Network Working Group P. Hunt, Ed.
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track W. Denniss
Expires: February 12, 2017 Google
M. Ansari
Cisco
August 11, 2016
Security Event Token (SET)
draft-hunt-idevent-token-02
Abstract
This specification defines the Security Event token which may be
distributed via a protocol such as HTTP. A Security Event Token
(SET) is based on the JSON Web Token and may be optionally signed
and/or encrypted. A SET describes a statement of fact that may be
shared by an event publisher with registered subscribers.
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 February 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(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
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
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 and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Core Event Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Security Event Token Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction and Overview
This specification defines an extensible security event token (SET)
format which may be exchanged using protocols such as HTTP. The
specification builds on the JSON Web Token format [RFC7519] in order
to provide a self-contained token that can be optionally signed using
JSON Web Signature [RFC7515] and/or encrypted using JSON Web
Encryption [RFC7516].
For the purpose of this specification an event is a statement of fact
by a publisher (also known as the event issuer) that the state of a
security subject (e.g. a web resource, token, IP address) it controls
or is aware of, has changed in some way (explicitly or implicitly).
A security subject may be permanent (e.g. a User account) or
temporary (e.g. a login session) in nature. A state change may
include direct changes of entity state, implicit changes to state or
other higher-level security statements such as:
o The creation, modification, removal of a resource.
o The reseting or suspension of an account.
o The revoking of a security token prior to its expiry.
o The logout of a user session. Or,
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
o A cumulative conclusion such as to indicate that a user has taken
over an email identifier that may have been used in the past by
another user.
Based on some agreed upon criteria for an event feed, the publisher
distributes events to the appropriate subscribers. While an event
may be delivered via synchronous means (e.g. HTTP POST), the
distribution of the event often happens asynchronously to the change
of state which generated the security event. As an example, an
OAuth2 Authorization server [RFC6749], having received a token
revocation request [RFC7009], may issue a token revocation event to
downstream web resource providers. Having been informed of a token
revocation, the OAuth2 web resource service provider may add the
token identifier to its local revocation list assuming the token has
not already expired.
A subscriber having received an event, validates and interprets the
event and takes its own independent action, if any. For example,
having been informed of a personal identifier now being associated
with a different security subject (i.e. is being used by someone-
else), the subscriber may choose to ensure that the new user is not
granted access to resources associated with the previous user. Or it
may not have any relationship with the subject and no action is
taken.
While subscribers will often take actions upon receiving one or more
events, events MUST NOT be assumed to be commands or requests. To do
so requires complex bi-directional signals and error recovery
mechanisms which fall outside the scope of this specification. The
intent of this specification is to define a way of exchanging
statements of fact that subscribers may interpret for their own
purposes. Since events are typically historical statements by a
publisher and are not commands, idempotency or lack there of, does
not apply.
Unless otherwise specified, this specification uses example events
intended as non-normative examples showing how an event may be used.
It is expected that other specifications will use this specification
to define normative events.
This specification is scoped to security and identity related events.
While event tokens may be used for other purposes, the specification
only considers security and privacy concerns relevant to identity and
personal information.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
1.1. 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]. These
keywords are capitalized when used to unambiguously specify
requirements of the protocol or application features and behavior
that affect the inter-operability and security of implementations.
When these words are not capitalized, they are meant in their
natural-language sense.
For purposes of readability examples are not URL encoded.
Implementers MUST percent encode URLs as described in Section 2.1 of
[RFC3986].
Throughout this documents all figures MAY contain spaces and extra
line-wrapping for readability and space limitations. Similarly, some
URI's contained within examples, have been shortened for space and
readability reasons.
1.2. Definitions
The following definitions are used with Identity Events:
Feed Publisher
The Feed Publisher provides events to be distributed to registered
subscribers. In JWT terminology, the Feed Publisher is also known
as the issuer "iss").
Event
An event is a security event token that is a statement that is to
be distributed to one or more registered subscribers. An event is
constructed as a JWT token and MAY be signed or encrypted using
JWS/JWE for authentication and confidentiality reasons.
Feed
A feed a logical grouping of events or a context under which
events may be issued. An interested client registers with the
Feed Publisher to subscribe to events associated with a feed. How
a feed is defined or the method for subscription is out-of-scope
of this specification.
Subscriber
A Subscriber registers to receive event notifications from a Feed
Publisher using a protocol such as HTTP. The method of
registration and delivery is out-of-scope of this specification.
Security Subject
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
The security subject about which the event is about. A security
subject may be a principle (e.g. Section 4.1.2 [RFC7519]), a web
resource, or other thing such as an IP address about which an
Event is about.
2. Events
A SET conveys a statement (in the form of a JWT token [RFC7519])
about a Security Subject that may be of interest to a subscriber or
set of subscribers receiving events from a Feed Publisher.
The schema and structure of an event follows the JWT [RFC7519]
specification. An event token has the following characteristics:
o a common set of attributes common to every event at the top level
including an events attribute describing the type of event, and
o one or more JSON sub-objects that attributes associated with an
event URI value. The attributes to be included with any
particular event are to be defined by the event as specified by
the event URI value in the "events" attribute.
