| Internet-Draft | Privacy Pass Authentication | September 2023 |
| Pauly, et al. | Expires 28 March 2024 | [Page] |
This document defines an HTTP authentication scheme for Privacy Pass, a privacy-preserving authentication mechanism used for authorization. The authentication scheme in this document can be used by clients to redeem Privacy Pass tokens with an origin. It can also be used by origins to challenge clients to present Privacy Pass tokens.¶
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 https://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 28 March 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Privacy Pass tokens are unlinkable authenticators that can be used to anonymously authorize a client (see [ARCHITECTURE]). Tokens are generated by token issuers, on the basis of authentication, attestation, or some previous action such as solving a CAPTCHA. A client possessing such a token is able to prove that it was able to get a token issued, without allowing the relying party redeeming the client's token (the origin) to link it with the issuance flow.¶
Different types of authenticators, using different token issuance protocols, can be used as Privacy Pass tokens.¶
This document defines a common HTTP authentication scheme ([RFC9110], Section 11), PrivateToken, that allows clients to redeem various kinds of Privacy Pass tokens.¶
Clients and relying parties (origins) interact using this scheme to perform the token challenge and token redemption flow. In particular, origins challenge clients for a token with an HTTP Authentication challenge (using the WWW-Authenticate response header field). Clients can then react to that challenge by issuing a new request with a corresponding token (using the Authorization request header field). Clients generate tokens that match the origin's token challenge by running the token issuance protocol [ISSUANCE]. The act of presenting a token in an Authorization request header field is referred to as token redemption. This interaction between client and origin is shown below.¶
In addition to working with different token issuance protocols, this scheme optionally supports use of tokens that are associated with origin-chosen contexts and specific origin names. Relying parties that request and redeem tokens can choose a specific kind of token, as appropriate for its use case. These options allow for different deployment models to prevent double-spending, and allow for both interactive (online challenges) and non-interactive (pre-fetched) tokens.¶
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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Unless otherwise specified, this document encodes protocol messages in TLS notation from [TLS13], Section 3.¶
This document uses the terms "Client", "Origin", "Issuer", "Issuance Protocol", and "Token" as defined in [ARCHITECTURE]. It additionally uses the following terms in more specific ways:¶
Token redemption is performed using HTTP Authentication ([RFC9110], Section 11), with the scheme "PrivateToken". Origins challenge clients to present a token from a specific issuer (Section 2.1). Once a client has received a token from that issuer, or already has a valid token available, it presents the token to the origin (Section 2.2). The process of presenting a token as authentication to an origin is also referred to as "spending" a token.¶
In order to prevent linkability across different transactions, clients will often present a particular "PrivateToken" only once. Origins can link multiple transactions to the same client if that client spends the same token value more than once. As such, origins ought to expect at most one unique token value, carried in one request, for each challenge.¶
The rest of this section describes the token challenge and redemption interactions in more detail.¶
Origins send a token challenge to clients in an "WWW-Authenticate" header field with the "PrivateToken" scheme. This authentication scheme has two mandatory parameters: one containing a token challenge and another containing the token-key used for producing (and verifying) a corresponding token.¶
Origins that support the "PrivateToken" authentication scheme need to handle the following tasks in constructing the WWW-Authenticate header field:¶
Once these decisions are made, origins construct the WWW-Authenticate header by first constructing the token challenge as described in Section 2.1.1. Origins send challenges as described in Section 2.1.2, and clients process them as described in Section 2.1.3 and Section 2.1.4.¶
This document defines the default challenge structure that can be used across token types, although future token types MAY extend or modify the structure of the challenge; see Section 6.2 for the registry information which establishes and defines the relationship between "token_type" and the contents of the TokenChallenge message.¶
All token challenges MUST begin with a 2-octet integer that defines the token type, in network byte order. This type indicates the issuance protocol used to generate the token and determines the structure and semantics of the rest of the structure. Values are registered in an IANA registry, Section 6.2. Client MUST ignore challenges with token types they do not support.¶
