Archive for the 'OAuth' Category

June 29, 2022
OAuth DPoP Presentation at Identiverse 2022

OAuth logoHere’s the DPoP presentation that Pieter Kasselman and I gave at the 2022 Identiverse conference:

  • Bad actors are stealing your OAuth tokens, giving them control over your information – OAuth DPoP (Demonstration of Proof of Possession) is what we’re doing about it (PowerPoint) (PDF)

A few photographs that workation photographer Brian Campbell took during the presentation follow.

Mike Presenting:

Mike Presenting

Who is that masked man???

Who is that masked man???

Pieter Presenting:

Pieter Presenting

May 16, 2022
JWK Thumbprint URI Draft Addressing IETF Last Call Comments

OAuth logoKristina Yasuda and I have published a new JWK Thumbprint URI draft that addresses the IETF Last Call comments received. Changes made were:

  • Clarified the requirement to use registered hash algorithm identifiers.
  • Acknowledged IETF Last Call reviewers.

The specification is available at:

May 4, 2022
OAuth DPoP Specification Addressing WGLC Comments

OAuth logoBrian Campbell has published an updated OAuth DPoP draft addressing the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) comments received. All changes were editorial in nature. The most substantive change was further clarifying that either iat or nonce can be used alone in validating the timeliness of the proof, somewhat deemphasizing jti tracking.

As Brian reminded us during the OAuth Security Workshop today, the name DPoP was inspired by a Deutsche POP poster he saw on the S-Bahn during the March 2019 OAuth Security Workshop in Stuttgart:

Deutsche POP in Stuttgart

He considered it an auspicious sign seeing another Deutsche PoP sign in the Vienna U-Bahn during IETF 113 the same day WGLC was requested!

Deutsche POP in Vienna

The specification is available at:

March 3, 2022
Minor Updates to OAuth DPoP Prior to IETF 113 in Vienna

OAuth logoThe editors have applied some minor updates to the OAuth DPoP specification in preparation for discussion at IETF 113 in Vienna. Updates made were:

  • Renamed the always_uses_dpop client registration metadata parameter to dpop_bound_access_tokens.
  • Clarified the relationships between server-provided nonce values, authorization servers, resource servers, and clients.
  • Improved other descriptive wording.

The specification is available at:

February 20, 2022
Four Months of Refinements to OAuth DPoP

OAuth logoA new draft of the OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP) specification has been published that addresses four months’ worth of great review comments from the working group. Refinements made were:

  • Added Authorization Code binding via the dpop_jkt parameter.
  • Described the authorization code reuse attack and how dpop_jkt mitigates it.
  • Enhanced description of DPoP proof expiration checking.
  • Described nonce storage requirements and how nonce mismatches and missing nonces are self-correcting.
  • Specified the use of the use_dpop_nonce error for missing and mismatched nonce values.
  • Specified that authorization servers use 400 (Bad Request) errors to supply nonces and resource servers use 401 (Unauthorized) errors to do so.
  • Added a bit more about ath and pre-generated proofs to the security considerations.
  • Mentioned confirming the DPoP binding of the access token in the list in (#checking).
  • Added the always_uses_dpop client registration metadata parameter.
  • Described the relationship between DPoP and Pushed Authorization Requests (PAR).
  • Updated references for drafts that are now RFCs.

I believe this brings us much closer to a final version.

The specification is available at:

February 15, 2022
JWK Thumbprint URI Draft Addressing Working Group Last Call Comments

OAuth logoKristina Yasuda and I have published an updated JWK Thumbprint URI draft that addresses the OAuth Working Group Last Call (WGLC) comments received. Changes made were:

  • Added security considerations about multiple public keys coresponding to the same private key.
  • Added hash algorithm identifier after the JWK thumbprint URI prefix to make it explicit in a URI which hash algorithm is used.
  • Added reference to a registry for hash algorithm identifiers.
  • Added SHA-256 as a mandatory to implement hash algorithm to promote interoperability.
  • Acknowledged WGLC reviewers.

