OAuth Working Group N. Sakimura, Ed. Internet-Draft Nomura Research Institute Intended status: Standards Track J. Bradley Expires: January 9, 2016 Ping Identity N. Agarwal Google July 8, 2015 Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients draft-ietf-oauth-spop-15 Abstract OAuth 2.0 public clients utilizing the Authorization Code Grant are susceptible to the authorization code interception attack. This specification describes the attack as well as a technique to mitigate against the threat through the use of Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE, pronounced "pixy"). 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 http://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 January 9, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://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 Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Protocol Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Client creates a code verifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Client creates the code challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Client sends the code challenge with the authorization request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Server returns the code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4.1. Error Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5. Client sends the Authorization Code and the Code Verifier to the token endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.6. Server verifies code_verifier before returning the tokens 10 5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. OAuth Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. PKCE Code Challenge Method Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Entropy of the code_verifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Protection against eavesdroppers . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3. Salting the code_challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.4. OAuth security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. TLS security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix A. Notes on implementing base64url encoding without padding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix B. Example for the S256 code_challenge_method . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1. Introduction OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] public clients are susceptible to the authorization code interception attack. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 The attacker thereby intercepts the authorization code returned from the authorization endpoint within communication path not protected by TLS, such as inter-app communication within the operating system of the client. Once the attacker has gained access to the authorization code it can use it to obtain the access token. Figure 1 shows the attack graphically. In step (1) the native app running on the end device, such as a smart phone, issues an OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request via the browser/operating system. The Redirection Endpoint URI in this case typically uses a custom URI scheme. Step (1) happens through a secure API that cannot be intercepted, though it may potentially be observed in advanced attack scenarios. The request then gets forwarded to the OAuth 2.0 authorization server in step (2). Because OAuth requires the use of TLS, this communication is protected by TLS, and also cannot be intercepted. The authorization server returns the authorization code in step (3). In step (4), the Authorization Code is returned to the requester via the Redirection Endpoint URI that was provided in step (1). A malicious app that has been designed to attack this native app has previously registered itself as a handler for the custom URI scheme is now able to intercept the Authorization Code in step (4). This allows the attacker to request and obtain an access token in steps (5) and (6), respectively. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ | End Device (e.g., Smart Phone) | | | | +-------------+ +----------+ | (6) Access Token +----------+ | |Legitimate | | Malicious|<--------------------| | | |OAuth 2.0 App| | App |-------------------->| | | +-------------+ +----------+ | (5) Authorization | | | | ^ ^ | Grant | | | | \ | | | | | | \ (4) | | | | | (1) | \ Authz| | | | | Authz| \ Code | | | Authz | | Request| \ | | | Server | | | \ | | | | | | \ | | | | | v \ | | | | | +----------------------------+ | | | | | | | (3) Authz Code | | | | Operating System/ |<--------------------| | | | Browser |-------------------->| | | | | | (2) Authz Request | | | +----------------------------+ | +----------+ +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Figure 1: Authorization Code Interception Attack. A number of pre-conditions need to hold in order for this attack to work: 1) The attacker manages to register a malicious application on the client device and registers a custom URI scheme that is also used by another application. The operating systems must allow a custom URI schemes to be registered by multiple applications. 2) The OAuth 2.0 authorization code grant is used. 3) The attacker has access to the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] client_id and client_secret(if provisioned). All OAuth 2.0 native app client- instances use the same client_id. Secrets provisioned in client binary applications cannot be considered confidential. 