Internet DRAFT - draft-demarco-oauth-nonce-endpoint
draft-demarco-oauth-nonce-endpoint
Network Working Group G. D. Marco
Internet-Draft Independent
Intended status: Informational O. Steele
Expires: 9 August 2024 Transmute
6 February 2024
OAuth 2.0 Nonce Endpoint
draft-demarco-oauth-nonce-endpoint-00
Abstract
This document defines the Nonce Endpoint for OAuth 2.0
implementations [RFC6749]. It details how an Authorization Server
generates and issues opaque Nonces and how a client can learn about
this endpoint to obtain a Nonce generated by the Authorization
Server.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://peppelinux.github.io/draft-demarco-nonce-endpoint/draft-
demarco-nonce-endpoint.html. Status information for this document
may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-demarco-oauth-
nonce-endpoint/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/peppelinux/draft-demarco-nonce-endpoint.
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 9 August 2024.
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 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. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Nonce Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Nonce Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Nonce Endpoint Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Non-normative Examples of a Nonce Payload . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Considerations about Nonce vs. jti . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
This specification presents a comprehensive guide to the Nonce
endpoint in OAuth 2.0 implementations [RFC6749]. It describes in
detail how a client can request and receive a server-generated Nonce,
which is a unique, one-time use, opaque string. This document
provides in-depth insights into the cryptographic methods used in
generating Nonces to protect the confidentiality of the information
associated with them. In addition, it is a great resource for
developers and system architects who desire to strengthen the
scalability, security, and efficiency of their systems while using
OAuth 2.0.
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
3. Terminology
*Nonce*: A random or pseudo-random number that is generated for a
specific use, typically for cryptographic communication. The
Nonce is used to protect against replay attacks by ensuring that a
message or data cannot be reused or retransmitted. The term
"Nonce" stands for "number used once" and it MUST be unique within
some scope.
*Nonce Issuer*: The entity that generates and provides the Nonce.
In the context of OAuth 2.0, the Nonce Issuer would typically be
the Authorization Server.
*Nonce Endpoint*: The HTTP endpoint provided by the Nonce Issuer for
the issuance of the Nonces.
4. Requirements
The *Nonce Endpoint* MUST satisfy the following requirements:
* Employ TLS for securitung the Endpoint [RFC5246].
The *Nonce* MUST satisfy the following requirements:
* Pure opacity to recieving Clients.
The *Nonce Issuer* MUST satisfy the following requirements:
* Generate a unique Nonce for each request to ensure the Nonce
Issuer never produces identical Nonces, regardless of whether they
occur simultaneously or at different times;
* Encrypt the Nonce with an encryption key that:
- MUST NOT supplied by the Nonce Issuer to the Client;
- MUST NOT disclosed by the Nonce Issuer to any external entity
beyond its domain.
The *audiences of the Nonces* satisfies the following requirements:
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
* The servers, within the Nonce Issuer's domain, SHOULD decrypt the
Nonce and access its decrypted contents. No other entity might
decrypt or know the decrypted contents of the Nonce.
5. Nonce Request
When a Client needs a Nonce, it sends an HTTP GET request to the
Nonce Endpoint.
Below is a non normative example of the HTTP Request made by a Client
to the Nonce Endpoint.
GET /nonce HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
6. Nonce Response
The Nonce Endpoint provides a Nonce to the Client, encapsulated
within a JSON object [RFC7159]. The response MUST use the HTTP
Header Content-Type value set to application/json and MUST provide in
the response message a JSON object with the member nonce.
Below is a non-normative example of the response given by a Nonce
Endpoint:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
{
"nonce": "d2JhY2NhbG91cmVqdWFuZGFt"
}
7. Nonce Endpoint Discovery
When an Authorization Server requires the use of a Nonce in the
request for a specific resource and the Client does not provide it in
its request, the Authorization Server MUST return an HTTP response
with the HTTP status code 400 and an error field with the value set
to "nonce_required".
This response MUST also contain the Nonce-Endpoint-URI HTTP header,
with the value set to the URL corresponding to the Nonce Endpoint,
where the Client SHOULD request and fetch a new Nonce. Once the
Nonce is received, the Client MAY renew the request to the
Authorization Server, including the obtained Nonce.
