Network Working Group                                        A. Davidson
Internet-Draft                                                       LIP
Intended status: Informational                                J. Iyengar
Expires: 6 February 2023                                          Fastly
                                                              C. A. Wood
                                                              Cloudflare
                                                           5 August 2022


                  Privacy Pass Architectural Framework
                 draft-ietf-privacypass-architecture-06

Abstract

   This document specifies the architectural framework for constructing
   secure and anonymity-preserving instantiations of the Privacy Pass
   protocol.  It provides recommendations on how the protocol ecosystem
   should be constructed to ensure the privacy of clients, and the
   security of all participating entities.

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 https://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 6 February 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.










Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Redemption Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Issuance Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  Attester Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.2.  Issuer Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.3.  Metadata  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.4.  Issuance Protocol Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Shared Origin, Attester, Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Joint Attester and Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Joint Origin and Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  Split Origin, Attester, Issuer  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.1.  Metadata Privacy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.2.  Issuer Key Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.3.  Large Number of Issuers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.3.1.  Allowing More Issuers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.4.  Centralization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.1.  Token Exhaustion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Introduction

   Privacy Pass is a protocol for authorization based on anonymous-
   credential authentication mechanisms.  Typical approaches for
   authorizing clients, such as through the use of long-term cookies,
   are not privacy-friendly since they allow servers to track clients
   across sessions and interactions.  Privacy Pass takes a different
   approach: instead of presenting linkable state carrying information
   to servers, e.g., whether or not the client is an authorized user or



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   has completed some prior challenge, clients present unlinkable proofs
   that attest to this information.

   The most basic Privacy Pass protocol provides a set of cross-origin
   authorization tokens that protect the client's anonymity during
   interactions with a server.  This allows clients to communicate an
   attestation of a previously authenticated server action, without
   having to reauthenticate manually.  The tokens retain anonymity in
   the sense that the act of revealing them cannot be linked back to the
   session where they were initially issued.

   At a high level, Privacy Pass is composed of two protocols: issuance
   and redemption.

   The issuance protocol runs between a Client and two network functions
   in the Privacy Pass architecture: Attestation and Issuance.  These
   two network functions can be implemented by the same protocol
   participant, but can also be implemented separately.  The Issuer is
   responsible for issuing tokens in response to requests from Clients.
   The Attester is responsible for attesting properties about the Client
   for which tokens are issued.  The Issuer needs to be trusted by the
   server that later redeems the token.  Attestation can be performed by
   the Issuer or by an Attester that is trusted by the Issuer.  Clients
   might prefer to select different Attesters, separate from the Issuer,
   to be able to use preferred authentication methods or improve privacy
   by not directly communicating with an Issuer.  Depending on the
   attestation, Attesters can store state about a Client, such as the
   number of overall tokens issued thus far.  As an example of an
   Issuance protocol, in the original Privacy Pass protocol [PPSRV],
   tokens were only issued to Clients that solved CAPTCHAs.  In this
   context, the Attester attested that some client solved a CAPTCHA and
   the resulting token produced by the Issuer was proof of this fact.

   The redemption protocol runs between Client and Origin (server).  It
   allows Origins to challenge Clients to present one or more tokens for
   authorization.  Depending on the type of token, e.g., whether or not
   it is cross-origin or per-origin, and whether or not it can be
   cached, the Client either presents a previously obtained token or
   invokes the issuance protocol to acquire one for authorization.

   The issuance and redemption protocols operate in concert as shown in
   the figure below.









Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


      Origin          Client        Attester          Issuer
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                 /-----------------------------------------\
  |   Challenge ----> Attest --->                             |
  |                 | TokenRequest --------------->           |
  |   Redemption    |                              (validate) | Issuance
  |      Flow       |                              (evaluate) |   Flow
  |                 |     <-------------------  TokenResponse |
  |   <--- Response |                                         |
  |                 \-----------------------------------------/
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------

           Figure 1: Privacy Pass Architectural Components

   This document describes requirements for both issuance and redemption
   protocols.  This document also describes ecosystem considerations
   that impact the stated privacy and security guarantees of the
   protocol.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The following terms are used throughout this document.

   *  Client: An entity that seeks authorization to an Origin.

   *  Origin: An entity that challenges Clients for tokens.

   *  Issuer: An entity that issues tokens to Clients for properties
      attested to by the Attester.

   *  Attester: An entity that attests to properties of Client for the
      purposes of token issuance.