4a) The attacker (via the installed app) is able to observe only the responses from the authorization endpoint. The plain code_challenge_method mitigates only this attack. 4b) A more sophisticated attack scenario allows the attacker to observe requests (in addition to responses) to the authorization endpoint. The attacker is, however, not able to act as a man-in- the-middle. This has been caused by leaking http log information in the OS. To mitigate this the S256 code_challenge_method or Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 cryptographically secure code_challenge_method extension must be used. While this is a long list of pre-conditions the described attack has been observed in the wild and has to be considered in OAuth 2.0 deployments. While the OAuth 2.0 Threat Model Section 4.4.1 [RFC6819] describes mitigation techniques they are, unfortunately, not applicable since they rely on a per-client instance secret or aper client instance redirect URI. To mitigate this attack, this extension utilizes a dynamically created cryptographically random key called "code verifier". A unique code verifier is created for every authorization request and its transformed value, called "code challenge", is sent to the authorization server to obtain the authorization code. The authorization code obtained is then sent to the token endpoint with the "code verifier" and the server compares it with the previously received request code so that it can perform the proof of possession of the "code verifier" by the client. This works as the mitigation since the attacker would not know this one-time key, since it is sent over TLS and cannot be intercepted. 1.1. Protocol Flow +-------------------+ | Authz Server | +--------+ | +---------------+ | | |--(A)- Authorization Request ---->| | | | | + t(code_verifier), t_m | | Authorization | | | | | | Endpoint | | | |<-(B)---- Authorization Code -----| | | | | | +---------------+ | | Client | | | | | | +---------------+ | | |--(C)-- Access Token Request ---->| | | | | + code_verifier | | Token | | | | | | Endpoint | | | |<-(D)------ Access Token ---------| | | +--------+ | +---------------+ | +-------------------+ Figure 2: Abstract Protocol Flow This specification adds additional parameters to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization and Access Token Requests, shown in abstract form in Figure 1. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 A. The client creates and records a secret named the "code_verifier", and derives a transformed version "t(code_verifier)" (referred to as the "code_challenge") which is sent in the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request, along with the transformation method "t_m". B. The Authorization Endpoint responds as usual, but records "t(code_verifier)" and the transformation method. C. The client then sends the authorization code in the Access Token Request as usual, but includes the "code_verifier" secret generated at (A). D. The authorization server transforms "code_verifier" and compares it to "t(code_verifier)" from (B). Access is denied if they are not equal. An attacker who intercepts the Authorization Grant at (B) is unable to redeem it for an Access Token, as they are not in possession of the "code_verifier" secret. 2. Notational Conventions 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 Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119]. If these words are used without being spelled in uppercase then they are to be interpreted with their normal natural language meanings. This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of [RFC5234]. STRING denotes a sequence of zero or more ASCII [RFC0020] characters. OCTETS denotes a sequence of zero or more octets. ASCII(STRING) denotes the octets of the ASCII [RFC0020] representation of STRING where STRING is a sequence of zero or more ASCII characters. BASE64URL-ENCODE(OCTETS) denotes the base64url encoding of OCTETS, per Section 3 producing a STRING. BASE64URL-DECODE(STRING) denotes the base64url decoding of STRING, per Section 3, producing a sequence of octets. SHA256(OCTETS) denotes a SHA2 256bit hash [RFC6234] of OCTETS. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 3. Terminology In addition to the terms defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749], this specification defines the following terms: code verifier A cryptographically random string that is used to correlate the authorization request to the token request. code challenge A challenge derived from the code verifier that is sent in the authorization request, to be verified against later. Base64url Encoding Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe character set defined in Section 5 of [RFC4648], with all trailing '=' characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2 of [RFC4648]) and without the inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other additional characters. (See Appendix A for notes on implementing base64url encoding without padding.) 3.1. Abbreviations ABNF Augmented Backus-Naur Form Authz Authorization PKCE Proof Key for Code Exchange MITM Man-in-the-middle MTI Mandatory To Implement 4. Protocol 4.1. Client creates a code verifier The client first creates a code verifier, "code_verifier", for each OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] Authorization Request, in the following manner: code_verifier = high entropy cryptographic random STRING using the Unreserved Characters [A-Z] / [a-z] / [0-9] / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" from Sec 2.3 of [RFC3986], with a minimum length of 43 characters and a maximum length of 128 characters. ABNF for "code_verifier" is as follows. code-verifier = 43*128unreserved unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A DIGIT = %x30-39 NOTE: code verifier SHOULD have enough entropy to make it impractical to guess the value. It is RECOMMENDED that the output of a suitable Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 random number generator be used to create a 32-octet sequence. The Octet sequence is then base64url encoded to produce a 43-octet URL safe string to use as the code verifier. 