Even when a given token type uses the default challenge structure, the requirements on the presence or interpretation of the fields can differ across token types. For example, some token types might require that "origin_info" is non-empty, while others allow it to be empty.¶
The default TokenChallenge message has the following structure:¶
struct {
uint16_t token_type;
opaque issuer_name<1..2^16-1>;
opaque redemption_context<0..32>;
opaque origin_info<0..2^16-1>;
} TokenChallenge;
¶
The structure fields are defined as follows:¶
If "origin_info" contains multiple origin names, this means the challenge is valid for any of the origins in the list, including the origin which issued the challenge (which must always be present in the list if it is non-empty; see Section 2.1.3). This can be useful in settings where clients pre-fetch and cache tokens for a particular challenge -- including the "origin_info" field -- and then later redeem these tokens with one of the origins in the list. See Section 2.1.4 for more discussion about token caching.¶
Server names contained in a token challenge are ASCII strings that contain a hostname and optional port, where the port is implied to be "443" if missing. The names use the format of the authority portion of a URI as defined in Section 3.2 of [URI]. The names MUST NOT include a "userinfo" portion of an authority. For example, a valid server name might be "issuer.example.com" or "issuer.example.com:8443", but not "issuer@example.com".¶
The TokenChallenge redemption context allows the origin to determine the context in which a given token can be redeemed. This value can be a unique per-request nonce, constructed from 32 freshly generated random bytes. It can also represent state or properties of the client session. Some example properties and methods for constructing the corresponding context are below. This list is not exhaustive.¶
Preventing double spending on tokens requires the origin to keep state associated with the redemption context. An empty redemption context is not bound to any property of the client request, so state to prevent double spending needs to be stored and shared across all origin servers that can accept tokens until token-key expiration or rotation. For a non-empty redemption context, the double spend state only needs to be stored across the set of origin servers that will accept tokens with that redemption context.¶
Origins that share redemption contexts, i.e., by using the same redemption context, choosing the same issuer, and providing the same origin_info field in the TokenChallenge, must necessarily share state required to enforce double spend prevention. Origins should consider the operational complexity of this shared state before choosing to share redemption contexts. Failure to successfully synchronize this state and use it for double spend prevention can allow Clients to redeem tokens to one Origin that were issued after an interaction with another Origin that shares the context.¶
When used in an authentication challenge, the "PrivateToken" scheme uses the following parameters:¶
auth-param from [RFC9110], Section 11.2),
the value can be either a token or a quoted-string, and might be required to
be a quoted-string if the base64url string includes "=" characters. This
parameter is required for all challenges.¶
auth-param from [RFC9110], Section 11.2), the
value can be either a token or a quoted-string, and might be required to be a
quoted-string if the base64url string includes "=" characters. This parameter
MAY be omitted in deployments where clients are able to retrieve the issuer key
using an out-of-band mechanism.¶
The header field MAY also include the standard "realm" parameter, if desired. Issuance protocols MAY define other parameters, some of which might be required. Clients MUST ignore parameters in challenges that are not defined for the issuance protocol corresponding to the token type in the challenge.¶
As an example, the WWW-Authenticate header field could look like this:¶
WWW-Authenticate: PrivateToken challenge="abc...", token-key="123..."¶
It is possible for the WWW-Authenticate header field to include multiple challenges ([RFC9110], Section 11.6.1). This allows the origin to indicate support for different token types, issuers, or to include multiple redemption contexts. For example, the WWW-Authenticate header field could look like this:¶
WWW-Authenticate: PrivateToken challenge="abc...", token-key="123...", PrivateToken challenge="def...", token-key="234..."¶
Origins should only include challenges for different types of issuance protocols with functionally equivalent properties. For instance, both issuance protocols in [ISSUANCE] have the same functional properties, albeit with different mechanisms for verifying the resulting tokens during redemption. Since clients are free to choose which challenge they want to consume when presented with options, mixing multiple challenges with different functional properties for one use case is nonsensical. If the origin has a preference for one challenge over another (for example, if one uses a token type that is faster to verify), it can sort it to be first in the list of challenges as a hint to the client.¶
