On 11/28/18 5:11 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
Hi George,

Am 20.11.2018 um 23:38 schrieb George Fletcher <gffle...@aol.com>:

Thanks for the additional section on refresh_tokens. Some additional 
recommendations...

1. By default refresh_tokens are bound to the user's authenticated session. 
When the authenticated session expires or is terminated (whether by the user or 
for some other reason) the refresh_tokenis implicitly revoked.
SHOULD or MUST? I would suggest to go with a SHOULD.
I would say that the AS SHOULD bind the refresh_token to the user's authentication. However, I'd lean more to MUST for session bound refresh_tokens being revoked when the session is terminated.

2. Clients that need to obtain a refresh_token that exists beyond the lifetime of the 
user's authentication session MUST indicate this need by requesting the 
"offline_access" scope 
(https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#OfflineAccess). This provides for 
a user consent event making it clear to the user that the client is requesting access 
even when the user's authentication session expires. This then becomes the default for 
mobile apps as the refresh_token should not be tied to the web session used to authorize 
the app.
Sounds reasonable, just the scope „offline_access“ is OIDC specific. Is it time 
to move it down the stack to OAuth?
It may be if we want more consistency in the implementation of refresh_token policy across authorization servers.

3. The AS MAY consider putting an upper bound on the lifetime of a 
refresh_token (e.g. 1 year). There is no real need to issue a refresh_token 
that is good indefinitely.
I thought I had covered that in the last section. It’s now:

Refresh tokens SHOULD expire if the client has been inactive for some time,
        i.e. the refresh token has not been used to obtain fresh access tokens 
for
        some time. The expiration time is at the discretion of the 
authorization server.
        It might be a global value or determined based on the client policy or
        the grant associated with the refresh token (and its sensitivity).
This is slightly different but sufficient so +1 for the text :)

Proposals are welcome!

kind regards,
Torsten.


This is in addition to the other best practices described.

Thanks,
George

On 11/20/18 2:32 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
Hi all,

the new revision contains the following changes:

* added section on refresh tokens
* additional justifications for recommendation for code
* refactored 2.1 in order to distinguish CSRF, authz response replay and mix-up 
(based on feedback by Joseph Heenan)
* added requirement to authenticate clients during code exchange (PKCE or 
client credential) to 2.1.1.
* changed occurrences of SHALL to MUST

As always: looking forward for your feedback.

kind regards,
Torsten.


Am 20.11.2018 um 20:26 schrieb internet-dra...@ietf.org
:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol WG of the IETF.

        Title           : OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice
        Authors         : Torsten Lodderstedt
                          John Bradley
                          Andrey Labunets
                          Daniel Fett
        Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-10.txt
        Pages           : 38
        Date            : 2018-11-20

Abstract:
   This document describes best current security practice for OAuth 2.0.
   It updates and extends the OAuth 2.0 Security Threat Model to
   incorporate practical experiences gathered since OAuth 2.0 was
   published and covers new threats relevant due to the broader
   application of OAuth 2.0.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics/


There are also htmlized versions available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-10
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-10


A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-10



Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list

OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list

OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to