| OAuth Working Group | B. Campbell |
| Internet-Draft | Ping Identity |
| Intended status: Standards Track | J. Bradley |
| Expires: March 3, 2019 | Yubico |
| N. Sakimura | |
| Nomura Research Institute | |
| T. Lodderstedt | |
| YES Europe AG | |
| August 30, 2018 |
OAuth 2.0 Mutual TLS Client Authentication and Certificate Bound Access Tokens
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-11
This document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate bound access tokens using mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS) authentication with X.509 certificates. OAuth clients are provided a mechanism for authentication to the authorization server using mutual TLS, based on either self-signed certificates or public key infrastructure (PKI). OAuth authorization servers are provided a mechanism for binding access tokens to a client's mutual TLS certificate, and OAuth protected resources are provided a method for ensuring that such an access token presented to it was issued to the client presenting the token.
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 March 3, 2019.
Copyright (c) 2018 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 (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 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.
This document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate bound access tokens using mutual TLS authentication with X.509 certificates. OAuth clients are provided mechanisms for authentication to the authorization server using mutual TLS. OAuth authorization servers are provided a mechanism for binding access tokens to a client's mutual TLS certificate, and OAuth protected resources are provided a method for ensuring that such an access token presented to it was issued to the client presenting the token.
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749] defines a shared secret method of client authentication but also allows for definition and use of additional client authentication mechanisms when interacting directly with the authorization server. This document describes an additional mechanism of client authentication utilizing mutual TLS certificate-based authentication, which provides better security characteristics than shared secrets. While [RFC6749] documents client authentication for requests to the token endpoint, extensions to OAuth 2.0 (such as Introspection and Revocation) define endpoints that also utilize client authentication and the mutual TLS methods defined herein are applicable to those endpoints as well.
Mutual TLS certificate bound access tokens ensure that only the party in possession of the private key corresponding to the certificate can utilize the token to access the associated resources. Such a constraint is sometimes referred to as key confirmation, proof-of-possession, or holder-of-key and is unlike the case of the bearer token described in [RFC6750], where any party in possession of the access token can use it to access the associated resources. Binding an access token to the client's certificate prevents the use of stolen access tokens or replay of access tokens by unauthorized parties.
Mutual TLS certificate bound access tokens and mutual TLS client authentication are distinct mechanisms, which are complementary but don't necessarily need to be deployed or used together.
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.
Mutual TLS refers to the process whereby a client presents its X.509 certificate and proves possession of the corresponding private key to a server when negotiating a TLS session. In TLS 1.2 this requires the client to send Client Certificate and Certificate Verify messages during the TLS handshake and for the server to verify these messages.
This section defines, as an extension of OAuth 2.0, Section 2.3, two distinct methods of using mutual TLS X.509 client certificates as client credentials. The requirement of mutual TLS for client authentication is determined by the authorization server based on policy or configuration for the given client (regardless of whether the client was dynamically registered, statically configured, or otherwise established).
In order to utilize TLS for OAuth client authentication, the TLS connection between the client and the authorization server MUST have been established or reestablished with mutual TLS X.509 certificate authentication (i.e. the Client Certificate and Certificate Verify messages are sent during the TLS Handshake [RFC5246]).
For all requests to the authorization server utilizing mutual TLS client authentication, the client MUST include the client_id parameter, described in OAuth 2.0, Section 2.2. The presence of the client_id parameter enables the authorization server to easily identify the client independently from the content of the certificate. The authorization server can locate the client configuration using the client identifier and check the certificate presented in the TLS Handshake against the expected credentials for that client. The authorization server MUST enforce the binding of a certificate to a specific client as described in either Section 2.1 or Section 2.2 below.
The PKI (public key infrastructure) method of mutual TLS OAuth client authentication uses a subject distinguished name (DN) and validated certificate chain to identify the client. The TLS handshake is utilized to validate the client's possession of the private key corresponding to the public key in the certificate and to validate the corresponding certificate chain. The client is successfully authenticated if the subject information in the certificate matches the expected DN configured or registered for that particular client (note that a predictable treatment of DN values, such as the distinguishedNameMatch rule from [RFC4517], is needed in comparing the certificate's subject DN to the client's registered DN). If and how to check a certificate's revocation status is a deployment decision at the discretion of the authorization server. The PKI method facilitates the way X.509 certificates are traditionally being used for authentication. It also allows the client to rotate its X.509 certificates without the need to modify its respective authentication data at the authorization server by obtaining a new certificate with the same subject DN from a trusted certificate authority (CA).