Upon receipt of a challenge, a client validates the TokenChallenge structure before taking any action, such as fetching a new token or redeeming a token in a new request. Validation requirements are as follows:¶
If validation fails, the client MUST NOT fetch or redeem a token based on the challenge. Clients MAY have further restrictions and requirements around validating when a challenge is considered acceptable or valid. For example, clients can choose to ignore challenges that list origin names for which the current connection is not authoritative (according to the TLS certificate).¶
Caching and pre-fetching of tokens is discussed in Section 2.1.4.¶
Clients can generate multiple tokens from a single TokenChallenge, and cache them for future use. This improves privacy by separating the time of token issuance from the time of token redemption, and also allows clients to avoid any overhead of receiving new tokens via the issuance protocol.¶
Cached tokens can only be redeemed when they match all of the fields in the TokenChallenge: token_type, issuer_name, redemption_context, and origin_info. Clients ought to store cached tokens based on all of these fields, to avoid trying to redeem a token that does not match. Note that each token has a unique client nonce, which is sent in token redemption (Section 2.2).¶
If a client fetches a batch of multiple tokens for future use that are bound to a specific redemption context (the redemption_context in the TokenChallenge was not empty), clients SHOULD discard these tokens upon flushing state such as HTTP cookies [COOKIES], or if there is a network change and the client does not have any origin-specific state like HTTP cookies. Using these tokens in a context that otherwise would not be linkable to the original context could allow the origin to recognize a client.¶
The output of the issuance protocol is a token that corresponds to the origin's challenge (see Section 2.1).¶
A token is a structure that begins with a two-octet field that indicates a token type, which MUST match the token_type in the TokenChallenge structure. This value determines the structure and semantics of the rest of token structure.¶
This document defines the default token structure that can be used across token types, although future token types MAY extend or modify the structure of the token; see Section 6.2 for the registry information which establishes and defines the relationship between "token_type" and the contents of the Token structure.¶
The default Token message has the following structure:¶
struct {
uint16_t token_type;
uint8_t nonce[32];
uint8_t challenge_digest[32];
uint8_t token_key_id[Nid];
uint8_t authenticator[Nk];
} Token;
¶
The structure fields are defined as follows:¶
The authenticator value in the Token structure is computed over the token_type, nonce, challenge_digest, and token_key_id fields. A token is considered a valid if token verification using succeeds; see Section 2.2.3 for details about verifying the token and its authenticator value.¶
When used for client authorization, the "PrivateToken" authentication
scheme defines one parameter, "token", which contains the base64url-encoded
Token struct. As with the challenge parameters (Section 2.1), the base64url
value MUST include padding. As an Authentication Parameter (auth-param from
[RFC9110], Section 11.2), the value can be either a token or a
quoted-string, and might be required to be a quoted-string if the base64url
string includes "=" characters. All unknown or unsupported parameters to
"PrivateToken" authentication credentials MUST be ignored.¶
Clients present this Token structure to origins in a new HTTP request using the Authorization header field as follows:¶
Authorization: PrivateToken token="abc..."¶
For context-bound tokens, origins store or reconstruct the contexts of previous TokenChallenge structures in order to validate the token. A TokenChallenge can be bound to a specific TLS session with a client, but origins can also accept tokens for valid challenges in new sessions. Origins SHOULD implement some form of double-spend prevention that prevents a token with the same nonce from being redeemed twice. Double-spend prevention ensures that clients cannot replay tokens for previous challenges. See Section 5.2 for more information about replay attacks. For context-bound tokens, this double-spend prevention can require no state or minimal state, since the context can be used to verify token uniqueness.¶
A token consists of some input cryptographically bound to an authenticator value, such as a digital signature. Verifying a token consists of checking that the authenticator value is correct.¶
The authenticator value is as computed when running and finalizing the issuance protocol corresponding to the token type with the following value as the input:¶
struct {
uint16_t token_type;
uint8_t nonce[32];
uint8_t challenge_digest[32];
uint8_t token_key_id[Nid];
} AuthenticatorInput;
¶
