Hi, draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis recommends strong typing of JWT but currently none of the examples use "typ".
I think that https://drafts.oauth.net/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis.html#section-5 should update all examples in "OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests" [RFC9126<https://drafts.oauth.net/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis.html#RFC9126>] E.g.: eyJraWQiOiJrMmJkYyIsImFsZyI6IlJTMjU2In0.eyJpc3MiOiJzNkJoZFJrcXQzIiwic3ViIjoiczZCaGRSa3F0MyIsImF1ZCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vc2VydmVyLmV4YW1wbGUuY29tIiwiZXhwIjoxNjI1ODY5Njc3fQ.te4IdnP_DK4hWrhTWA6fyhy3fxlAQZAhfA4lmzRdpoP5uZb-E90R5YxzN1YDA8mnVdpgj_Bx1lG5r6sef5TlckApA3hahhC804dcqlE4naEmLISmN1pds2WxTMOUzZY8aKKSDzNTDqhyTgE-KdTb3RafRj7tdZb09zWs7c_moOvfVcQIoy5zz1BvLQKW1Y8JsYvdpu2AvpxRPbcP8WyeW9B6PL6_fy3pXYKG3e-qUcvPa9kan-mo9EoSgt-YTDQjK1nZMdXIqTluK9caVJERWW0fD1Y11_tlOcJn-ya7v7d8YmFyJpkhZfm8x1FoeH0djEicXTixEkdRuzsgUCm6GQ Uses { "kid": "k2bdc", "alg": "RS256" } I think there should be the now recommended typ value. Examples are only examples and not normative, but I think examples should follow security recommendations. Another topic, wouldn't it be better to have more types instead of one for client authentication? Something like rar_client_authn+jwt for rar, and ciba_client_authn+jwt for CIBA and … Doesn't hurt because servers and clients are recommended to adapt current implementations anyway, right? Kind regards Axel From: Michael B. Jones <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, 31. January 2026 at 23:05 To: oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis <[email protected]> Cc: Nennker, Axel <[email protected]>, Author <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis] tradeoffs between using issuer and specific endpoint urls (PR #24) @selfissued commented on this pull request. ________________________________ In draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis.xml<https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis/pull/24#discussion_r2750097587>: > + or its token endpoint URL. Using the specific token > endpoint URL provides + stronger endpoint binding and is RECOMMENDED when the endpoint URL is + configured from a trusted, out-of-band source. Using the issuer identifier + allows greater flexibility at the cost of reduced endpoint-specific binding. As @PedramHD<https://github.com/PedramHD> wrote in his initial description of the attack, "a malicious OP could specify token endpoints of other OPs, thus, obtaining private key JWTs created by an RP that it could use at those OPs." This is the core of what enables the attack: Attackers can specify that the audience be the token endpoint of the legitimate site being attacked. The use of endpoint URLs as audience values do not stop the attack. The use of validated issuer URLs do. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis/pull/24#discussion_r2750097587>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANEMB3OWYNI4YEH3RVCZHL4JURJPAVCNFSM6AAAAACRQSIOLGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZTOMZTGY3TCNJRGQ>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
