Can't agree more with the peril of overloading auth information into an access
token.
On Thursday, June 5, 2014 11:05 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
Hannes, the Access Token and ID Token do quite different things and have
different structures and properties. The Access Token is an opaque value that
grants access to resources. An ID Token is a non-opaque JWT security token
that makes claims about the authentication that occurred. You can have one
without the other or you can have both, depending upon the use case. Thus,
trying to move information between them would be problematic in several regards.
Also, trying to overload the Access Token to convey authentication information
has been demonstrated in practice to be fraught with peril, and has resulted in
some of the most prominent security breaches related to the misuse of OAuth.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:54 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question regarding draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c
You are correct. Just adding to access token would make a lot of devs happy and
that certainly should be discussed.
Two requirements issues:
1. A key use case is passing auth ctx only. An access token means asking for
consent to access something. This causes many sites to loose new users. Authen
only can be implicit consent.
2. Compatibility with OpenId ID Token and flows.
3. There is a need to support re-auth and MFA/LOA negotiation. Eg web site
would like to obtain a higher level of assurance for a higher risk action.
The non-tech requirement is the soln must be received by client and service
provider developers as easy to implement in addition to 6749 or even OAuth
1.1a. I mention it because devs feel this should be trivial. Your suggestion
of adding to access token certainly fits this.
Phil
> On Jun 5, 2014, at 0:44, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> thanks for producing this document write-up. I have a somewhat basic
> question regarding the document.
>
> The id token contains the following mandatory information:
> - sis: issuer
> - sub: subject
> - aud: audience
> - iat: issued at
> - exp: expiry
> - auth_time: time when the end user was authenticated
>
> An access token (when encoded as a JWT) may contain all these fields
> except the auth_time (since auth_time is not defined in the JWT spec).
>
> Given that your proposal actually does not define the authentication
> protocol to be used between the resource owner/end user and the
> authorisation server I am wondering whether it would be possible to
> just add the auth_time parameter (and maybe some of the optional
> parameters) to the access token. Then, you can skip the id token.
>
> How do I come up with that question? In Kerberos, for example, the
> above-listed information is carried within a single container (within
> the ticket) and so I am curious to hear why we have to send the
> information twice in OAuth (once in the access token, when the info is
> passed per value, and again via the id token).
>
> Maybe I missing something important here.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