The value of these fields are as described in Section 2.2. The cryptographic verification check depends on the token type; see Section 5.4 of [ISSUANCE] and Section 6.4 of [ISSUANCE] for verification instructions for the issuance protocols described in [ISSUANCE]. As such, the security properties of the token, e.g., the probability that one can forge an authenticator value without invoking the issuance protocol, depend on the cryptographic algorithm used by the issuance protocol as determined by the token type.¶
When a client receives one or more token challenges in response to a request, the client has a set of choices to make:¶
The approach to these choices depends on the use case of the application, as well as the deployment model (see Section 4 of [ARCHITECTURE] for discussion of the different deployment models).¶
Some applications of tokens might require clients to always present a token as authentication in order to successfully make requests. For example, a restricted service that wants to only allow access to valid users, but do so without learning specific user credential information, could use tokens that are based on attesting user credentials. In these kinds of use cases, clients will need to always redeem a token in order to successfully make a request.¶
Many other use cases for Privacy Pass tokens involve open services that must work with any client, including those that either cannot redeem tokens, or can only sometimes redeem tokens. For example, a service can use tokens as a way to reduce the incidence of presenting CAPTCHAs to users. In such use cases, services will regularly encounter clients that cannot redeem a token or choose not to. In order to mitigate the risk of these services relying on always receiving tokens, clients that are capable of redeeming tokens can ignore token challenges (and instead behave as if they were a client that either doesn't support redeeming tokens or is unable to generate a new token, by not sending a new request that contains a token to redeem) with some non-trivial probability. See Section 5.1 of [ARCHITECTURE] for further considerations on avoiding discriminatory behavior across clients when using Privacy Pass tokens.¶
Clients might also choose to not redeem tokens in subsequent requests when the token challenges indicate erroneous or malicious behavior on the part of the challenging origin. For example, if a client's ability to generate tokens via an attester and issuer is limited to a certain rate, a malicious origin could send an excessive number of token challenges with unique redemption contexts in order to cause the client to exhaust its ability to generate new tokens, or to overwhelm issuance servers. The limits here will vary based on the specific deployment, but clients SHOULD have some implementation-specific policy to minimize the number of tokens that can be retrieved by origins.¶
A single response from an origin can include multiple token challenges. For example, a set of challenges could include different token types and issuers, to allow clients to choose a preferred issuer or type.¶
The choice of which challenge to use for redeeming tokens is up to client policy. This can involve which token types are supported or preferred, which issuers are supported or preferred, or whether or not the client is able to use cached tokens based on the redemption context or origin information in the challenge. See Section 2.1.4 for more discussion on token caching. Regardless of how the choice is made, it SHOULD be done in a consistent manner to ensure that the choice does not reveal information about the specific client; see Section 6.2 of [ARCHITECTURE] for more details on the privacy implications of issuance consistency.¶
Origins choose what token challenges to send to clients, which will vary depending on the use case and deployment model. The origin chooses which token types, issuers, redemption contexts, and origin info to include in challenges. If an origin sends multiple challenges, each challenge SHOULD be equivalent in terms of acceptability for token redemption, since clients are free to choose to generate tokens based on any of the challenges.¶
Origins ought to consider the time involved in token issuance. Particularly, a challenge that includes a unique redemption context will prevent a client from using cached tokens, and thus can add more delay before the client is able to redeem a token.¶
Origins SHOULD minimize the number of challenges sent to a particular client context (referred to as the "redemption context" in Section 3.3 of [ARCHITECTURE]), to avoid overwhelming clients and issuers with token requests that might cause clients to hit rate limits.¶
In order to prevent clients becoming incompatible with new token challenges, origins SHOULD include random token types, from the Reserved list of "greased" types (defined in Section 6.2), with some non-trivial probability.¶
Additionally, for deployments where tokens are not required (such as when tokens
are used as a way to avoiding showing CAPTCHAs), origins SHOULD randomly
choose to not challenge clients for tokens with some non-trivial probability.