3.  Architecture

   The Privacy Pass architecture consists of four logical entities --
   Client, Origin, Issuer, and Attester -- that work in concert as shown
   in Section 1 for token issuance and redemption.  This section
   describes the purpose of token issuance and redemption and the
   requirements therein on the relevant participants.





Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


3.1.  Redemption Protocol

   The redemption protocol is a simple challenge-response based
   authorization protocol between Client and Origin.  Origins prompt
   Clients with a token challenge and, if possible, Clients present a
   valid token for the challenge in response.  The context in which an
   Origin challenges a Client for a token is referred to as the
   redemption context.  This context includes all information associated
   with the redemption event, such as the timestamp of the event, Client
   visible information (including the IP address), and the Origin name.

   The challenge controls the type of token that the Origin will accept
   for the given resource.  As described in [HTTP-Authentication], there
   are a number of ways in which the token may vary, including:

   *  Issuance protocol.  The token identifies the type of issuance
      protocol required for producing the token.  Different issuance
      protocols have different security properties, e.g., some issuance
      protocols may produce tokens that are publicly verifiable, whereas
      others may not have this property.

   *  Issuer identity.  Tokens identify which Issuers are trusted for a
      given issuance protocol.  The selected Issuer transitively
      determines what types of attestation the Origin is willing to
      accept.  For example, if a given Issuer issuer.example has two
      trusted Attesters, then any Origin choosing issuer.example as its
      Issuer is willing to accept attestation checks done by either of
      these two Attesters.

   *  Redemption context.  Tokens can be bound to a given redemption
      context, which influences a client's ability to pre-fetch and
      cache tokens.  For example, an empty redemption context always
      allows tokens to be issued and redeemed non-interactively, whereas
      a fresh and random redemption context means that the redeemed
      token must be issued only after the client receives the challenge.
      See Section 2.1.1 of [HTTP-Authentication] for more details.

   *  Per-origin or cross-origin.  Tokens can be constrained to the
      Origin for which the challenge originated, or can be used across
      Origins.

   Depending on the use case, Origins may need to maintain state to
   track redeemed tokens.  For example, Origins that accept cross-origin
   across shared redemption contexts tokens SHOULD track which tokens
   have been redeemed already in those redemption contexts, since these
   tokens can be issued and then spent multiple times in response to any
   such challenge.  See Section 2.1.1 of [HTTP-Authentication] for
   discussion.



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   Origins that admit cross-origin tokens bear some risk of allowing
   tokens issued for one Origin to be spent in an interaction with
   another Origin.  If tokens protected with resources are unique to a
   single Origin, then said Origin MUST NOT admit cross-origin tokens
   for authorization.

3.2.  Issuance Protocol

   The issuance protocol embodies the core of Privacy Pass.  It takes as
   input a challenge from the redemption protocol and produces a token,
   as shown in the figure below.

     Origin          Client        Attester          Issuer

                     +--------------------------------------\
       Challenge ----> TokenRequest --->                    |
                     |             (attest)                 |
                     |                TokenRequest --->     |
                     |                            (evaluate)|
                     |                   <--- TokenResponse |
         Token  <----+ TokenResponse <---                   |
                     |--------------------------------------/

                        Figure 2: Issuance Overview

   Clients interact with the Attester and Issuer to produce a token in
   response to a challenge.  The context in which an Attester vouches
   for a Client during issuance is referred to as the attestation
   context.  This context includes all information associated with the
   issuance event, such as the timestamp of the event and Client visible
   information, including the IP address or other information specific
   to the type of attestation done.

   Each issuance protocol may be different, e.g., in the number and
   types of participants, underlying cryptographic constructions used
   when issuing tokens, and even privacy properties.

   Clients initiate the Token issuance protocol using the challenge, a
   randomly generated nonce, and public key for the Issuer.  The Token
   issuance protocol itself can be any interactive protocol between
   Client, Issuer, or other parties that produces a valid authenticator
   over the Client's input, subject to the following security
   requirements.

   1.  Unconditional input secrecy.  The issuance protocol MUST NOT
       reveal anything about the Client's private input, including the
       challenge and nonce, to the Attester or Issuer.  The issuance
       protocol can reveal the Issuer public key for the purposes of



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


       determining which private key to use in producing the token.  A
       result of this property is that the redemption flow is unlinkable
       from the issuance flow.