For the PKI method of mutual TLS client authentication, this specification defines and registers the following authentication method metadata value into the "OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters].
The following metadata parameter is introduced for the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol in support of the PKI method of binding a certificate to a client:
This method of mutual TLS OAuth client authentication is intended to support client authentication using self-signed certificates. As pre-requisite, the client registers an X.509 certificate or a trusted source for its X.509 certificates (such as the jwks_uri defined in [RFC7591] that references a JSON Web Key Set containing the client's certificates and public keys) with the authorization server. During authentication, TLS is utilized to validate the client's possession of the private key corresponding to the public key presented within the certificate in the respective TLS handshake. In contrast to the PKI method, the client's certificate chain is not validated by the server in this case. The client is successfully authenticated if the subject public key info of the certificate matches the subject public key info of one of the certificates configured or registered for that particular client. The Self-Signed Certificate method allows to use mutual TLS to authenticate clients without the need to maintain a PKI. When used in conjunction with a jwks_uri for the client, it also allows the client to rotate its X.509 certificates without the need to change its respective authentication data directly with the authorization server.
For the Self-Signed Certificate method of mutual TLS client authentication, this specification defines and registers the following authentication method metadata value into the "OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters].
For the Self-Signed Certificate method of binding a certificate to a client using mutual TLS client authentication, the existing jwks_uri or jwks metadata parameters from [RFC7591] are used to convey the client's certificates and public keys, where the X.509 certificates are represented using the JSON Web Key (JWK) x5c parameter (note that Sec 4.7 of RFC 7517 requires that the key in the first certificate of the x5c parameter must match the public key represented by other members of the JWK).
When mutual TLS is used by the client on the connection to the token endpoint, the authorization server is able to bind the issued access token to the client certificate. Such a binding is accomplished by associating the certificate with the token in a way that can be accessed by the protected resource, such as embedding the certificate hash in the issued access token directly, using the syntax described in Section 3.1, or through token introspection as described in Section 3.2. Binding the access token to the client certificate in that fashion has the benefit of decoupling that binding from the client's authentication with the authorization server, which enables mutual TLS during protected resource access to serve purely as a proof-of-possession mechanism. Other methods of associating a certificate with an access token are possible, per agreement by the authorization server and the protected resource, but are beyond the scope of this specification.
The client makes protected resource requests as described in [RFC6750], however, those requests MUST be made over a mutually authenticated TLS connection using the same certificate that was used for mutual TLS at the token endpoint.
The protected resource MUST obtain the client certificate used for mutual TLS authentication and MUST verify that the certificate matches the certificate associated with the access token. If they do not match, the resource access attempt MUST be rejected with an error per [RFC6750] using an HTTP 401 status code and the invalid_token error code.
Metadata to convey server and client capabilities for mutual TLS client certificate bound access tokens is defined in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 respectively.
When access tokens are represented as JSON Web Tokens (JWT)[RFC7519], the certificate hash information SHOULD be represented using the x5t#S256 confirmation method member defined herein.
To represent the hash of a certificate in a JWT, this specification defines the new JWT Confirmation Method member x5t#S256 for the X.509 Certificate SHA-256 Thumbprint. The value of the x5t#S256 member is the SHA-256[SHS] hash (a.k.a. thumbprint, fingerprint or digest) of the DER encoding of the X.509 certificate [RFC5280] base64url-encoded with with all trailing pad '=' characters omitted and without the inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other additional characters.
The following is an example of a JWT payload containing an x5t#S256 certificate thumbprint confirmation method.
{
"iss": "https://server.example.com",
"sub": "ty.webb@example.com",
"exp": 1493726400,
"nbf": 1493722800,
"cnf":{
"x5t#S256": "bwcK0esc3ACC3DB2Y5_lESsXE8o9ltc05O89jdN-dg2"
}
}
Figure 1: Example JWT Claims Set with an X.509 Certificate Thumbprint Confirmation Method
If, in the future, certificate thumbprints need to be computed using hash functions other than SHA-256, it is suggested that additional related JWT confirmation methods members be defined for that purpose. For example, a new x5t#S512 (X.509 Certificate Thumbprint using SHA-512) confirmation method member could be defined by registering it in the the IANA "JWT Confirmation Methods" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] for JWT cnf member values established by [RFC7800].
OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection defines a method for a protected resource to query an authorization server about the active state of an access token as well as to determine meta-information about the token.
For a mutual TLS client certificate bound access token, the hash of the certificate to which the token is bound is conveyed to the protected resource as meta-information in a token introspection response. The hash is conveyed using the same structure as the certificate SHA-256 thumbprint confirmation method, described in Section 3.1, as a top-level member of the introspection response JSON. The protected resource compares that certificate hash to a hash of the client certificate used for mutual TLS authentication and rejects the request, if they do not match.
Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens defined the cnf (confirmation) claim, which enables confirmation key information to be carried in a JWT. However, the same proof-of-possession semantics are also useful for introspected access tokens whereby the protected resource obtains the confirmation key data as meta-information of a token introspection response and uses that information in verifying proof-of-possession. Therefore this specification defines and registers proof-of-possession semantics for OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection using the cnf structure. When included as a top-level member of an OAuth token introspection response, cnf has the same semantics and format as the claim of the same name defined in [RFC7800]. While this specification only explicitly uses the x5t#S256 confirmation method member, it needed to define and register the higher level cnf structure as an introspection response member in order to define and use the more specific certificate thumbprint confirmation method.
The following is an example of an introspection response for an active token with an x5t#S256 certificate thumbprint confirmation method.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
{
"active": true,
"iss": "https://server.example.com",
"sub": "ty.webb@example.com",
"exp": 1493726400,
"nbf": 1493722800,
"cnf":{
"x5t#S256": "bwcK0esc3ACC3DB2Y5_lESsXE8o9ltc05O89jdN-dg2"
}
}
Figure 2: Example Introspection Response for a Certificate Bound Access Token
This document introduces the following new authorization server metadata parameter to signal the server's capability to issue certificate bound access tokens:
The following new client metadata parameter is introduced to convey the client's intention to use certificate bound access tokens:
The authorization server needs to set up its TLS configuration appropriately for the binding methods it supports.
If the authorization server wants to support mutual TLS client authentication and other client authentication methods in parallel, it should make mutual TLS optional.
If the authorization server supports the Self-Signed Certificate method, it should configure the TLS stack in a way that it does not verify whether the certificate presented by the client during the handshake is signed by a trusted CA certificate.
The authorization server may also consider hosting the token endpoint, and other endpoints requiring client authentication, on a separate host name or port in order to prevent unintended impact on the TLS behavior of its other endpoints, e.g. the authorization endpoint.
Since the resource server relies on the authorization server to perform client authentication, there is no need for the resource server to validate the trust chain of the client's certificate in any of the methods defined in this document. Mutual TLS is used only as a proof-of-possession mechanism during protected resource access. The resource server should therefore configure the TLS stack in a way that it does not verify whether the certificate presented by the client during the handshake is signed by a trusted CA certificate.
Mutual TLS OAuth client authentication and mutual TLS client certificate bound access tokens can be used independently of each other. Use of certificate bound access tokens without mutual TLS OAuth client authentication, for example, is possible in support of binding access tokens to a TLS client certificate for public clients or clients utilizing other methods of authentication to the authorization server. The authorization server would configure the TLS stack in the same manner as for the Self-Signed Certificate method such that it does not verify that the certificate presented by the client during the handshake is signed by a trusted CA. Individual instances of a client would create a self-signed certificate for mutual TLS with both the authorization server and resource server. The authorization server would not use the mutual TLS certificate to authenticate the client at the OAuth layer but would bind the issued access token to that certificate, which the client has proven possession of the corresponding private key. The access token is then bound to the certificate and can only be used by the client possessing the certificate and corresponding private key and utilizing them to negotiate mutual TLS on connections to the resource server.
As described in Section 3, an access token is bound to a specific client certificate, which means that the same certificate must be used for mutual TLS on protected resource access. It also implies that access tokens are invalidated when a client updates the certificate, which can be handled similar to expired access tokens where the client requests a new access token (typically with a refresh token) and retries the protected resource request.
This document describes binding an access token to the client certificate presented on the TLS connection from the client to the authorization server's token endpoint, however, such binding of access tokens issued directly from the authorization endpoint via the implicit grant flow is explicitly out of scope. End users interact directly with the authorization endpoint using a web browser and the use of client certificates in user's browsers bring operational and usability issues, which make it undesirable to support certificate bound access tokens issued in the implicit grant flow. Implementations wanting to employ certificate bound access tokens should utilize grant types that involve the client making an access token request directly to the token endpoint (e.g. the authorization code and refresh token grant types).
