Internet-Draft Identity Chaining across Trust Domains November 2023
Schwenkschuster, et al. Expires 2 June 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
oauth
Internet-Draft:
draft-oauth-identity-chaining-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Authors:
A. Schwenkschuster
Microsoft
P. Kasselmann
Microsoft
K. Burgin
MITRE
M. Jenkins
NSA-CCSS
B. Campbell
Ping Identity

Identity Chaining across Trust Domains

Abstract

This specification defines a mechanism to preserve identity and call chain information across trust domains that use the OAuth 2.0 Framework.

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 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 2 June 2024.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Applications often require access to resources that are distributed across multiple trust domains where each trust domain has its own OAuth 2.0 authorization server. As a result, developers are often faced with the situation that a protected resource is located in a different trust domain and thus protected by a different authorization server. A request may transverse multiple resource servers in multiple trust domains before completing. All protected resources involved in such a request need to know on whose behalf the request was originally initiated (i.e. the user), what authorization was granted and optionally which other resource servers were called prior to making an authorization decision. This information needs to be preserved, even when a request crosses one or more trust domains. Preserving this information is referred to as identity chaining. This document defines a mechanism for preserving identity chaining information across trust domains using a combination of OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange [RFC8693] and Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [RFC7521].

1.1. Requirements Language

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.

2. Identity Chaining Across Trust Domains

This specification describes a combination of OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange [RFC8693] and Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [RFC7521] to achieve identity chaining across trust domains.

A client in trust domain A that needs to access a resource server in trust domain B requests an authorization grant from the authorization server for trust domain A via a token exchange. The client in trust domain A presents the received grant as an assertion to the authorization server in domain B in order to obtain an access token for the protected resource in domain B. The client in domain A may be a resource server, or it may be the authorization server itself.

2.1. Use Case

This section describes two use cases addressed in this specification.

2.1.1. Preserve User Context across Multi-cloud, Multi-Hybrid environments

A user attempts to access a service that is implemented as a number of on-premise and cloud-based microservices. Both the on-premise and cloud-based services are segmented by multiple trust boundaries that span one or more on-premise or cloud service environments. Every microservice can apply an authorization policy that takes the context of the original user, as well as intermediary microservices into account, irrespective of where the microservices are running and even when a microservice in one trust domain calls another service in another trust domain.

2.1.2. API Security Use Case

A home devices company provides a “Camera API” to enable access to home cameras. Partner companies use this Camera API to integrate the camera feeds into their security dashboards. Using OAuth between the partner and the Camera API, a partner can request the feed from a home camera to be displayed in their dashboard. The user has an account with the camera provider. The user may be logged in to view the partner provided dashboard, or they may authorize emergency access to the camera. The home devices company must be able to independently verify that the request originated and was authorized by a user who is authorized to view the feed of the requested home camera.

2.2. Overview

The Identity Chaining flow outlined below describes how a combination of OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange [RFC8693] and Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants [RFC7521] are used to address the use cases identified. The appendix include two additional examples that describe how this flow is used. In one example, the resource server acts as the client and in the other, the authorization server acts as the client.

+-------------+                            +-------------+ +---------+
|Authorization|         +--------+         |Authorization| |Protected|
|Server       |         |Client  |         |Server       | |Resource |
|Domain A     |         |Domain A|         |Domain B     | |Domain B |
+-------------+         +--------+         +-------------+ +---------+
       |                    |                     |             |
       |                    |----+                |             |
       |                    |    | (A) discover   |             |
       |                    |<---+ Authorization  |             |
       |                    |      Server         |             |
       |                    |      Domain B       |             |
       |                    |                     |             |
       |                    |                     |             |
       | (B) exchange token |                     |             |
       |   [RFC 8693]       |                     |             |
       |<-------------------|                     |             |
       |                    |                     |             |
       | (C) <authorization |                     |             |
       |       grant>       |                     |             |
       | - - - - - - - - - >|                     |             |
       |                    |                     |             |
       |                    | (D) present         |             |
       |                    | authorization grant |             |
       |                    | [RFC 7521]          |             |
       |                    | ------------------->|             |
       |                    |                     |             |
       |                    | (E) <access token>  |             |
       |                    | <- - - - - - - - - -|             |
       |                    |                     |             |
       |                    |               (F) access          |
       |                    | --------------------------------->|
       |                    |                     |             |
       |                    |                     |             |
Figure 1: Identity Chaining Flow