   2.  One-more forgery security.  The issuance protocol MUST NOT allow
       malicious Clients or Attesters (acting as Clients) to forge
       tokens offline or otherwise without interacting with the Issuer
       directly.

   3.  Concurrent security.  The issuance protocol MUST be safe to run
       concurrently with arbitrarily many Clients.

   Each Issuance protocol MUST come with a detailed analysis of the
   privacy impacts of the protocol, why these impacts are justified, and
   guidelines on how to deploy the protocol to minimize any privacy
   impacts.

   Clients obtain the Issuer public key directly from the Origin using
   the process described in [HTTP-Authentication].  Clients MAY apply
   some form of key consistency check to determine if this public key is
   consistency and correct for the specified Issuer.  See [CONSISTENCY]
   for example mechanisms.  Depending on the deployment, the Attester
   may be able to assist the Client in applying these consistency checks
   across clients.

   Depending on the use case, issuance may require some form of Client
   anonymization service similar to an IP-hiding proxy so that Issuers
   cannot learn information about Clients.  This can be provided by an
   explicit participant in the issuance protocol, or it can be provided
   via external means, e.g., through the use of an IP-hiding proxy
   service like Tor. In general, Clients SHOULD minimize or remove
   identifying information where possible when invoking the issuance
   protocol.

   Issuers MUST NOT issue tokens for Clients through untrusted
   Attesters.  This is important because the Attester's role is to vouch
   for trust in privacy-sensitive Client information, such as account
   identifiers or IP address information, to the Issuer.  Tokens
   produced by an Issuer that admits issuance for any type of
   attestation cannot be relied on for any specific property.  See
   Section 3.2.1 for more details.










Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


3.2.1.  Attester Role

   Attestation is an important part of the issuance protocol.
   Attestation is the process by which an Attester bears witness to,
   confirms, or authenticates a Client so as to verify a property about
   the Client that is required for Issuance.  Examples of attestation
   properties include, though are not limited to:

   *  Capable of solving a CAPTCHA.  Clients that solve CAPTCHA
      challenges can attest to this capability for the purposes of being
      ruled out as a bot or otherwise automated Client.

   *  Client state.  Clients can be associated with state and the
      attester can attest to this state.  Examples of state include the
      number of issuance protocol invocations, the client's geographic
      region, and whether the client has a valid application-layer
      account.

   *  Trusted device.  Some Clients run on trusted hardware that are
      capable of producing device-level attestation statements.

   Each of these attestation types have different security properties.
   For example, attesting to having a valid account is different from
   attesting to be running on trusted hardware.  In general, Attesters
   should accept a limited form of attestation formats.

   Each attestation format also has an impact on the overall system
   privacy.  For example, the number of users in possession of a single
   class of trusted device might be lesser than the number of users that
   can solve CAPTCHAs.  Similarly, requiring a conjunction of
   attestation types could decrease the overall anonymity set size.  For
   example, the number of Clients that have solved a CAPTCHA in the past
   day, have a valid account, and are running on a trusted device is
   lesser than the number of Clients that have solved a CAPTCHA in the
   past day.  Attesters should not admit attestation types that result
   in small anonymity sets.

   The trustworthiness of attesters depends on their ability to
   correctly and reliably perform attestation during the issuance
   protocol.  However, in practice, certain types of attestation can
   vary in value over time, e.g., if the attestation process is
   compromised or maliciously automated.  These are considered
   exceptional events and require configuration changes to address the
   underlying cause.  For example, if attestation is compromised because
   of a zero-day exploit on compliant devices, then the corresponding
   attestation format should be untrusted until the exploit is patched.
   Addressing changes in attestation quality is therefore a deployment-
   specific task.  In Split Attester and Issuer deployments, Issuers can



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   choose to remove compromised Attesters from their trusted set until
   the compromise is patched, without needing to modify Origin allow-
   lists.

3.2.2.  Issuer Role

   Issuers MUST be uniquely identifiable by all Clients with a
   consistent identifier.  In a web context, this identifier might be
   the Issuer host name.  As discussed later in Section 5, ecosystems
   that admit a large number of Issuers can lead to privacy concerns for
   the Clients in the ecosystem.  Therefore, in practice, the number of
   Issuers should be bounded.  The actual Issuers can be replaced with
   different Issuers as long as the total never exceeds these bounds.
   Moreover, Issuer replacements also have an effect on client anonymity
   that is similar to when a key rotation occurs.  See Section 5 for
   more details about maintaining privacy with multiple Issuers.