4.2. Client creates the code challenge The client then creates a code challenge derived from the code verifier by using one of the following transformations on the code verifier: plain code_challenge = code_verifier S256 code_challenge = BASE64URL-ENCODE(SHA256(ASCII(code_verifier))) If the client is capable of using "S256", it MUST use "S256", as "S256" is Mandatory To Implement (MTI) on the server. Clients are permitted to use "plain" only if they cannot support "S256" for some technical reason and know via out of band configuration that the server supports "plain". The plain transformation is for compatibility with existing deployments and for constrained environments that can't use the S256 transformation. ABNF for "code_challenge" is as follows. code-challenge = 43*128unreserved unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A DIGIT = %x30-39 4.3. Client sends the code challenge with the authorization request The client sends the code challenge as part of the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request (Section 4.1.1 of [RFC6749].) using the following additional parameters: code_challenge REQUIRED. Code challenge. code_challenge_method OPTIONAL, defaults to "plain" if not present in the request. Code verifier transformation method, "S256" or "plain". Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 4.4. Server returns the code When the server issues the authorization code in the authorization response, it MUST associate the "code_challenge" and "code_challenge_method" values with the authorization code so it can be verified later. Typically, the "code_challenge" and "code_challenge_method" values are stored in encrypted form in the "code" itself, but could alternatively be stored on the server, associated with the code. The server MUST NOT include the "code_challenge" value in client requests in a form that other entities can extract. The exact method that the server uses to associate the "code_challenge" with the issued "code" is out of scope for this specification. 4.4.1. Error Response If the server requires Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE) by OAuth Public Clients, and the client does not send the "code_challenge" in the request, the authorization endpoint MUST return the authorization error response with "error" value set to "invalid_request". The "error_description" or the response of "error_uri" SHOULD explain the nature of error, e.g., code challenge required. If the server supporting PKCE does not support the requested transform, the authorization endpoint MUST return the authorization error response with "error" value set to "invalid_request". The "error_description" or the response of "error_uri" SHOULD explain the nature of error, e.g., transform algorithm not supported. 4.5. Client sends the Authorization Code and the Code Verifier to the token endpoint Upon receipt of the Authorization Code, the client sends the Access Token Request to the token endpoint. In addition to the parameters defined in the OAuth 2.0 Access Token Request (Section 4.1.3 of [RFC6749]), it sends the following parameter: code_verifier REQUIRED. Code verifier The code_challenge_method is bound to the Authorization Code when the Authorization Code is issued. That is the method that the token endpoint MUST use to verify the code_verifier. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 4.6. Server verifies code_verifier before returning the tokens Upon receipt of the request at the Access Token endpoint, the server verifies it by calculating the code challenge from received "code_verifier" and comparing it with the previously associated "code_challenge", after first transforming it according to the "code_challenge_method" method specified by the client. If the "code_challenge_method" from Section 4.2 was "S256", the received "code_verifier" is hashed by SHA-256, then base64url encoded, and then compared to the "code_challenge". i.e., BASE64URL-ENCODE(SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier" ))) == "code_challenge" If the "code_challenge_method" from Section 4.2 was "plain", they are compared directly. i.e., "code_verifier" == "code_challenge". If the values are equal, the Access Token endpoint MUST continue processing as normal (as defined by OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]). If the values are not equal, an error response indicating "invalid_grant" as described in section 5.2 of [RFC6749] MUST be returned. 5. Compatibility Server implementations of this specification MAY accept OAuth2.0 Clients that do not implement this extension. If the "code_verifier" is not received from the client in the Authorization Request, servers supporting backwards compatibility revert to a normal OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] protocol. As the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] server responses are unchanged by this specification, client implementations of this specification do not need to know if the server has implemented this specification or not, and SHOULD send the additional parameters as defined in Section 3. to all servers. 