Network Working Group P. Hunt, Ed.
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track W. Denniss
Expires: February 19, 2017 Google
M. Ansari
Cisco
M. Jones
Microsoft
August 18, 2016
Security Event Token (SET)
draft-hunt-idevent-token-03
Abstract
This specification defines the Security Event token, which may be
distributed via a protocol such as HTTP. The Security Event Token
(SET) specification profiles the JSON Web Token (JWT) and may be
optionally signed and/or encrypted. A SET describes a statement of
fact that may be shared by an event publisher with event 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 19, 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
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. The Security Event Token (SET) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Core SET Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Security Event Token Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1. Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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 (JWT) format [RFC7519] in
order to provide a self-contained token that can be optionally signed
using JSON Web Signature (JWS) [RFC7515] and/or encrypted using JSON
Web Encryption (JWE) [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 resetting or suspension of an account.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
o The revocation of a security token prior to its expiry.
o The logout of a user session. Or,
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 that 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 thereof, 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 19, 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 document, all figures MAY contain spaces and extra
line-wrapping for readability and space limitations. Similarly, some
URIs contained within examples have been shortened for space and
readability reasons.
1.2. Definitions
The following definitions are used with SETs:
Feed Publisher
The Feed Publisher creates SETs to be distributed to registered
subscribers. In JWT terminology, the Feed Publisher is also known
as the issuer ("iss").
Security Event Token (SET)
An SET is a JWT that is to be distributed to one or more
registered subscribers. A SET MAY be signed or encrypted using
JWS and/or JWE for authentication and confidentiality reasons.
Feed
A Feed is a logical grouping of SETs or a context under which SETs
may be issued. A Subscriber registers with the Feed Publisher to
subscribe to SETs 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 SETs 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 19, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
A Security Subject is the entity to which a SET refers. 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
that a SET might reference.
2. The Security Event Token (SET)
A SET conveys a statement (in the form of a JWT [RFC7519]) about a
single security event in relation to a Security Subject that may be
of interest to a Subscriber or set of Subscribers receiving SETs from
a Feed Publisher.
The schema and structure of a SET follows the JWT [RFC7519]
specification. A SET has the following characteristics:
o An outer JSON structure that acts as the event envelope. The
envelope contains a set of attributes common to every SET. The
attributes are used to validate the event and determine the event
data included. The envelope includes an "events" attribute
describing the type of event, and
o JSON [RFC7159] sub-objects, that act as event payload, that
contain attributes associated with the event URIs values provided
in the envelope "events" attribute.
o While a SET may have more than one URI value for "events", the
intent is that the additional URIs are to provide additional
attributes related to the same event in the form of extensions to
the primary event.
SET payload objects are added to the envelope by adding an attribute
to the top-level JSON object (the envelope) whose name corresponds to
a value from "events". The payload object contains the attributes
relevant to the specified event URI. For example, SET event payloads
may include "iss" attribute to distinguish between the issuer of the
event and the issuer of a Security Subject or "sub".
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
The following is a non-normative example showing a hypothetical SCIM
password reset SET. The example also shows an example where the
issuer has provided an extension ("https://example.com/scim/event/
passwordResetExt") that is used to convey additional information such
as the current count of reset attempts:
{
"jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
"events":[
"urn:ietf:params:scim:event:passwordReset",
"https://example.com/scim/event/passwordResetExt"
],
"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":{
"iss":"https://scim.example.com",
"id":"44f6142df96bd6ab61e7521d9",
"sub":"/Users/44f6142df96bd6ab61e7521d9"
},
"https://example.com/scim/event/passwordResetExt":{
"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/
passwordResetExt", that is used to provide additional event
information presumably specified by the location URI provided.
o An "iss" attribute, denotes the event publisher in the envelope
while the "iss" in the event payload specifies the SCIM service
provider for the account that was reset.
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.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
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/passwordResetExt"). In this example,
the SCIM event indicates that a password has been updated and the
current password reset count is 5. Notice that the value for
"resetAttempts" is actually part of its own JSON object
"https://example.com/scim/event/passwordResetExt".
Here is another example event token, this one for a Logout Token:
{
"iss": "https://server.example.com",
"aud": "https://rp.example.com",
"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 19, 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://rp.example.com"
],
"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 SET 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 19, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
A single valued String containing the URI of the service provider
publishing the SET (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 one or more URIs representing
the type of event being expressed and the attributes that MAY be
available within the JWT. Each value in this attribute indicates
what other JSON sub-objects MAY present within the parent JSON SET
structure. Each 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 19, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
The following is an example event token (which has been formatted 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 as an unsecured
JWT. The JWT header of:
{"alg":"none"}
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 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 19, 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 a 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 that prevent propagation -- for example, the
passing of a hash value that requires the subscriber to already know
the subject.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. JSON Web Token Claims Registration
This specification registers the "events" claim in the IANA "JSON Web
Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] established by [RFC7519].
5.1.1. Registry Contents
o Claim Name: "events"
o Claim Description: Security Events
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [[ this specification ]]
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[IANA.JWT.Claims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[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>.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
[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>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[idevent-scim]
Oracle Corporation, "SCIM Event Extensions (work in
progress)", <draft-hunt-idevent-scim-00.txt>.
[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>.
[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>.
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The editors would like to thank the participants in the IETF id-event
mailing list and related working groups for their support of this
specification.
Appendix B. Change Log
Draft 01 - PH - Renamed eventUris to events
Draft 00 - PH - First Draft
Draft 01 - PH - Fixed some alignment issues with JWT. Remove event
type attribute.
Draft 02 - PH - Renamed to Security Events, Removed questions,
clarified examples and intro text, and added security and privacy
section.
Draft 03 - PH
General edit corrections from Sarah Squire
Changed "event" term to "SET"
Corrected author organization for William Dennis to Google
Changed definition of SET to be 2 parts, an envelope and 1 or more
payloads.
Clarified that the intent is to express a single event with
optional extensions only.
Draft 03 - mbj - Registered "events" claim. Applied proofreading
corrections.
Authors' Addresses
Phil Hunt (editor)
Oracle Corporation
Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com
William Denniss
Google
Email: wdenniss@google.com
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-hunt-idevent-token August 2016
Morteza Ansari
Cisco
Email: morteza.ansari@cisco.com
Michael B. Jones
Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/
Hunt, et al. Expires February 19, 2017 [Page 16]