3.2.2.1.  Key Management

   To facilitate issuance, the Issuer MUST hold an Issuance key pair at
   any given time.  The Issuer public key MUST be made available to all
   Clients in such a way that key rotations and other updates are
   publicly visible.  The key material and protocol configuration that
   an Issuer uses to produce tokens corresponds to a number of different
   pieces of information.

   *  The issuance protocol in use; and

   *  The public keys that are active for the Issuer.

   The way that the Issuer publishes and maintains this information
   impacts the effective privacy of the clients; see Section 5 for more
   details.  The fundamental requirement for key management and
   discovery is that Issuers must be unable to target specific clients
   with unique keys without detection.  There are a number of ways in
   which this might be implemented:

   *  Servers use a verifiable, tamper-free registry from which clients
      discover keys.  Similar to related mechanisms and protocols such
      as Certificate Transparency [RFC6962], this may require external
      auditors or additional client behavior to ensure the registry
      state is consistent for all clients.

   *  Clients use an anonymity-preserving tool such as Tor to discover
      keys from multiple network vantage points.  This is done to ensure
      consistent keys to seemingly different clients.

   *  Clients embed Issuer keys into software.



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   As above, specific mechanisms for key management and discovery are
   out of scope for this document.

3.2.2.2.  Key Rotation

   Token issuance associates all issued tokens with a particular choice
   of key.  If an Issuer issues tokens with many keys, then this may
   harm the anonymity of the Client.  For example, they would be able to
   map the Client's access patterns by inspecting which key each token
   they possess has been issued under.

   To prevent against this, Issuers MUST only use one private key for
   issuing tokens at any given time.  Servers MAY use one or more keys
   for redemption to allow Issuers for seamless key rotation.

   Servers may rotate keys as a means of revoking tokens issued under
   old or otherwise expired keys.  Alternatively, Issuers may include
   expiration information as metadata alongside the token; See
   Section 3.2.3 for more discussion about metadata constraints.  Both
   techniques are equivalent since they cryptographically bind
   expiration to individual tokens.  Key rotations should be limited in
   frequency for similar reasons.

3.2.3.  Metadata

   Certain instantiations of the issuance protocol may permit public or
   private metadata to be cryptographically bound to a token.  As an
   example, one trivial way to include public metadata is to assign a
   unique issuer public key for each value of metadata, such that N keys
   yields log2(N) bits of metadata.  The total amount of metadata bits
   included in a token is the sum of public and private metadata bits.

   Public metadata is that which clients can observe as part of the
   token issuance flow.  Public metadata can either be transparent or
   opaque.  For example, transparent public metadata is a value that the
   client either generates itself, or the Issuer provides during the
   issuance flow and the client can check for correctness.  Opaque
   public metadata is metadata the client can see but cannot check for
   correctness.  As an example, the opaque public metadata might be a
   "fraud detection signal", computed on behalf of the Issuer, during
   token issuance.  In normal circumstances, clients cannot determine if
   this value is correct or otherwise a tracking vector.

   Private metadata is that which clients cannot observe as part of the
   token issuance flow.  Such instantiations may be built on the Private
   Metadata Bit construction from Kreuter et al.  [KLOR20] or the
   attribute-based VOPRF from Huang et al.  [HIJK21].




Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   Metadata may also be arbitrarily long or bounded in length.  The
   amount of permitted metadata may be determined by application or by
   the underlying cryptographic protocol.

3.2.4.  Issuance Protocol Extensibility

   The Privacy Pass protocol and ecosystem are both intended to be
   receptive to extensions that expand the current set of
   functionalities through new issuance protocols.  Each issuance
   protocol SHOULD come with a detailed analysis of the privacy impacts
   of the extension, why these impacts are justified, and guidelines on
   how to deploy the protocol to minimize any privacy impacts.  Any
   extension to the Privacy Pass protocol MUST adhere to the guidelines
   specified in Section 3.2.2 for managing Issuer public key data.

4.  Deployment Considerations

   Client uses Privacy Pass to separate attestation context and
   redemption context.  Linking or combining these contexts can reveal
   sensitive information about the Client, including their identity or
   browsing history.  Depending on the deployment model, separating
   these contexts can take different forms.  The Origin, Attester, and
   Issuer portrayed in Figure 1 can be instantiated and deployed in a
   number of different ways.  This section covers some expected
   deployment models and their corresponding security and privacy
   considerations.  The discussion below assumes non-collusion between
   entities when operated by separate parties.  Mechanisms for enforcing
   non-collusion are out of scope for this architecture.