This helps origins ensure that their behavior for handling clients that cannot
redeem tokens is maintained and exercised consistently.¶
This section contains security considerations for the PrivateToken authentication scheme described in this document.¶
All random values in the challenge and token MUST be generated using a cryptographically secure source of randomness ([RFC4086]).¶
Applications SHOULD constrain tokens to a single origin unless the use case can accommodate replay attacks. Replaying tokens is not necessarily a security or privacy problem. As an example, it is reasonable for clients to replay tokens in contexts where token redemption does not induce side effects and in which client requests are already linkable. One possible setting where this applies is where tokens are sent as part of 0-RTT data.¶
If successful token redemption produces side effects, origins SHOULD implement an anti-replay mechanism to mitigate the harm of such replays. See [TLS13], Section 8 and [RFC9001], Section 9.2 for details about anti-replay mechanisms, as well as [RFC8470], Section 3 for discussion about safety considerations for 0-RTT HTTP data.¶
The security properties of token challenges vary depending on whether the challenge contains a redemption context or not, as well as whether the challenge is per-origin or not. For example, cross-origin tokens with empty contexts can be reflected from one party by another, as shown below.¶
When a Client holds cross-origin tokens with empty contexts, it is possible for any Origin in the cross-origin set to deplete that Client set of tokens. To prevent this from happening, tokens can be scoped to single Origins (with non-empty origin_info) such that they can only be redeemed for a single Origin. Alternatively, if tokens are cross-Origin, Clients can use alternate methods to prevent many tokens from being redeemed at once. For example, if the Origin requests an excess of tokens, the Client could choose to not present any tokens for verification if a redemption had already occurred in a given time window.¶
Token challenges that include non-empty origin_info bind tokens to one or more specific origins. As described in Section 2.1, clients only accept such challenges from origin names listed in the origin_info string. Even if multiple origins are listed, a token can only be redeemed for an origin if the challenge has a match for the origin_info. For example, if "a.example.com" issues a challenge with an origin_info string of "a.example.com,b.example.com", a client could redeem a token fetched for this challenge if and only if "b.example.com" also included an origin_info string of "a.example.com,b.example.com". On the other hand, if "b.example.com" had an origin_info string of "b.example.com" or "b.example.com,a.example.com" or "a.example.com,b.example.com,c.example.com", the string would not match and the client would need to use a different token.¶
Context-bound token challenges require clients to obtain matching tokens when challenged, rather than presenting a token that was obtained from a different context in the past. This can make it more likely that issuance and redemption events will occur at approximately the same time. For example, if a client is challenged for a token with a unique context at time T1 and then subsequently obtains a token at time T2, a colluding issuer and origin can link this to the same client if T2 is unique to the client. This linkability is less feasible as the number of issuance events at time T2 increases. Depending on the "max-age" token challenge parameter, clients MAY try to add delay to the time between being challenged and redeeming a token to make this sort of linkability more difficult. For more discussion on correlation risks between token issuance and redemption, see [ARCHITECTURE].¶
As discussed in Section 2.1, clients SHOULD discard any context-bound tokens upon flushing cookies or changing networks, to prevent an origin using the redemption context state as a cookie to recognize clients.¶