The flow illustrated in Figure 1 shows the steps the client in trust Domain A needs to perform to access a protected resource in trust domain B. In this flow, the client has a way to discover the authorization server in Domain B and a trust relationship exists between Domain A and Domain B (e.g., through federation). It includes the following:

  • (A) The client of Domain A needs to discover the authorization server of Domain B. See Authorization Server Discovery (Section 2.3).

  • (B) The client exchanges its token at the authorization server of its own domain (Domain A) for an authorization grant that can be used at the authorization server in Domain B. See Token Exchange (Section 2.4).

  • (C) The authorization server of Domain A processes the request and returns an authorization grant that the client can use with the authorization server of Domain B. This requires a trust relationship between Domain A and Domain B (e.g., through federation).

  • (D) The client presents the authorization grant to the authorization server of Domain B. See Authorization Grant (Section 2.5).

  • (E) Authorization server of Domain B validates the authorization grant and returns an access token.

  • (F) The client now possesses an access token to access the protected resource in Domain B.

2.3. Authorization Server Discovery

This specification does not define authorization server discovery. A client MAY maintain a static mapping or use other means to identify the authorization server. The authorization_servers property in [I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-metadata] MAY be used.

2.4. Token Exchange

The client performs token exchange as defined in [RFC8693] with the authorization server for its own domain (e.g., Domain A) in order to obtain an authorization grant that can be used with the authorization server of a different domain (e.g., Domain B) as specified in section 1.3 of [RFC6749].

2.4.1. Request

The parameters described in section 2.1 of [RFC8693] apply here with the following restrictions:

requested_token_type

OPTIONAL according to [RFC8693]. In the context of this specification this parameter SHOULD NOT be used. See Authorization grant type (Section 2.4.3).

scope

OPTIONAL. Additional scopes to indicate scopes included in returned authorization grant. See Claims transcription (Section 2.6).

resource

REQUIRED if audience is not set. URI of authorization server of targeting domain (domain B).

audience

REQUIRED if resource is not set. Well known/logical name of authorization server of targeting domain (domain B).

2.4.2. Processing rules

  • If the request itself is not valid or if the given resource or audience are unknown, or are unacceptable based on policy, the authorization server MUST deny the request.

  • The authorization server MAY add, remove or change claims. See Claims transcription (Section 2.6).

2.4.3. Authorization grant type

The authorization grant format and content is part of a contract between the authorization servers. To achieve a maintainable and flexible systems clients SHOULD NOT request a specific requested_token_type during the token exchange and SHOULD NOT require a certain format or parse the authorization grant (e.g., if the token is encoded as a JWT). The issued_token_type parameter in the response indicates the type and SHOULD be passed into the assertion request. This allows flexibility for authorization servers to change format and content.

Authorization servers MAY use an existing grant type such us urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer to indicate a JWT or urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer to indicate SAML. Other grant types MAY be used to indicate other formats.

2.4.4. Response

All of section 2.2 of [RFC8693] applies. In addition, the following applies to implementations that conform to this specification.

  • The "aud" claim in the returned authorization grant MUST identify the requested authorization server. This corresponds with RFC 7523 Section 3, Point 3 and is there to reduce missuse and to prevent clients from presenting access tokens as an authorization grant to an authorization server in a different domain.