4.1.  Shared Origin, Attester, Issuer

   In this model, the Origin, Attester, and Issuer are all operated by
   the same entity, as shown in the figure below.

                      +------------------------------------------+
         Client       |  Attester         Issuer         Origin  |
           |          |                                          |
           |          |          Challenge                       |
           <----------------------------------------------+      |
           |          | Attest                                   |
           +----------------->                                   |
           |          |     TokenRequest                         |
           +-------------------------------->                    |
           |          |     TokenResponse                        |
           <--------------------------------+                    |
           |          |          Redeem                          |
           +---------------------------------------------->      |
                      +------------------------------------------+



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


                     Figure 3: Shared Deployment Model

   This model represents the initial deployment of Privacy Pass, as
   described in [PPSRV].  In this model, the Attester, Issuer, and
   Origin share the attestation and redemption contexts.  As a result,
   attestation mechanisms that can uniquely identify a Client, e.g.,
   requiring that Clients authenticate with some type of application-
   layer account, are not appropriate, as they could be used to learn or
   reconstruct a Client's browsing history.

   Attestation and redemption context unlinkability requires that these
   events be separated over time, e.g., through the use of tokens with
   an empty redemption context, or over space, e.g., through the use of
   an anonymizing proxy when connecting to the Origin.

4.2.  Joint Attester and Issuer

   In this model, the Attester and Issuer are operated by the same
   entity that is separate from the Origin, as shown in the figure
   below.

                                                      +-----------+
         Client                                       |   Origin  |
           |                    Challenge             |           |
           <-----------------------------------------------+      |
           |                                          |           |
           |          +---------------------------+   |           |
           |          |  Attester         Issuer  |   |           |
           |          |                           |   |           |
           |          | Attest                    |   |           |
           +----------------->                    |   |           |
           |          |     TokenRequest          |   |           |
           +-------------------------------->     |   |           |
           |          |     TokenResponse         |   |           |
           <--------------------------------+     |   |           |
           |          +---------------------------+   |           |
           |                                          |           |
           |                    Redeem                |           |
           +----------------------------------------------->      |
                                                      |           |
                                                      +-----------+

            Figure 4: Joint Attester and Issuer Deployment Model

   This model is useful if an Origin wants to offload attestation and
   issuance to a trusted entity.  In this model, the Attester and Issuer
   share attestation context for the Client, which can be separate from
   the Origin's redemption context.



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   For certain types of issuance protocols, this model separates
   attestation and redemption contexts.  However, Issuance protocols
   that require the Issuer to learn information about the Origin, such
   as that which is described in [RATE-LIMITED], are not appropriate
   since they could link attestation and redemption contexts through the
   Origin name.

4.3.  Joint Origin and Issuer

   In this model, the Origin and Issuer are operated by the same entity,
   separate from the Attester, as shown in the figure below.

                                       +--------------------------+
         Client                        |   Issuer         Origin  |
           |                Challenge  |                          |
           <-----------------------------------------------+      |
           |                           |                          |
           |          +-----------+    |                          |
           |          |  Attester |    |                          |
           |          |           |    |                          |
           |          | Attest    |    |                          |
           +----------------->    |    |                          |
           |          |           |    |                          |
           |          |     TokenRequest                          |
           +-------------------------------->                     |
           |          |           |    |                          |
           |          |     TokenResponse                         |
           <--------------------------------+                     |
           |          |           |    |                          |
           |          +-----------+    |                          |
           |                           |                          |
           |                 Redeem    |                          |
           +----------------------------------------------->      |
                                       +--------------------------+

             Figure 5: Joint Origin and Issuer Deployment Model

   This model is useful for Origins that require Client-identifying
   attestation, e.g., through the use of application-layer account
   information, but do not otherwise want to learn information about
   individual Clients beyond what is observed during the token
   redemption, such as Client IP addresses.

   In this model, attestation and redemption contexts are separate.  As
   a result, any type of attestation is suitable in this model.
   Moreover, any type of token challenge is suitable assuming there is
   more than one Origin involved, since no single party will have access
   to the identifying Client information and unique Origin information.



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   If there is only a single Origin, then per-Origin tokens are not
   appropriate in this model, since the Attester can learn the
   redemption context.  (Note, however, that the Attester does not learn
   whether a token is per-Origin or cross-Origin.)