This document registers the "PrivateToken" authentication scheme in the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme Registry" defined in [RFC9110], Section 16.4.¶
IANA is requested to create a new "Privacy Pass Token Type" registry in a new "Privacy Pass Parameters" page to list identifiers for issuance protocols defined for use with the Privacy Pass token authentication scheme. These identifiers are two-byte values, so the maximum possible value is 0xFFFF = 65535.¶
New registrations need to list the following attributes:¶
The two-byte identifier for the algorithm¶
Name of the issuance protocol¶
The contents of the Token structure in Section 2.2¶
The encoding of the "token-key" parameter in Section 2.2¶
The contents of the TokenChallenge structure in Section 2.1¶
A Y/N value indicating if the output tokens have the public verifiability property; see Section 3.5 of [ARCHITECTURE] for more details about this property.¶
A Y/N value indicating if the output tokens can contain public metadata; see Section 3.5 of [ARCHITECTURE] for more details about this property.¶
A Y/N value indicating if the output tokens can contain private metadata; see Section 3.5 of [ARCHITECTURE] for more details about this property.¶
The length in bytes of an output authenticator¶
The length of the token key identifier¶
Where this algorithm is defined¶
Any notes associated with the entry¶
New entries in this registry are subject to the Specification Required registration policy ([RFC8126], Section 4.6). Designated experts need to ensure that the token type is defined to be used for both token issuance and redemption. Additionally, the experts can reject registrations on the basis that they do not meet the security and privacy requirements for issuance protocols defined in Section 3.2 of [ARCHITECTURE].¶
[ISSUANCE] defines entries for this registry.¶
This document defines several Reserved values, which can be used by clients and servers to send "greased" values in token challenges and redemptions to ensure that implementations remain able to handle unknown token types gracefully (this technique is inspired by [RFC8701]). Implementations SHOULD select reserved values at random when including them in greased messages. Servers can include these in TokenChallenge structures, either as the only challenge when no real token type is desired, or as one challenge in a list of challenges that include real values. Clients can include these in Token structures when they are not able to present a real token. The contents of the Token structure SHOULD be filled with random bytes when using greased values.¶
The initial contents for this registry consists of multiple reserved values, with the following attributes, which are repeated for each registration:¶
0x0000, 0x02AA, 0x1132, 0x2E96, 0x3CD3, 0x4473, 0x5A63, 0x6D32, 0x7F3F, 0x8D07, 0x916B, 0xA6A4, 0xBEAB, 0xC3F3, 0xDA42, 0xE944, 0xF057¶
RESERVED¶
Random bytes¶
Random bytes¶
Random bytes¶
N/A¶
N/A¶
N/A¶
N/A¶
N/A¶
This document¶
None¶
This section includes test vectors for the HTTP authentication scheme specified in this document. It consists of the following types of test vectors:¶
This section includes test vectors for the challenge and redemption functionalities described in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. Each test vector lists the following values:¶
Test vectors are provided for each of the following TokenChallenge configurations:¶
These test vectors are below.¶
// Test vector 1: // token_type(0002), issuer_name(issuer.example), // origin_info(origin.example), redemption_context(non-empty) token_type: 0002 issuer_name: 6973737565722e6578616d706c65 redemption_context: 476ac2c935f458e9b2d7af32dacfbd22dd6023ef5887a789f1abe004e79bb5bb origin_info: 6f726967696e2e6578616d706c65 nonce: e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee186568614f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab token_key_id: ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 token_authenticator_input: 0002e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee1865686 