6. IANA Considerations This specification makes a registration request as follows: 6.1. OAuth Parameters Registry This specification registers the following parameters in the IANA OAuth Parameters registry defined in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. o Parameter name: code_verifier Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 o Parameter usage location: token request o Change controller: IESG o Specification document(s): this document o Parameter name: code_challenge o Parameter usage location: authorization request o Change controller: IESG o Specification document(s): this document o Parameter name: code_challenge_method o Parameter usage location: authorization request o Change controller: IESG o Specification document(s): this document 6.2. PKCE Code Challenge Method Registry This specification establishes the PKCE Code Challenge Method registry. The new registry should be a sub-registry of OAuth Parameters registry. Additional code_challenge_method types for use with the authorization endpoint are registered using the Specification Required policy [RFC5226], which includes review of the request by one or more Designated Experts. The DEs will ensure there is at least a two-week review of the request on the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing list, and that any discussion on that list converges before they respond to the request. To allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied that an acceptable specification will be published. Registration requests and discussion on the oauth-ext-review@ietf.org mailing list should use an appropriate subject, such as "Request for PKCE code_challenge_method: example"). The Designated Expert(s) should consider the discussion on the mailing list, as well as the overall security properties of the challenge Method when evaluating registration requests. New methods should not disclose the value of the code_verifier in the request to the Authorization endpoint. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful. 6.2.1. Registration Template Code Challenge Method Parameter Name: The name requested (e.g., "example"). Because a core goal of this specification is for the resulting representations to be compact, Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 it is RECOMMENDED that the name be short -- not to exceed 8 characters without a compelling reason to do so. This name is case-sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a case-insensitive manner unless the Designated Expert(s) state that there is a compelling reason to allow an exception in this particular case. Change Controller: For Standards Track RFCs, state "IESG". For others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be included. Specification Document(s): Reference to the document(s) that specify the parameter, preferably including URI(s) that can be used to retrieve copies of the document(s). An indication of the relevant sections may also be included but is not required. 6.2.2. Initial Registry Contents This specification registers the Code Challenge Method Parameter names defined in Section 4.2 in this registry. o Code Challenge Method Parameter Name: "plain" o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 4.2 of [[ this document ]] o Code Challenge Method Parameter Name: "S256" o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 4.2 of [[ this document ]] 7. Security Considerations 7.1. Entropy of the code_verifier The security model relies on the fact that the code verifier is not learned or guessed by the attacker. It is vitally important to adhere to this principle. As such, the code verifier has to be created in such a manner that it is cryptographically random and has high entropy that it is not practical for the attacker to guess. The client SHOULD create a code_verifier with a minimum of 256bits of entropy. This can be done by having a suitable random number generator create a 32-octet sequence. The Octet sequence can then be base64url encoded to produce a 43-octet URL safe string to use as a code_challenge that has the required entropy. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 7.2. Protection against eavesdroppers Clients MUST NOT downgrade to "plain" after trying "S256" method. Servers that support PKCE are required to support "S256", and servers that do not support PKCE will simply ignore the unknown "code_verifier" OAuth 2.0 (see Section 3.2 of [RFC6749]. Because of that, an error when "S256" is presented can only mean that the server is faulty or that a MITM attacker is trying a downgrade attack. "S256" method protects against eavesdroppers observing or intercepting the "code_challenge", because the challenge cannot be used without the verifier. With the "plain" method, there is a chance that "code_challenge" will be observed by the attacker on the device, or in the http request. Since the code challenge is the same as the code verifier in this case, "plain" method does not protect against the eavesdropping of the initial request. The use of "S256" protects against disclosure of "code_verifier" value to an attacker. Because of this, "plain" SHOULD NOT be used, and exists only for compatibility with deployed implementations where the request path is already protected. The "plain" method SHOULD NOT be used in new implementations, unless they cannot support "S256" for some technical reason. The "S256" code_challenge_method or other cryptographically secure code_challenge_method extension SHOULD be used. The plain code_challenge_method relies on the operating system and transport security not to disclose the request to an attacker. If the code_challenge_method is plain, and the "code_challenge" is to be returned inside authorization "code" to achieve a stateless server, it MUST be encrypted in such a manner that only the server can decrypt and extract it. 7.3. Salting the code_challenge In order to reduce implementation complexity Salting is not used in the production of the code_challenge, as the code_verifier contains sufficient entropy to prevent brute force attacks. Concatenating a publicly known value to a code_verifier (containing 256 bits of entropy) and then hashing it with SHA256 to produce a code_challenge would not increase the number of attempts necessary to brute force a valid value for code_verifier. While the S256 transformation is like hashing a password there are important differences. Passwords tend to be relatively low entropy Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 words that can be hashed offline and the hash looked up in a dictionary. By concatenating a unique though public value to each password prior to hashing, the dictionary space that an attacker needs to search is greatly expanded. Modern graphics processors now allow attackers to calculate hashes in real time faster than they could be looked up from a disk. This eliminates the value of the salt in increasing the complexity of a brute force attack for even low entropy passwords. 7.4. OAuth security considerations All the OAuth security analysis presented in [RFC6819] applies so readers SHOULD carefully follow it. 7.5. TLS security considerations Curent security considerations can be found in Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS [BCP195]. This supersedes the TLS version recommendations in OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]. 8. Acknowledgements The initial draft of this specification was created by the OpenID AB/ Connect Working Group of the OpenID Foundation. This specification is the work of the OAuth Working Group, which includes dozens of active and dedicated participants. In particular, the following individuals contributed ideas, feedback, and wording that shaped and formed the final specification: Anthony Nadalin, Microsoft Axel Nenker, Deutsche Telekom Breno de Medeiros, Google Brian Campbell, Ping Identity Chuck Mortimore, Salesforce Dirk Balfanz, Google Eduardo Gueiros, Jive Communications Hannes Tschonfenig, ARM James Manger, Telstra John Bradley, Ping Identity Justin Richer, MIT Kerberos Josh Mandel, Boston Children's Hospital Lewis Adam, Motorola Solutions Madjid Nakhjiri, Samsung Michael B. Jones, Microsoft Nat Sakimura, Nomura Research Institute Naveen Agarwal, Google Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 Paul Madsen, Ping Identity Phil Hunt, Oracle Prateek Mishra, Oracle Ryo Ito, mixi Scott Tomilson, Ping Identity Sergey Beryozkin Takamichi Saito Torsten Lodderstedt, Deutsche Telekom William Denniss, Google 9. Revision History -15 o Addressed Barry's IESG comments around IANA Registration o Addressed Barry's IESG comments around Sec 7.2 downgrade attack o fix a typo for William and make a small change to Fig 1.1 clarifying t_m o more wording changes to sec 7.2 re Barry o made the two SHOULD NOT use plain recommendations consistent. o slightly cleaned up grammer in Sec 7.2 -14 o #38. Expanded Section 7.2 to explain why plain should not be used. o #39. Modified Section 4.4.1 to discourage the use of plain. o #40. Modified Intro text to explain the attack better. o #41. Added explanation that the token request is protected in the Last paragraph of the Introduction. o #42. Sec 4.2: Removed redundant double quotes caused by spanx. o #43. Sec 4.4: Replaced code with authorization code. o #44. Sec 4.5: say "code_verifier" rather than "secret" o #45. Sec 4.4.1: Expanded PKCE. o #46. Sec 5: SHOULD in para 1 removed. o Added abbreviations section. -13 o Fix the parameter usage locations for the OAuth Parameters Registry per Hannes response. o Clarify for IANA that the new registry is a sub-registry of OAuth Parameters registry o aded text on why the code_challenge_method is not sent to the token endpoint. -12 Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 o clarify that the client secret we are talking about in the Introduction is a OAuth 2 client_secret. o Update salting security consideration based on Ben's feedback -11 o add spanx for plain in sec 4.4 RE Kathleen's comment o Add security consideration on TLS and reference BCP195 o Update to make clearer that plain can only be used for backwards compatibility and constrained environments -10 o re #33 specify lower limit to code_verifier in prose o remove base64url decode from draft, all steps now use encode only o Expanded MTI o re #33 change length of 32 octet base64url encoded string back to 43 octets -09 o clean up some external references so they don't point at internal sections -08 o changed BASE64URL to BASE64URL-ENCODE to be more consistent with appendix A Fixed lowercase base64url in appendix B o Added appendix B as an example of S256 processing o Change reference for unreserved characters to RFC3986 from base64URL -07 o removed unused discovery reference and UTF8 o re #32 added ASCII(STRING) to make clear that it is the byte array that is being hashed o re #2 Remove discovery requirement section. o updated Acknowledgement o re #32 remove