Il 18/10/2022 09:27, Pawel Kowalik ha scritto:
Am 17.10.22 um 15:32 schrieb Hollenbeck, Scott:
[SAH] This update addresses most of the feedback received during the
recent WG last call. There are still a few open issues for which I'm
hoping to see WG discussion:
Thank you Scott.
1. How do we address web service clients?
[PK] I think the elements we need for web service clients were already
elaborated in the discussion over the version 17.
I'm happy to support with text proposal if needed.
One additional point that appeared in the side discussion is whether
such client shall be able to request additional claims from the OP.
Currently the specification only allows RDAP server to request claims
which leaves the web client without such possibility, which in turn
may end up in a broken experience.
The proposal here is to add a "scope" query parameter to the /login
path which RDAP server may use to request additional claims from the
OP on behalf of the client.
2. Are there any security concerns associated with return of the
"userID", "iss", and "userClaims" members of the "farv1_session"
data structure?
[PK] The specification does not foresee any (even optional)
authentication of the client application. In this sense each client
has to be treated as a public client.
There is a risk of malicious client obtaining access to those PII data
because all the user sees in the consent step is RDAP requesting data
to the OP.
Device flow is in this sense more vulnerable to phishing attacks to
obtain PII and also access to RDAP data as such.
A countermeasure could be the RDAP server offering an own
consent/confirmation screen displaying some identifiable information
about the client requesting access.
[ML] Sounds unusual to me that an RP asks the end-user for the consent
for using claims on behalf of another application.
An RP should ask the user for that consent with respect to a precise
purpose.
In addition, according to what is written about PII in the "Privacy
Considerations" section of OIDCC, "only necessary UserInfo data should
be stored at the Client and the Client SHOULD associate the received
data with the purpose of use statement." (please note that "Client"
means the RP here)
That said, it seems to me that we are talikng about two different
purposes for two different applications.
In the proposed OpendID implementation, the RDAP server is the RP and
its purpose is to make access control decisions based on client identity
while the RDAP client purpose might be to improve the UX.
Therefore, IMO, an RDAP client other than a browser should be a
registered application that at login could ask the user for using some
claims for its own purpose.
As a consequence, the RDAP server shouldn't provide the client with the
user claims or, alternatively, should return only those claims that
don't correspond to PII.
3. Anything else I might have inadvertently missed.
[ML] In the following sentence of section 3.1.3.6, I would clarify who
the word "server" refers to:
The server provides returned claims in the ID Token.
Given that the RDAP server no longer returns the ID Token since version
-10, guess it refers to the AS. Correct ?
Best,
Mario
[PK] "userClaim" is marked OPTIONAL in 4.1.1 whereas the following
chapters indicate it is mandatory most of the times:
4.2.3. Login Response
4.4. Session Status
4.5. Session Refresh
I suggested to change:
...response MUST include a "farv1_session" data structure that
includes a "userClaims" object and a "sessionInfo" object.
to
..response MUST include a "farv1_session" data structure that includes
a "sessionInfo" object and an optional "userClaims" object.
Kind Regards,
Pawel
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
--
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