14f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab8e1d5518ec82964255526efd8f9db88205a 8ddd3ffb1db298fcc3ad36c42388fca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147 266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 // Test vector 2: // token_type(0002), issuer_name(issuer.example), // origin_info(origin.example), redemption_context(empty) token_type: 0002 issuer_name: 6973737565722e6578616d706c65 redemption_context: origin_info: 6f726967696e2e6578616d706c65 nonce: e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee186568614f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab token_key_id: ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 token_authenticator_input: 0002e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee1865686 14f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab11e15c91a7c2ad02abd66645802373db1d8 23bea80f08d452541fb2b62b5898bca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147 266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 // Test vector 3: // token_type(0002), issuer_name(issuer.example), // origin_info(), redemption_context(empty) token_type: 0002 issuer_name: 6973737565722e6578616d706c65 redemption_context: origin_info: nonce: e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee186568614f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab token_key_id: ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 token_authenticator_input: 0002e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee1865686 14f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688ababb741ec1b6fd05f1e95f8982906aec161289 6d9ca97d53eef94ad3c9fe023f7a4ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147 266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 // Test vector 4: // token_type(0002), issuer_name(issuer.example), // origin_info(), redemption_context(non-empty) token_type: 0002 issuer_name: 6973737565722e6578616d706c65 redemption_context: 476ac2c935f458e9b2d7af32dacfbd22dd6023ef5887a789f1abe004e79bb5bb origin_info: nonce: e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee186568614f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab token_key_id: ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 token_authenticator_input: 0002e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee1865686 14f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688ababb85fb5bc06edeb0e8e8bdb5b3bea8c4fa40 837c82e8bcaf5882c81e14817ea18ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147 266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 // Test vector 5: // token_type(0002), issuer_name(issuer.example), // origin_info(foo.example,bar.example), // redemption_context(non-empty) token_type: 0002 issuer_name: 6973737565722e6578616d706c65 redemption_context: 476ac2c935f458e9b2d7af32dacfbd22dd6023ef5887a789f1abe004e79bb5bb origin_info: 666f6f2e6578616d706c652c6261722e6578616d706c65 nonce: e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee186568614f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688abab token_key_id: ca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708 token_authenticator_input: 0002e01978182c469e5e026d66558ee1865686 14f235e41ef7e2378e6f202688ababa2a775866b6ae0f98944910c8f48728d8a2 735b9157762ddbf803f70e2e8ba3eca572f8982a9ca248a3056186322d93ca147 266121ddeb5632c07f1f71cd2708¶
This section includes test vectors the contents of the HTTP authentication headers. Each test vector consists of one or more challenges that comprise a WWW-Authenticate header. For each challenge, the token-type, token-key, max-age, and token-challenge parameters are listed. Each challenge also includes an unknown (not specified) parameter that implementations are meant to ignore.¶
The parameters for each challenge are indexed by their position in the WWW-Authentication challenge list. For example, token-key-0 denotes the token-key parameter for the first challenge in the list, whereas token-key-1 denotes the token-key for the second challenge in the list.¶