unneeded UTF8(STRING) definition, and define STRING for ASCII(STRING) o re #32 remove unneeded utf8 reference from BASE64URL- DECODE(STRING) def o resolves #31 unused definition of concatenation o re #30 Update figure text call out the endpoints o re #30 Update figure to call out the endpoints o small wording change to the introduction Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 -06 o fix date o replace spop with pkce for registry and other references o re #29 change name again o re #27 removed US-ASCII reference o re #27 updated ABNF for code_verifier o resolves #24 added security consideration for salting o resolves #29 Changed title o updated reference to RFC4634 to RFC6234 re #27 o changed reference for US-ASCII to RFC20 re #27 o resolves #28 added Acknowledgements o resolves #27 updated ABNF o resolves #26 updated abstract and added Hannes figure -05 o Added IANA registry for code_challenge_method + fixed some broken internal references. -04 o Added error response to authorization response. -03 o Added an abstract protocol diagram and explanation -02 o Copy edits -01 o Specified exactly two supported transformations o Moved discovery steps to security considerations. o Incorporated readability comments by Eduardo Gueiros. o Changed MUST in 3.1 to SHOULD. -00 o Initial IETF version. 10. References Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 10.1. Normative References [BCP195] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, May 2015. [RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20, October 1969. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. [RFC6234] Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, May 2011. [RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, October 2012. 10.2. Informative References [RFC6819] Lodderstedt, T., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations", RFC 6819, January 2013. Appendix A. Notes on implementing base64url encoding without padding This appendix describes how to implement a base64url encoding function without padding based upon standard base64 encoding function that uses padding. To be concrete, example C# code implementing these functions is shown below. Similar code could be used in other languages. Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 static string base64urlencode(byte [] arg) { string s = Convert.ToBase64String(arg); // Regular base64 encoder s = s.Split('=')[0]; // Remove any trailing '='s s = s.Replace('+', '-'); // 62nd char of encoding s = s.Replace('/', '_'); // 63rd char of encoding return s; } An example correspondence between unencoded and encoded values follows. The octet sequence below encodes into the string below, which when decoded, reproduces the octet sequence. 3 236 255 224 193 A-z_4ME Appendix B. Example for the S256 code_challenge_method The client uses output of a suitable random number generator to create a 32-octet sequence. The octets representing the value in this example (using JSON array notation) are:" [116, 24, 223, 180, 151, 153, 224, 37, 79, 250, 96, 125, 216, 173, 187, 186, 22, 212, 37, 77, 105, 214, 191, 240, 91, 88, 5, 88, 83, 132, 141, 121] Encoding this octet sequence as a Base64url provides the value of the code_verifier: dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk The code_verifier is then hashed via the SHA256 hash function to produce: [19, 211, 30, 150, 26, 26, 216, 236, 47, 22, 177, 12, 76, 152, 46, 8, 118, 168, 120, 173, 109, 241, 68, 86, 110, 225, 137, 74, 203, 112, 249, 195] Encoding this octet sequence as a base64url provides the value of the code_challenge: E9Melhoa2OwvFrEMTJguCHaoeK1t8URWbuGJSstw-cM The authorization request includes: Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 code_challenge=E9Melhoa2OwvFrEMTJguCHaoeK1t8URWbuGJSstw-cM &code_challange_method=S256 The Authorization server then records the code_challenge and code_challenge_method along with the code that is granted to the client. in the request to the token_endpoint the client includes the code received in the authorization response as well as the additional paramater: code_verifier=dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk The Authorization server retrieves the information for the code grant. Based on the recorded code_challange_method being S256, it then hashes and base64url encodes the value of code_verifier. BASE64URL-ENCODE(SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier" ))) The calculated value is then compared with the value of "code_challenge": BASE64URL-ENCODE(SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier" ))) == code_challenge If the two values are equal then the Authorization server can provide the tokens as long as there are no other errors in the request. If the values are not equal then the request must be rejected, and an error returned. Authors' Addresses Nat Sakimura (editor) Nomura Research Institute 1-6-5 Marunouchi, Marunouchi Kitaguchi Bldg. Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005 Japan Phone: +81-3-5533-2111 Email: n-sakimura@nri.co.jp URI: http://nat.sakimura.org/ Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft oauth_pkce July 2015 John Bradley Ping Identity Casilla 177, Sucursal Talagante Talagante, RM Chile Phone: +44 20 8133 3718 Email: ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com URI: http://www.thread-safe.com/ Naveen Agarwal Google 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Phone: +1 650-253-0000 Email: naa@google.com URI: http://google.com/ Sakimura, et al. Expires January 9, 2016 [Page 21]