification from scratch.
Separated the spec structure into two parts and flipped their
order.
o Corrected errors in instructions to encode the signature base
string by some methods. The signature value is encoded using the
transport rules, not the spec method for encoding.
o Replaced the entire terminology.
-00
o Initial draft based on the OAuth Core 1.0 community specification
with the following changes.
o Various changes required to accommodate the strict format
requirements of the IETF, such as moving sections around
(Security, Contributors, Introduction, etc.), cleaning references,
adding IETF specific text, etc.
o Moved the Parameter Encoding sub-section from section 5
(Parameters) to section 9.1 (Signature Base String) to make it
clear it only applies to the signature base string.
o Nonce language adjusted to indicate it is unique per token/
timestamp/consumer combination.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
o Added security language regarding lack of token secrets in RSA-
SHA1.
o Fixed the bug in the Normalize Request Parameters section.
Removed the "GET" limitation from the third bullet (query
parameters).
o Removed restriction of only signing application/
x-www-form-urlencoded in "POST" requests, allowing the entity-body
to be used with all HTTP request methods.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3447] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography
Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications
Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft OAuth 1.0 November 2009
[W3C.REC-html40-19980424]
Hors, A., Jacobs, I., and D. Raggett, "HTML 4.0
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-html40-19980424, April 1998,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424>.
6.2. Informative References
[]
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.,
"NIST Brief Comments on Recent Cryptanalytic Attacks on
Secure Hashing Functions and the Continued Security
Provided by SHA-1, August, 2004.".
[SHA1-CHARACTERISTICS]
De Canniere, C. and C. Rechberger, "Finding SHA-1
Characteristics: General Results and Applications".
URIs
[1] <http://oauth.net>
Author's Address
Eran Hammer-Lahav (editor)
Email: eran@hueniverse.com
URI: http://hueniverse.com
Hammer-Lahav Expires May 27, 2010 [Page 41]