In addition to the JWT attributes "iss" and "aud", an SET contains
the attribute "events" with at least one URI value used to indicate
the type of event that has occurred and what information (attributes)
may be present in the event token. and what type of event (e.g.
resource modified) is contained in the event token.
An event MAY contain an attribute for each value of "events" whose
value is a JSON object (also known as an event extension object) that
contains additional attributes relevant to the specified event URI.
For example, many events will include an "iss" that identifies the
context of the Security Subject being reported (as distinct from the
issuer of the SET), and a "sub" or "jti" or some other attribute that
uniquely identifies the Security Subject.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
The following is a non-normative example showing a password change
event that conveys a SCIM event (see [idevent-scim]):
{
"jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
"events":[
"urn:ietf:params:scim:event:passwordReset",
"https://example.com/scim/event/password"
],
"iat": 1458496025,
"iss": "https://scim.example.com",
"aud":[
"https://jhub.example.com/Feeds/98d52461fa5bbc879593b7754",
"https://jhub.example.com/Feeds/5d7604516b1d08641d7676ee7"
],
"urn:ietf:params:scim:event:passwordReset":{
"id":"44f6142df96bd6ab61e7521d9",
"sub":
"https://scim.example.com/Users/44f6142df96bd6ab61e7521d9"
},
"https://example.com/scim/event/password":{
"resetAttempts":5
}
}
Figure 1: Example SCIM Password Reset Event
The event in the figure above expresses hypothetical password reset
event for SCIM [RFC7644]. The JWT consists of:
o An _events_ attribute specifying the hypothetical SCIM urn
("urn:ietf:params:scim:event:passwordReset") for a password reset,
and a custom extension, "https://example.com/scim/event/password",
that is used to provide additional event information presumably
specified by the location URI provided.
o An "iss" attribute which denotes the event publisher.
o The "aud" attribute specifies the intended audience for the event.
In practical terms this MAY be the URI for the event feed that a
client has subscribed to.
Additional extensions to an event may be added by adding more values
to the "events" attribute. For each event URI value specified, there
MAY be a corresponding attribute that has a JSON object that contains
the attributes associated with that event (e.g.
"https://example.com/scim/event/password"). In this example, the
SCIM event indicates that a password has been updated and the current
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
password reset count is 5. Notice that the value for "resetAttempts"
is actually part of its own JSON object
"https://example.com/scim/event/password".
Here is another example event token, this one for a Logout Token:
{
"iss": "https://server.example.com",
"aud": "s6BhdRkqt3",
"jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
"iat": 1458668180,
"exp": 1458668580,
"events": [
"https://specs.openid.net/logout"
],
"https://specs.openid.net/logout": {
"iss": "https://token.example.com",
"sub": "248289761001",
"jti": "08a5019c-17e1-4977-8f42-65a12843ea02"
}
}
Figure 2: Example OpenID Logout Event
In the above example, the event has its own issuer,
"https://server.example.com" while the event is about the logging out
of a user session identified in the event extension by "jti" that was
issued by "https://token.example.com".
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
In the following example, a fictional medical service collects
consent for medical actions and notifies other parties. The
individual for whom consent is identified was originally
authenticated via OpenID Connect. In this case, the issuer of the
SET event is an application rather than the OpenID provider:
{
"jti": "fb4e75b5411e4e19b6c0fe87950f7749",
"events":[
"https://openid.net/heart/consent.html"
],
"iat": 1458496025,
"iss": "https://my.examplemed.com",
"aud":[
"https://examplemedlab/Feeds/98d52461fa5bbc879593b7754"
],
"https://openid.net/heart/consent":{
"iss": "https://token.example.com",
"sub": "248289761001",
"consentUri":[
"https://terms.examplemed.com/labdisclosure.html#Agree"
]
}
}
Figure 3: Example Consent Event
In the above example "iss" and "sub" contained within the attribute
"https://openid.net/heart/consent", refer to the subject and issuer
of the original OpendID Provider. They are distinct from the top
level value of "iss" which always refers to the issuer of the event;
a medical consent service that is a relying party to the OpenID
Provider.
2.1. Core Event Attributes
The following are attributes that are based on [RFC7519] claim
definitions and are profiled for use in an event token:
jti
As defined by Section 4.1.7 [RFC7519] contains a unique identifier
for an event. The identifier SHOULD be unique within a particular
event feed and MAY be used by clients to track whether a
particular event has already been received. This attribute is
REQUIRED.
iss
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
A single valued String containing the URI of the service provider
publishing the event (the issuer). This attribute is REQUIRED.
aud
A multi-valued String containing the URIs representing the
audience of the event. Values are typically URLs of the feeds the
event is associated with. When an event has multiple audiences
that go to the same subscriber, the publisher is not obligated to
deliver repeated events to the same subscriber. This attribute is
RECOMMENDED.
iat
As defined by Section 4.1.6 [RFC7519], a value containing a
NumericDate which represents when the event was issued. Unless
otherwise specified, the value SHOULD be interpreted by the
subscriber as equivalent to the actual time of the event. This
attribute is REQUIRED.
nbf
As defined by Section 4.1.5 [RFC7519], a value containing a
NumericDate which represents a future date when the event will
occur. This attribute is OPTIONAL.