An authorization server or resource server MAY choose to terminate TLS connections at a load balancer, reverse proxy, or other network intermediary. How the client certificate metadata is securely communicated between the intermediary and the application server in this case is out of scope of this specification.
TLS 1.2 is cited in this document because, at the time of writing, it is the latest version that is widely deployed. However, this document is applicable with other TLS versions supporting certificate-based client authentication, including the relatively recently published TLS 1.3. Implementation security considerations for TLS, including version recommendations, can be found in Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS).
If the PKI method of client authentication is used, an attacker could try to impersonate a client using a certificate with the same subject DN but issued by a different CA, which the authorization server trusts. To cope with that threat, the authorization server should only accept as trust anchors a limited number of CAs whose certificate issuance policy meets its security requirements. There is an assumption then that the client and server agree on the set of trust anchors that the server uses to create and validate the certificate chain. Without this assumption the use of a Subject DN to identify the client certificate would open the server up to certificate spoofing attacks.
Parsing and validation of X.509 certificates and certificate chains is complex and implementation mistakes have previously exposed security vulnerabilities. Complexities of validation include (but are not limited to) [X509Pitfalls] [DangerousCode] [RFC5280]:
For these reasons, implementors SHOULD use an established and well-tested X.509 library (such as one used by an established TLS library) for validation of X.509 certificate chains and SHOULD NOT attempt to write their own X.509 certificate validation procedures.
This specification requests registration of the following value in the IANA "JWT Confirmation Methods" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims] for JWT cnf member values established by [RFC7800].
This specification requests registration of the following value in the IANA "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC8414].
This specification requests registration of the following value in the IANA "OAuth Token Endpoint Authentication Methods" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC7591].
This specification requests registration of the following value in the IANA "OAuth Token Introspection Response" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC7662].
This specification requests registration of the following client metadata definitions in the IANA "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata" registry [IANA.OAuth.Parameters] established by [RFC7591]:
OAuth 2.0 Token Binding enables the application of Token Binding to the various artifacts and tokens employed throughout OAuth. That includes binding of an access token to a Token Binding key, which bears some similarities in motivation and design to the mutual TLS client certificate bound access tokens defined in this document. Both documents define what is often called a proof-of-possession security mechanism for access tokens, whereby a client must demonstrate possession of cryptographic keying material when accessing a protected resource. The details differ somewhat between the two documents but both have the authorization server bind the access token that it issues to an asymmetric key pair held by the client. The client then proves possession of the private key from that pair with respect to the TLS connection over which the protected resource is accessed.
Token Binding uses bare keys that are generated on the client, which avoids many of the difficulties of creating, distributing, and managing certificates used in this specification. However, at the time of writing, Token Binding is fairly new and there is relatively little support for it in available application development platforms and tooling. Until better support for the underlying core Token Binding specifications exists, practical implementations of OAuth 2.0 Token Binding are infeasible. Mutual TLS, on the other hand, has been around for some time and enjoys widespread support in web servers and development platforms. As a consequence, OAuth 2.0 Mutual TLS Client Authentication and Certificate Bound Access Tokens can be built and deployed now using existing platforms and tools. In the future, the two specifications are likely to be deployed in parallel for solving similar problems in different environments. Authorization servers may even support both specifications simultaneously using different proof-of-possession mechanisms for tokens issued to different clients.
Scott "not Tomlinson" Tomilson and Matt Peterson were involved in design and development work on a mutual TLS OAuth client authentication implementation, which predates this document. Experience and learning from that work informed some of the content of this document.
Additionally, the authors would like to thank the following people for their input and contributions to the specification: Sergey Beryozkin, Sophie Bremer, Vladimir Dzhuvinov, Samuel Erdtman, Leif Johansson, Michael Jones, Phil Hunt, Benjamin Kaduk, Takahiko Kawasaki, Sean Leonard, Kepeng Li, Neil Madden, James Manger, Jim Manico, Nov Matake, Sascha Preibisch, Justin Richer, Dave Tonge, and Hannes Tschofenig.
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-11
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-10
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-09
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-08
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-07
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-06
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-05
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-04
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-02
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-01
draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-00
draft-campbell-oauth-mtls-01
draft-campbell-oauth-mtls-00
draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00