The specification is available at:

January 29, 2022
Working Group Adoption of the JWK Thumbprint URI Specification

OAuth logoThe IETF OAuth working group has adopted the JWK Thumbprint URI specification. The abstract of the specification is:

This specification registers a kind of URI that represents a JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint value. JWK Thumbprints are defined in RFC 7638. This enables JWK Thumbprints to be used, for instance, as key identifiers in contexts requiring URIs.

The need for this arose during specification work in the OpenID Connect working group. In particular, JWK Thumbprint URIs are used as key identifiers that can be syntactically distinguished from other kinds of identifiers also expressed as URIs in the Self-Issued OpenID Provider v2 specification.

Given that the specification does only one simple thing in a straightforward manner, we believe that it is ready for working group last call.

The specification is available at:

January 12, 2022
Described more of the motivations for the JWK Thumbprint URI specification

OAuth logoAs requested by the chairs during today’s OAuth Virtual Office Hours call, Kristina Yasuda and I have updated the JWK Thumbprint URI specification to enhance the description of the motivations for the specification. In particular, it now describes using JWK Thumbprint URIs as key identifiers that can be syntactically distinguished from other kinds of identifiers also expressed as URIs. It is used this way in the Self-Issued OpenID Provider v2 specification, for instance. No normative changes were made.

As discussed on the call, we are requesting that that the chairs use this new draft as the basis for a call for working group adoption.

The specification is available at:

November 24, 2021
JWK Thumbprint URI Specification

IETF logoThe JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint specification [RFC 7638] defines a method for computing a hash value over a JSON Web Key (JWK) [RFC 7517] and encoding that hash in a URL-safe manner. Kristina Yasuda and I have just created the JWK Thumbprint URI specification, which defines how to represent JWK Thumbprints as URIs. This enables JWK Thumbprints to be communicated in contexts requiring URIs, including in specific JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC 7519] claims.

Use cases for this specification were developed in the OpenID Connect Working Group of the OpenID Foundation. Specifically, its use is planned in future versions of the Self-Issued OpenID Provider v2 specification.

The specification is available at:

October 6, 2021
Server-contributed nonces added to OAuth DPoP

OAuth logoThe latest version of the “OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP)” specification adds an option for servers to supply a nonce value to be included in the DPoP proof. Both authorization servers and resource servers can provide nonce values to clients.

As described in the updated Security Considerations, the nonce prevents a malicious party in control of the client (who might be a legitimate end-user) from pre-generating DPoP proofs to be used in the future and exfiltrating them to a machine without the DPoP private key. When server-provided nonces are used, actual possession of the proof-of-possession key is being demonstrated — not just possession of a DPoP proof.

The specification is available at:

August 21, 2021
OAuth 2.0 JWT-Secured Authorization Request (JAR) is now RFC 9101

IETF logoThe OAuth 2.0 JWT-Secured Authorization Request (JAR) specification has been published as RFC 9101. Among other applications, this specification is used by the OpenID Financial-grade API (FAPI). This is another in the series of RFCs bringing OpenID Connect-defined functionality to OAuth 2.0. Previous such RFCs included “OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol” [RFC 7591] and “OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata” [RFC 8414].

The abstract of the RFC is:


The authorization request in OAuth 2.0 described in RFC 6749 utilizes query parameter serialization, which means that authorization request parameters are encoded in the URI of the request and sent through user agents such as web browsers. While it is easy to implement, it means that a) the communication through the user agents is not integrity protected and thus, the parameters can be tainted, b) the source of the communication is not authenticated, and c) the communication through the user agents can be monitored. Because of these weaknesses, several attacks to the protocol have now been put forward.


This document introduces the ability to send request parameters in a JSON Web Token (JWT) instead, which allows the request to be signed with JSON Web Signature (JWS) and encrypted with JSON Web Encryption (JWE) so that the integrity, source authentication, and confidentiality properties of the authorization request are attained. The request can be sent by value or by reference.

Thanks to Nat Sakimura and John Bradley for persisting in finishing this RFC!