The following is a new attribute defined by this specification:
events
A multi-valued String that contains the URIs of event types
contained within the JWT. Values in this attribute further
indicate what other JSON objects are present within the parent
JSON event structure. Each OPTIONAL JSON sub-object is denoted by
an attribute that matches a value in "events". This attribute is
REQUIRED.
2.2. Security Event Token Construction
A SET is a JWT [RFC7519] that is constructed by building a JSON
structure that constitutes an event object and which is then used as
the body of a JWT.
While this specification uses JWT to convey a SET, implementers SHALL
NOT use SETs to convey authentication or authorization assertions.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
The following is an example event token (it has been modified for
readability):
{
"jti": "4d3559ec67504aaba65d40b0363faad8",
"iat": 1458496404,
"iss": "https://scim.example.com",
"aud":[
"https://scim.example.com/Feeds/98d52461fa5bbc879593b7754",
"https://scim.example.com/Feeds/5d7604516b1d08641d7676ee7"
],
"events":[
"urn:ietf:params:scim:event:create"
],
"urn:ietf:params:scim:event:create":{
"ref": "https://scim.example.com/Users/44f6142df96bd6ab61e7521d9",
"attributes":["id","name","userName","password","emails"],
"values":{
"emails":[
{"type":"work","value":"jdoe@example.com"}
],
"password":"not4u2no",
"userName":"jdoe",
"id":"44f6142df96bd6ab61e7521d9",
"name":{
"givenName":"John",
"familyName":"Doe"
}
}
}
}
Figure 4: Example Event JSON Data
When transmitted, the above JSON body must be converted into a JWT as
per [RFC7519]. In this example, because the event contains attribute
values, the token MUST be encrypted per JWE (see [RFC7516]) before
transmission.
The following is an example of a SCIM Event expressed in an unsecured
JWT token. The JWT header of:
{"alg":"none"}
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
Base64url encoding of the octets of the UTF-8 representation of the
header yields:
eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0
The example JSON Event Data is encoded as follows: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 encoded JWS signature is the empty string. Concatenating the
parts yields:
eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0
.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.
Figure 5: Example Unsecured Event Token
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
To create and or validate a signed or encrypted SET follow the
instructions in section 7 of [RFC7519].
3. Security Considerations
SETs may often contain sensitive information. Therefore methods for
distribution of events SHOULD require the use of a transport-layer
security mechanism when distributing events. Parties MUST support
TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MAY support additional transport-layer
mechanisms meeting its security requirements. When using TLS, the
client MUST perform a TLS/SSL server certificate check, per
[RFC6125]. Implementation security considerations for TLS can be
found in "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525].
Security Events distributed through third-parties or that carry
personally identifiable information, SHOULD be encrypted using JWE
[RFC7516] or secured for confidentiality by other means.
Security Events distributed without authentication over the channel,
such as via TLS ([RFC5246] and [RFC6125]), and/or OAuth2 [RFC6749],
or Basic Authentication [RFC7617], MUST be signed using JWS [RFC7515]
so that individual events MAY be authenticated and validated by the
subscriber.
4. Privacy Considerations
If an SET needs to be retained for audit purposes, JWS MAY be used to
provide verification of its authenticity.
Event Publishers should attempt to specialize feeds so that the
content is targeted to the specific business and protocol needs of
subscribers.
When sharing personally identifiable information or information that
is otherwise considered confidential to affected users, the
publishers and subscribers MUST have the appropriate legal agreements
and user consent in place.
The propagation of subject identifiers can be perceived as personally
identifiable information. Where possible, publishers and subscribers
should devise approaches the prevents propagation. For example the
passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to already know
the subject.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA requirements.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
6.2. Informative References
[idevent-scim]
Oracle Corporation, "SCIM Event Extensions (work in
progress)".
[RFC7009] Lodderstedt, T., Ed., Dronia, S., and M. Scurtescu, "OAuth
2.0 Token Revocation", RFC 7009, DOI 10.17487/RFC7009,
August 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7009>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.
[RFC7644] Hunt, P., Ed., Grizzle, K., Ansari, M., Wahlstroem, E.,
and C. Mortimore, "System for Cross-domain Identity
Management: Protocol", RFC 7644, DOI 10.17487/RFC7644,
September 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7644>.
Appendix A. Contributors
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
The editor would like to thank the participants in the id-events
mailing list and related working groups for their support of this
specification.
Appendix C. Change Log
Draft 00 - PH - First Draft
Draft 01 - PH - Fixed some alignment issues with JWT. Remove event
type attribute.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
Draft 02 - PH - Renamed to Security Events, Removed questions,
clarified examples and intro text, and added security and privacy
section.
Authors' Addresses
Phil Hunt (editor)
Oracle Corporation
Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com
William Denniss
Salesforce.com
Email: wdenniss@google.com
Morteza Ansari
Cisco
Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com
Hunt, et al. Expires February 12, 2017 [Page 15]