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
Below is a non-normative example of an error response issued by an
Authorization Server that requires the Nonce in the Client request,
the response informs the Client about the Nonce Endpoint where the
Nonce should be requested:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Nonce-Endpoint-URI: https://server.example.org/nonce-endpoint
{
"error": "nonce_required",
"error_description":
"Authorization server requires the nonce in the request"
}
In cases where, for some reasons, a correctly issued Nonce can no
longer be considered valid by the Authorization Server that receives
it, the Authorization Server MUST return the generic error
"nonce_required" reporting the same description as
"error_description", as if the Nonce had not been received. The
cases when an issued Nonce is considered no longer valid MAY be
caused by the rotation of the encryption keys, its expiration or
other specific conditions internal to an implementation.
8. Non-normative Examples of a Nonce Payload
The decrypted Nonce payload may use different formats and encodings,
according to the different implemententative requirements, and
contains any kind of implementation-specific claims, such as the
issuance time, the time of expiration, the audiences and other where
needed.
Below are provided some non-normative examples, describing how a
decrypted and JSON serialized Nonce payload may appear:
{
"iss": "https://server.example.org",
"iat": 1615908701,
"exp": 1615995101,
"source_endpoint": "https://server.example.org/nonce-endpoint",
"aud": [
"https://service.example.com/endpoint",
"https://another.example.com/cb"
]
}
Please note that the values represented in the previous examples may
depend on domain specific requirements and MUST NOT be intended as
normative.
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
9. Security Considerations
The Nonce Endpoint MUST be protected by TLS to prevent eavesdropping
and man-in-the-middle attacks, therefore the practices defined in
[BCP195] should be followed.
The Nonce Issuer MUST securely generate and store the encryption key
used to encrypt the Nonce. The robustness of the encryption key
plays a crucial role in the security of the Nonce Endpoint. The
following considerations MUST be taken into account:
1. *Key Strength*: The cryptographic key used to encrypt the Nonce
requires sufficient length to withstand brute-force attacks. A
key length of 256 bits has been proposed as a common practice to
ensure a minimum level of security.
2. *Key Management*: The cryptographic key requires secure
management, which includes secure generation, storage, and
revocation. Access to the key necessitates strict control, with
access granted only to authorized entities.
3. *Key Rotation*: Regular key rotation is a good practice to
mitigate the risk of key compromise. The frequency of key
rotation depends on the specific requirements and threat model,
but a common practice is to rotate keys frequently.
4. *Randomness*: To assure the randomness of the cryptographic key,
it requires the usage of a safe random number generator.
Attackers can simply guess predictable keys.
5. *Secure Transmission*: If the cryptographic key needs to be
transmitted over a network and within the Nonce Issuer domain, it
requires the usage of secure protocols such as TLS.
6. *Backup and Recovery*: Cryptographic keys require secure backup
and recovery mechanisms. This ensures that the key can be
retrieved in the event of its loss while also prohibiting
unauthorised access to the backup.
The security of the Nonce Endpoint is only as strong as the security
of the encryption key. Therefore, proper key management practices
are essential.
10. Considerations about Nonce vs. jti
This section provides some thought about the main differences and
scopes of the Nonce in compared to the jti claim defined in
[RFC7519].
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
Both jti and Nonces are used to prevent replay attacks, however
Nonces offer more implementation flexibility and are considered best
practice. They can be created and managed stateless (e.g., by
issuing the hmac over the current time as the Nonce), as this
document outlines.
The main differences between the use of the jti and the Nonces can be
summarized as follows:
1. *Generation*: Nonces are generated by the server, while jti is
generated by the Client.
2. *Storage*: Nonces can be self-authenticating and self-contained
and therefore need not be stored. A common way to achieve this
is for the Nonce to contain content encrypted to the
Authorization Server that creates it. On the other hand,
checking jti properly definitely requires a store that is shared
across all domains that the associated JWT can be presented in.
3. *Lifetime*: The life span difference between a Nonce and a jti is
significant. Nonces are kept just until the Client responds,
which happens practically immediately after they are obtained,
resulting in a very short lifespan. A jti, on the other hand,
must be stored until the expiration window of its associated JWT
expires, which is a substantially longer length than that of a
Nonce.
4. *Security*: Nonces prevent replay attacks by ensuring that the
proof of possession is fresh. On the other hand, jti does not
guarantee freshness and using client-generated timestamps has
problems, even for non-attacking Clients (e.g. devices with
incorrect time-zones or daylight saving settings).
11. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
12. References
12.1. 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>.
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Nonce Endpoint February 2024
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7159>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References
[BCP195] Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, March 2021.
Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, November 2022.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe De Marco
Independent
Email: demarcog83@gmail.com
Orie Steele
Transmute
Email: orie@transmute.industries
Marco & Steele Expires 9 August 2024 [Page 8]