4.4.  Split Origin, Attester, Issuer

   In this model, the Origin, Attester, and Issuer are all operated by
   different entities, as shown in the figure below.

                                                      +-----------+
         Client                                       |   Origin  |
           |                    Challenge             |           |
           <-----------------------------------------------+      |
           |                                          |           |
           |          +-----------+                   |           |
           |          |  Attester |                   |           |
           |          |           |                   |           |
           |          | Attest    |    +----------+   |           |
           +----------------->    |    |  Issuer  |   |           |
           |          |           |    |          |   |           |
           |          |     TokenRequest          |   |           |
           +-------------------------------->     |   |           |
           |          |           |    |          |   |           |
           |          |     TokenResponse         |   |           |
           <--------------------------------+     |   |           |
           |          |           |    |          |   |           |
           |          +-----------+    +----------+   |           |
           |                                          |           |
           |                    Redeem                |           |
           +----------------------------------------------->      |
                                                      |           |
                                                      +-----------+

                      Figure 6: Split Deployment Model
















Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   This is the most general deployment model, and is necessary for some
   types of issuance protocols where the Attester plays a role in token
   issuance; see [RATE-LIMITED] for one such type of issuance protocol.
   In this model, the Attester, Issuer, and Origin have a separate view
   of the Client: the Attester sees potentially sensitive Client
   identifying information, such as account identifiers or IP addresses,
   the Issuer sees only the information necessary for Issuance, and the
   Origin sees token challenges, corresponding tokens, and Client source
   information, such as their IP address.  As a result, attestation and
   redemption contexts are separate, and therefore any type of token
   challenge is suitable in this model assuming there is more than a
   single Origin.  As in the Joint Origin and Issuer model in
   Section 4.3, if there is only a single Origin, then per-Origin tokens
   are not appropriate.

5.  Privacy Considerations

   Client uses Private Pass to separate attestation context and
   redemption context.  Depending on the deployment model, this can take
   different forms.  For example, any Client can only remain private
   relative to the entire space of other Clients using the protocol.
   Moreover, by owning tokens for a given set of keys, the Client's
   anonymity set shrinks to the total number of clients controlling
   tokens for the same keys.

   In the following, we consider the possible ways that Issuers can
   leverage their position to try and reduce the anonymity sets that
   Clients belong to (or, user segregation).  For each case, we provide
   mitigations that the Privacy Pass ecosystem must implement to prevent
   these actions.

5.1.  Metadata Privacy Implications

   Any metadata bits of information can be used to further segment the
   size of the Client's anonymity set.  Any Issuer that wanted to track
   a single Client could add a single metadata bit to Client tokens.
   For the tracked Client it would set the bit to 1, and 0 otherwise.
   Adding additional bits provides an exponential increase in tracking
   granularity similarly to introducing more Issuers (though with more
   potential targeting).











Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   For this reason, the amount of metadata used by an Issuer in creating
   redemption tokens must be taken into account -- together with the
   bits of information that Issuer's may learn about Clients otherwise.
   Since this metadata may be useful for practical deployments of
   Privacy Pass, Issuers must balance this against the reduction in
   Client privacy.  In general, Issuers should bound the metadata
   permitted so as to not allow it to uniquely identify each possible
   user.

5.2.  Issuer Key Rotation

   Techniques to introduce Client "segregation" can be used to reduce
   Client anonymity.  Such techniques are closely linked to the type of
   key schedule that is used by the Issuer.  When an Issuer rotates
   their key, any Client that invokes the issuance protocol in this key
   cycle will be part of a group of possible clients owning valid tokens
   for this key.  To mechanize this attack strategy, an Issuer could
   introduce a key rotation policy that forces Clients into small key
   cycles.  Thus, reducing the size of the anonymity set for these
   Clients.

   Issuers SHOULD invoke key rotation for a period of time between 1 and
   12 weeks.  Key rotations represent a trade-off between Client privacy
   and continued Issuer security.  Therefore, it is still important that
   key rotations occur on a regular cycle to reduce the harmfulness of
   an Issuer key compromise.

   With a large number of Clients, a minimum of one week gives a large
   enough window for Clients to participate in the issuance protocol and
   thus enjoy the anonymity guarantees of being part of a larger group.
   A maximum of 12 weeks limits the damage caused by a key compromise.
   If an Issuer realizes that a key compromise has occurred then the
   Issuer should generate a new key and make it available to Clients.
   If possible, it should invoke any revocation procedures that may
   apply for the old key.