The resulting wire-encoded WWW-Authentication header based on this list of challenges is then listed at the end. Line folding is only used to fit the document formatting constraints and not unsupported in actual requests.¶
token-type-0: 0x0002 token-key-0: 30820152303d06092a864886f70d01010a3030a00d300b060960864 8016503040202a11a301806092a864886f70d010108300b060960864801650304020 2a2030201300382010f003082010a0282010100cb1aed6b6a95f5b1ce013a4cfcab2 5b94b2e64a23034e4250a7eab43c0df3a8c12993af12b111908d4b471bec31d4b6c9 ad9cdda90612a2ee903523e6de5a224d6b02f09e5c374d0cfe01d8f529c500a78a2f 67908fa682b5a2b430c81eaf1af72d7b5e794fc98a3139276879757ce453b526ef9b f6ceb99979b8423b90f4461a22af37aab0cf5733f7597abe44d31c732db68a181c6c bbe607d8c0e52e0655fd9996dc584eca0be87afbcd78a337d17b1dba9e828bbd81e2 91317144e7ff89f55619709b096cbb9ea474cead264c2073fe49740c01f00e109106 066983d21e5f83f086e2e823c879cd43cef700d2a352a9babd612d03cad02db134b7 e225a5f0203010001 max-age-0: 10 token-challenge-0: 0002000e6973737565722e6578616d706c65208a3e83a33d9 8005d2f30bef419fa6bf4cd5c6005e36b1285bbb4ccd40fa4b383000e6f726967696 e2e6578616d706c65 WWW-Authenticate: PrivateToken challenge="AAIADmlzc3Vlci5leGFtcGxlII o-g6M9mABdLzC-9Bn6a_TNXGAF42sShbu0zNQPpLODAA5vcmlnaW4uZXhhbXBsZQ==", token-key="MIIBUjA9BgkqhkiG9w0BAQowMKANMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQCAqEaMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEBCDALBglghkgBZQMEAgKiAwIBMAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyxrta2qV9bHOATpM _KsluUsuZKIwNOQlCn6rQ8DfOowSmTrxKxEZCNS0cb7DHUtsmtnN2pBhKi7pA1I-beWi JNawLwnlw3TQz-Adj1KcUAp4ovZ5CPpoK1orQwyB6vGvcte155T8mKMTknaHl1fORTtS bvm_bOuZl5uEI7kPRGGiKvN6qwz1cz91l6vkTTHHMttooYHGy75gfYwOUuBlX9mZbcWE 7KC-h6-814ozfRex26noKLvYHikTFxROf_ifVWGXCbCWy7nqR0zq0mTCBz_kl0DAHwDh CRBgZpg9IeX4PwhuLoI8h5zUPO9wDSo1Kpur1hLQPK0C2xNLfiJaXwIDAQAB",unknow nChallengeAttribute="ignore-me", max-age="10" token-type-0: 0x0002 token-key-0: 30820152303d06092a864886f70d01010a3030a00d300b060960864 8016503040202a11a301806092a864886f70d010108300b060960864801650304020 2a2030201300382010f003082010a0282010100cb1aed6b6a95f5b1ce013a4cfcab2 5b94b2e64a23034e4250a7eab43c0df3a8c12993af12b111908d4b471bec31d4b6c9 ad9cdda90612a2ee903523e6de5a224d6b02f09e5c374d0cfe01d8f529c500a78a2f 67908fa682b5a2b430c81eaf1af72d7b5e794fc98a3139276879757ce453b526ef9b f6ceb99979b8423b90f4461a22af37aab0cf5733f7597abe44d31c732db68a181c6c bbe607d8c0e52e0655fd9996dc584eca0be87afbcd78a337d17b1dba9e828bbd81e2 91317144e7ff89f55619709b096cbb9ea474cead264c2073fe49740c01f00e109106 066983d21e5f83f086e2e823c879cd43cef700d2a352a9babd612d03cad02db134b7 e225a5f0203010001 max-age-0: 10 token-challenge-0: 0002000e6973737565722e6578616d706c65208a3e83a33d9 8005d2f30bef419fa6bf4cd5c6005e36b1285bbb4ccd40fa4b383000e6f726967696 e2e6578616d706c65 token-type-1: 0x0001 token-key-1: ebb1fed338310361c08d0c7576969671296e05e99a17d7926dfc28a 53fabd489fac0f82bca86249a668f3a5bfab374c9 max-age-1: 10 token-challenge-1: 0001000e6973737565722e6578616d706c65208a3e83a33d9 8005d2f30bef419fa6bf4cd5c6005e36b1285bbb4ccd40fa4b383000e6f726967696 e2e6578616d706c65 WWW-Authenticate: PrivateToken challenge="AAIADmlzc3Vlci5leGFtcGxlII o-g6M9mABdLzC-9Bn6a_TNXGAF42sShbu0zNQPpLODAA5vcmlnaW4uZXhhbXBsZQ==", token-key="MIIBUjA9BgkqhkiG9w0BAQowMKANMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQCAqEaMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEBCDALBglghkgBZQMEAgKiAwIBMAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyxrta2qV9bHOATpM _KsluUsuZKIwNOQlCn6rQ8DfOowSmTrxKxEZCNS0cb7DHUtsmtnN2pBhKi7pA1I-beWi JNawLwnlw3TQz-Adj1KcUAp4ovZ5CPpoK1orQwyB6vGvcte155T8mKMTknaHl1fORTtS bvm_bOuZl5uEI7kPRGGiKvN6qwz1cz91l6vkTTHHMttooYHGy75gfYwOUuBlX9mZbcWE 7KC-h6-814ozfRex26noKLvYHikTFxROf_ifVWGXCbCWy7nqR0zq0mTCBz_kl0DAHwDh CRBgZpg9IeX4PwhuLoI8h5zUPO9wDSo1Kpur1hLQPK0C2xNLfiJaXwIDAQAB",unknow nChallengeAttribute="ignore-me", max-age="10", PrivateToken challeng e="AAEADmlzc3Vlci5leGFtcGxlIIo-g6M9mABdLzC-9Bn6a_TNXGAF42sShbu0zNQPp LODAA5vcmlnaW4uZXhhbXBsZQ==", token-key="67H-0zgxA2HAjQx1dpaWcSluBem aF9eSbfwopT-r1In6wPgryoYkmmaPOlv6s3TJ",unknownChallengeAttribute="ig nore-me", max-age="10"¶