April 21, 2021
OAuth 2.0 JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) sent back to the RFC Editor

OAuth logoAs described in my last post about OAuth JAR, after it was first sent to the RFC Editor, the IESG requested an additional round of IETF feedback. I’m happy to report that, having addressed this feedback, the spec has now been sent back to the RFC Editor.

As a reminder, this specification takes the JWT Request Object from Section 6 of OpenID Connect Core (Passing Request Parameters as JWTs) and makes this functionality available for pure OAuth 2.0 applications – and does so without introducing breaking changes. This is one of a series of specifications bringing functionality originally developed for OpenID Connect to the OAuth 2.0 ecosystem. Other such specifications included OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol [RFC 7591] and OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC 8414].

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

March 19, 2021
OAuth 2.0 JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) updates addressing remaining review comments

OAuth logoAfter the OAuth 2.0 JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) specification was sent to the RFC Editor, the IESG requested an additional round of IETF feedback. We’ve published an updated draft addressing the remaining review comments, specifically, SecDir comments from Watson Ladd. The only normative change made since the 28 was to change the MIME Type from “oauth.authz.req+jwt” to “oauth-authz-req+jwt”, per advice from the designated experts.

As a reminder, this specification takes the JWT Request Object from Section 6 of OpenID Connect Core (Passing Request Parameters as JWTs) and makes this functionality available for pure OAuth 2.0 applications – and does so without introducing breaking changes. This is one of a series of specifications bringing functionality originally developed for OpenID Connect to the OAuth 2.0 ecosystem. Other such specifications included OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol [RFC 7591] and OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC 8414].

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

August 20, 2020
OAuth 2.0 JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) sent to the RFC Editor

OAuth logoCongratulations to Nat Sakimura and John Bradley for progressing the OAuth 2.0 JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) specification from the working group through the IESG to the RFC Editor. This specification takes the JWT Request Object from Section 6 of OpenID Connect Core (Passing Request Parameters as JWTs) and makes this functionality available for pure OAuth 2.0 applications – and intentionally does so without introducing breaking changes.

This is one of a series of specifications bringing functionality originally developed for OpenID Connect to the OAuth 2.0 ecosystem. Other such specifications included OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol [RFC 7591] and OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC 8414].

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

Again, congratulations to Nat and John and the OAuth Working Group for this achievement!

May 4, 2020
Refinements to “OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP)”

OAuth logoA number of refinements have been applied to the DPoP specification. As recorded in the History entries, they are:

  • Editorial updates
  • Attempt to more formally define the DPoP Authorization header scheme
  • Define the 401/WWW-Authenticate challenge
  • Added invalid_dpop_proof error code for DPoP errors in token request
  • Fixed up and added to the IANA section
  • Added dpop_signing_alg_values_supported authorization server metadata
  • Moved the Acknowledgements into an Appendix and added a bunch of names (best effort)

Thanks to Brian Campbell for doing the editing for this round.

The specification is available at:

April 6, 2020
Working group adoption of “OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP)”

OAuth logoWe’re making progress on a simple application-level proof-of-possession solution for OAuth 2.0. I’m pleased to report that DPoP has now been adopted as an OAuth working group specification. The abstract of the specification is:

This document describes a mechanism for sender-constraining OAuth 2.0 tokens via a proof-of-possession mechanism on the application level. This mechanism allows for the detection of replay attacks with access and refresh tokens.

The specification is available at:

March 9, 2020
OAuth 2.0 DPoP for the Implicit Flow

OAuth logoAs I previously described, members of the OAuth working group have developed a simplified approach to providing application-level proof-of-possession protections for OAuth 2.0 access tokens and refresh tokens. This approach is called OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP). Among other benefits, this approach does not require a complicated and error-prone procedure for signing HTTP requests, as some past approaches have.