5.3.  Large Number of Issuers

   Similarly to the Issuer rotation dynamic that is raised above, if
   there are a large number of Issuers, and Origins accept all of them,
   segregation can occur.  For example, if Clients obtain tokens from
   many Issuers, and Origins later challenge a Client for a token from
   each Issuer, Origins can learn information about the Client.  Each
   per-Issuer token that a Client holds essentially corresponds to a bit
   of information about the Client that Origin learn.  Therefore, there
   is an exponential loss in anonymity relative to the number of Issuers
   that there are.




Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   For example, if there are 32 Issuers, then Origins learn 32 bits of
   information about the Client if a valid token is presented for each
   one.  If the distribution of Issuer trust is anything close to a
   uniform distribution, then this is likely to uniquely identify any
   Client amongst all other Internet users.  Assuming a uniform
   distribution is clearly the worst-case scenario, and unlikely to be
   accurate, but it provides a stark warning against allowing too many
   Issuers at any one time.

   In cases where clients can hold tokens for all Issuers at any given
   time, a strict bound SHOULD be applied to the active number of
   Issuers in the ecosystem.  We propose that allowing no more than 4
   Issuers at any one time is highly preferable (leading to a maximum of
   64 possible user segregations).  However, having a very large user
   base could potentially allow for larger values.  Issuer replacements
   should only occur with the same frequency as config rotations as they
   can lead to similar losses in anonymity if clients still hold
   redemption tokens for previously active Issuers.

   In addition, we RECOMMEND that trusted registries indicate at all
   times which Issuers are deemed to be active.  If a Client is asked to
   invoke any Privacy Pass exchange for an Issuer that is not declared
   active, then the client SHOULD refuse to retrieve the Issuer public
   key during the protocol.

5.3.1.  Allowing More Issuers

   The bounds on the numbers of Issuers that this document proposes
   above are very restrictive.  This is because this document considers
   a situation where a Client could be challenged (and asked to redeem)
   tokens for any Issuer.

   An alternative system is to ensure a robust strategy for ensuring
   that Clients only possess redemption tokens for a similarly small
   number of Issuers at any one time.  This prevents a malicious
   verifier from being able to invoke redemptions for many Issuers since
   the Client would only be holding redemption tokens for a small set of
   Issuers.  When a Client is issued tokens from a new Issuer and
   already has tokens from the maximum number of Issuers, it simply
   deletes the oldest set of redemption tokens in storage and then
   stores the newly acquired tokens.

   For example, if Clients ensure that they only hold redemption tokens
   for 4 Issuers, then this increases the potential size of the
   anonymity sets that the Client belongs to.  However, this doesn't
   protect Clients completely as it would if only 4 Issuers were
   permitted across the whole system.  For example, these 4 Issuers
   could be different for each Client.  Therefore, the selection of



Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   Issuers they possess tokens for is still revealing.  Understanding
   this trade-off is important in deciding the effective anonymity of
   each Client in the system.

5.3.1.1.  Redemption Partitions

   Another option to allow a large number of Issuers in the ecosystem,
   while preventing the joining of a number of different tokens is for
   the Client to maintain sharded "redemption partitions".  This would
   allow the Client to redeem the tokens it wishes to use in a
   particular context, while still allowing the Client to maintain a
   large variety of tokens from many Issuers.  Within a redemption
   partition, the Client limits the number of different Issuers used to
   a small number to maintain the privacy properties the Client
   requires.  As long as each redemption partition maintains a strong
   privacy boundary with each other, the verifier will only be able to
   learn a number of bits of information up to the limits within that
   "redemption partitions".

   To support this strategy, the client keeps track of a partition which
   contains the set of Issuers that redemptions have been attempted
   against.  An empty redemption is returned when the limit has been
   hit:




























Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


     Client(partition, issuer)                     Issuer(skS, pkS)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     if issuer not in partition {
       if partition.length > REDEEM_LIMIT {
         Output {}
         return
       }
       partition.push(issuer)
     }
     token = store[issuer.id].pop()
     req = Redeem(token, info)

                                  req
                           ------------------>

                                  if (dsIdx.includes(req.data)) {
                                    raise ERR_DOUBLE_SPEND
                                  }
                                  resp = Verify(pkS, skS, req)
                                  if resp.success {
                                    dsIdx.push(req.data)
                                  }

                                   resp
                           <------------------
     Output resp

5.4.  Centralization

   A consequence of limiting the number of participants (Attesters or
   Issuers) in Privacy Pass deployments for meaningful privacy is that
   it forces concentrated centralization amongst those participants.
   [CENTRALIZATION] discusses several ways in which this might be
   mitigated.  For example, a multi-stakeholder governance model could
   be established to determine what participants are fit to operate as
   participants in a Privacy Pass deployment.  This is precisely the
   model used to control the Web's trust model.

