It could, but that would require an explicit decision by the OpenID Connect
working group to make existing RPs incompatible with new OPs, breaking
interoperability. That’s not a decision we should make lightly or without a
compelling reason to do so.
-- Mike
From: Phillip Hunt <phil.h...@independentid.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>
Cc: Aaron Parecki <aa...@parecki.com>; Steinar Noem <stei...@udelt.no>;
oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.1 - require PKCE?
Why couldn’t OIDC evolve as a spec to conform and match FAPI and 2.1?
Phil
On May 6, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Mike Jones
<michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Yes, FAPI requires PKCE, which is great. Many of its requirements come from
OpenID Connect but some of them are intentionally incompatible – such as
requiring that Basic authentication not be supported, whereas Connect requires
that it be supported. It’s a different ecosystem with different requirements.
Don’t get me wrong, I support PKCE where it makes sense, such as when you’re
doing bare OAuth without OpenID Connect. But trying to impose an unnecessary
requirement on a working and secure ecosystem will just create grief for us and
our customers and lessen our credibility as stewards of the OAuth ecosystem.
-- Mike
From: Aaron Parecki <aa...@parecki.com<mailto:aa...@parecki.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:29 PM
To: Steinar Noem <stei...@udelt.no<mailto:stei...@udelt.no>>
Cc: Phillip Hunt
<phil.h...@independentid.com<mailto:phil.h...@independentid.com>>; Mike Jones
<michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>>;
oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.1 - require PKCE?
I should add that even some OpenID Connect profiles require PKCE, such as FAPI:
https://openid.net/specs/openid-financial-api-part-1.html#authorization-server
So the precedent for requiring PKCE already exists within some OpenID Connect
profiles.
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:23 PM Aaron Parecki
<aa...@parecki.com<mailto:aa...@parecki.com>> wrote:
Yes, and also, many of those providers very likely already support PKCE
already. Skimming through that list of certified OPs, I recognize many names
there from providers that I know support PKCE.
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:18 PM Steinar Noem
<stei...@udelt.no<mailto:stei...@udelt.no>> wrote:
So, wouldn't a MUST just mean that we would have some OPs that are 2.1
compliant and some that aren't?
ons. 6. mai 2020 kl. 21:12 skrev Phillip Hunt
<phil.h...@independentid.com<mailto:phil.h...@independentid.com>>:
Mike,
The point of 2.1 is to raise the security bar..
Yes it adds new MUST requirements.
But what about OIDC would break other than required implementation of PKCE to
support 2.1?
Eg Would additional signaling be required to facilitate interoperability and
migration between versions? Would that be an oauth issue or an OIDC one?
Phil
On May 6, 2020, at 11:56 AM, Aaron Parecki
<aa...@parecki.com<mailto:aa...@parecki.com>> wrote:
> In particular, authorization servers shouldn’t be required to support PKCE
> when they already support the OpenID Connect nonce.
The Security BCP already requires that ASs support PKCE:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-15#section-2.1.1
Are you suggesting that the Security BCP change that requirement as well? If
so, that's a discussion that needs to be had ASAP. If not, then that's an
implicit statement that it's okay for OpenID Connect implementations to not be
best-practice OAuth implementations. And if that's the case, then I also think
it's acceptable that they are not complete OAuth 2.1 implementations either.
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:21 AM Mike Jones
<Michael.Jones=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
wrote:
The disadvantage of requiring PKCE for OpenID Connect implementations is that
you’re trying to add a normative requirement that’s not required of OpenID
Connect deployments today, which would bifurcate the ecosystem. There are
hundreds of implementations (including the 141 certified ones at
https://openid.net/certification/), none of which have ever been required to
support PKCE. Therefore, most don’t.
Per feedback already provided, I believe that OAuth 2.1 should align with the
guidance already in the draft Security BCP, requiring EITHER the use of PKCE or
the OpenID Connect nonce. Trying to retroactively impose unnecessary
requirements on existing deployments is unlikely to succeed and will
significantly reduce the relevance of the OAuth 2.1 effort.
In particular, authorization servers shouldn’t be required to support PKCE when
they already support the OpenID Connect nonce. And clients shouldn’t reject
responses from servers that don’t support PKCE when they do contain the OpenID
Connect nonce. Doing so would unnecessarily break things and create confusion
in the marketplace.
-- Mike
From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf
Of Dick Hardt
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 10:48 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.1 - require PKCE?
Hello!
We would like to have PKCE be a MUST in OAuth 2.1 code flows. This is best
practice for OAuth 2.0. It is not common in OpenID Connect servers as the nonce
solves some of the issues that PKCE protects against. We think that most OpenID
Connect implementations also support OAuth 2.0, and hence have support for PKCE
if following best practices.
The advantages or requiring PKCE are:
- a simpler programming model across all OAuth applications and profiles as
they all use PKCE
- reduced attack surface when using S256 as a fingerprint of the verifier is
sent through the browser instead of the clear text value
- enforcement by AS not client - makes it easier to handle for client
developers and AS can ensure the check is conducted
What are disadvantages besides the potential impact to OpenID Connect
deployments? How significant is that impact?
Dick, Aaron, and Torsten
[https://mailfoogae..appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=452438ba-d429-4656-ace9-b284744bc171]ᐧ
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--
Vennlig hilsen
Steinar Noem
Partner Udelt AS
Systemutvikler
| stei...@udelt.no<mailto:stei...@udelt.no> |
h...@udelt.no<mailto:h...@udelt.no> | +47 955 21 620 |
www.udelt.no<http://www.udelt.no/> |
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