However, the DPoP specification to date has assumed that the client is using the OAuth authorization code flow. As promised at the last IETF meeting, we’ve now published a simple companion specification that describes how DPoP can be used with the OAuth implicit flow – in which access tokens are returned directly from the authorization endpoint. The specification is mercifully brief because very little had to be added to supplement the existing DPoP spec to enable use of DPoP with the implicit flow. Thanks to Brian Campbell and John Bradley for whiteboarding this solution with me.

Finally, in a related development, it was decided during the OAuth virtual interim meeting today to call for working group adoption of the core DPoP draft. That’s an important step on the journey towards making it a standard.

The specification is available at:

An HTML-formatted version is also available at:

March 3, 2020
Two New OAuth RFCs: MTLS (RFC 8705) and Resource Indicators (RFC 8707)

OAuth logoTwo widely used OAuth specifications have recently become RFCs. Here’s a bit about both specs.

RFC 8705: OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens

Abstract: This document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate-bound access and refresh 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.

Client certificates are widely used in the financial industry to authenticate OAuth clients. Indeed, this specification was developed in part because it was needed by the OpenID Financial-Grade API (FAPI) specifications. It is in production use by numerous Open Banking deployments today.

RFC 8707: Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0

Abstract: This document specifies an extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization server about the identity of the protected resource(s) to which it is requesting access.

This specification standardizes the “resource” request parameter that is used by Azure Active Directory (AAD) V1 to specify the target resource for an OAuth authorization request.

February 19, 2020
JSON Web Token Best Current Practices is now RFC 8725 and BCP 225

OAuth logoThe JSON Web Token Best Current Practices specification is now RFC 8725 and BCP 225. The abstract of the specification is:

JSON Web Tokens, also known as JWTs, are URL-safe JSON-based security tokens that contain a set of claims that can be signed and/or encrypted. JWTs are being widely used and deployed as a simple security token format in numerous protocols and applications, both in the area of digital identity and in other application areas. This Best Current Practices document updates RFC 7519 to provide actionable guidance leading to secure implementation and deployment of JWTs.

The JSON Web Token (JWT) specification [RFC 7519] was approved in May 2015, almost five years ago, and has been in production use since at least 2013. This Best Current Practices specification contains a compendium of lessons learned from real JWT deployments and implementations over that period. It describes pitfalls and how to avoid them as well as new recommended practices that enable proactively avoiding problems that could otherwise arise. Importantly, the BCP introduces no breaking changes to the JWT specification and does not require changes to existing deployments.

The BCP came about as JWTs were starting to be used in new families of protocols and applications, both in the IETF and by others. For instance, JWTs are being used by the IETF STIR working group to enable verification of the calling party’s authorization to use a particular telephone number for an incoming call, providing verified Caller ID to help combat fraudulent and unwanted telephone calls. The advice in the BCP can be used by new JWT profiles and applications to take advantage of what’s been learned since we created the JSON Web Token (JWT) specification over a half decade ago.

February 12, 2020
JWTs helping combat fraudulent and unwanted telephone calls

IETF logoI wanted to bring two excellent articles by the IETF on work by the STIR working group to combat fraudulent and unwanted telephone calls to your attention:

Abstract: Providers of voice over IP in the United States will be required to implement the IETF’s Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) protocol as a result of recently enacted legislation to address some of the root causes of illegal robocalling on the telephone network.

Abstract: Recently, the output of the IETF Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) working group has received considerable attention from service providers, regulators, and the press because it addresses some of the root causes of the illegal robocalling which has crippled the telephone network.

I love this work for two reasons. First, like the rest of you, I receive a huge volume of unwanted and often fraudulent phone calls. I love that engineers and regulators are partnering to take concrete steps to reduce the volume of these illegal and annoying calls.

Second, I love it that the STIR protocols are using JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) under the covers as the format to represent verifiable statements about legitimate uses of telephone numbers, enabling verifiable Caller ID. It’s often said that one sign of a standard having succeeded is that it’s used for things that the inventors never imagined. This is certainly such a case! I’m proud that the JSON Web Token, which we originally designed with digital identity use cases in mind, is now being used in a completely different context to solve a real problem experienced by people every day.

Next »