   Alternatively, Privacy Pass deployments might mitigate this problem
   through implementation.  For example, rather than centralize the role
   of attestation in one or few entities, attestation could be a
   distributed function performed by a quorum of many parties, provided
   that neither Issuers nor Origins learn which attester implementations
   were chosen.  As a result, clients could have more opportunities to
   switch between attestation participants.






Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


6.  Security Considerations

   We present a number of security considerations that prevent malicious
   Clients from abusing the protocol.

6.1.  Token Exhaustion

   When a Client holds tokens for an Issuer, it is possible for any
   verifier to invoke that client to redeem tokens for that Issuer.
   This can lead to an attack where a malicious verifier can force a
   Client to spend all of their tokens from a given Issuer.  To prevent
   this from happening, tokens can be scoped to single Origins such that
   they can only be redeemed within for a single Origin.

   If tokens are cross-Origin, Clients should use alternate methods to
   prevent many tokens from being redeemed at once.  For example, if the
   Origin requests an excess of tokens, the Client could choose to not
   present any tokens for verification if a redemption had already
   occurred in a given time window.

7.  References

7.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [CENTRALIZATION]
              Nottingham, M., "Centralization, Decentralization, and
              Internet Standards", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-05, 9
              July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-05>.






Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


   [CONSISTENCY]
              Davidson, A., Finkel, M., Thomson, M., and C. A. Wood,
              "Key Consistency and Discovery", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-wood-key-consistency-02, 4 March
              2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wood-
              key-consistency-02>.

   [HIJK21]   Huang, S., Iyengar, S., Jeyaraman, S., Kushwah, S., Lee,
              C. K., Luo, Z., Mohassel, P., Raghunathan, A., Shaikh, S.,
              Sung, Y. C., and A. Zhang, "PrivateStats: De-Identified
              Authenticated Logging at Scale", January 2021,
              <https://research.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/
              PrivateStats-De-Identified-Authenticated-Logging-at-
              Scale_final.pdf>.

   [HTTP-Authentication]
              Pauly, T., Valdez, S., and C. A. Wood, "The Privacy Pass
              HTTP Authentication Scheme", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-privacypass-auth-scheme-04, 6 July 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              privacypass-auth-scheme-04>.

   [KLOR20]   Kreuter, B., Lepoint, T., OrrĂ¹, M., and M. Raykova,
              "Anonymous Tokens with Private Metadata Bit", Advances in
              Cryptology - CRYPTO 2020 pp. 308-336,
              DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-56784-2_11, 2020,
              <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56784-2_11>.

   [PPEXT]    "Privacy Pass Browser Extension", n.d.,
              <https://github.com/privacypass/challenge-bypass-
              extension>.

   [PPSRV]    Sullivan, N., "Cloudflare Supports Privacy Pass", n.d.,
              <https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-supports-privacy-
              pass/>.

   [RATE-LIMITED]
              Hendrickson, S., Iyengar, J., Pauly, T., Valdez, S., and
              C. A. Wood, "Rate-Limited Token Issuance Protocol", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-privacypass-rate-limit-
              tokens-03, 6 July 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-privacypass-
              rate-limit-tokens-03>.

   [RFC6962]  Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
              Transparency", RFC 6962, DOI 10.17487/RFC6962, June 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6962>.




Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          Privacy Pass Architecture            August 2022


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Scott Hendrickson, Tommy Pauly,
   Benjamin Schwartz, Steven Valdez and other members of the Privacy
   Pass Working Group for many helpful contributions to this document.

Authors' Addresses

   Alex Davidson
   LIP
   Lisbon
   Portugal
   Email: alex.davidson92@gmail.com


   Jana Iyengar
   Fastly
   Email: jri@fastly.com


   Christopher A. Wood
   Cloudflare
   101 Townsend St
   San Francisco,
   United States of America
   Email: caw@heapingbits.net

























Davidson, et al.         Expires 6 February 2023               [Page 22]