  • The "aud" claim included in the returned authorization grant MAY identify multiple authorization servers, provided that trust relationships exist with them (e.g. through federation). It is RECOMMENDED that the "aud" claim is restricted to a single authorization server to prevent an authorization server in one domain from presenting the client's authorization grant to an authorization server in a different trust domain. For example, this will prevent the authorization server in Domain B from presenting the authorization grant it received from the client in Domain A to the authorization server for Domain C.

2.4.5. Example

The example belows shows the message invoked by the client in trust domain A to perform token exchange with the authorization server in domain A (https://as.a.org/auth) to receive an authorization grant for the authorization server in trust domain B (https://as.b.org/auth).

POST /auth/token HTTP/1.1
Host: as.a.org
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Atoken-exchange
&resource=https%3A%2F%2Fas.b.org%2Fauth
&subject_token=ey...
&subject_token_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Atoken-type%3Aaccess_token
Figure 2: Token exchange request 
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store

{
  "access_token":"eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJo
  dHRwczovL2FzLmEub3JnL2F1dGgiLCJleHAiOjE2OTUyODQwOTIsImlhdCI6MTY5N
  TI4NzY5Miwic3ViIjoiam9obl9kb2VAYS5vcmciLCJhdWQiOiJodHRwczovL2FzLm
  Iub3JnL2F1dGgifQ.304Pv9e6PnzcQPzz14z-k2ZyZvDtP5WIRkYPScwdHW4",
  "token_type":"Bearer",
  "expires_in":60
}
Figure 3: Token exchange response

2.5. Authorization Grant

The client presents the authorization grant it received from the authorization server in its own domain and presents it to the authorization server in the domain of the resources server it wants to access as defined in the "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" [RFC7521].

2.5.1. Request

If the authorization grant is in the form of a JWT bearer token, the client SHOULD use the "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" as defined in [RFC7523]. Otherwise, the client SHOULD request an access token using the "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants" as defined in [RFC7521] (Section 4.1). For the purpose of this specification the following descriptions apply:

grant_type

REQUIRED. In context of this specification clients SHOULD use the type identifier returned by the token exchange (issued_token_type response). See authorization grant type (Section 2.4.3) for more details.

assertion

REQUIRED. Authorization grant returned by the token exchange (access_token response).

scope

OPTIONAL.

The client MAY indicate the audience it is trying to access through the scope parameter or the resource parameter defined in [RFC8707].

2.5.2. Processing rules

All of Section 5.2 [RFC7521] applies, in addition to the following processing rules:

  • The "aud" claim MUST identify the Authorization Server as a valid intended audience of the assertion using either the token endpoint as described Section 3 [RFC7523] or the issuer identifier as defined in Section 2 of [RFC8414].

  • The authorization server SHOULD deny the request if it is not able to identify the subject.

  • Due to policy the request MAY be denied (for instance if the federation from domain A is not allowed).

2.5.3. Response

The authorization server responds with an access token as described in section 5.1 of [RFC6749].

2.5.4. Example

The example belows shows how the client in trust domain A presents an authorization grant to the authorization server in trust domain B (https://as.b.org/auth) to receive an access token for a protected resource in trust domain B.

POST /auth/token HTTP/1.1
Host: as.b.org
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer
&assertion=ey...
Figure 4: Assertion request 
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store

{
  "access_token":"eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJo
  dHRwczovL2FzLmIub3JnL2F1dGgiLCJleHAiOjE2OTUyODQwOTIsImlhdCI6MTY5N
  TI4NzY5Miwic3ViIjoiam9obi5kb2UuMTIzIiwiYXVkIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9iLm9yZy
  9hcGkifQ.CJBuv6sr6Snj9in5T8f7g1uB61Ql8btJiR0IXv5oeJg",
  "token_type":"Bearer",
  "expires_in":60
}
Figure 5: Assertion response

2.6. Claims transcription

Authorization servers MAY transcribe claims when either producing authorization grants in the token exchange flow or access tokens in the assertion flow.

  • Transcribing the subject identifier: Subject identifier can differ between the parties involved. For instance: A user is known at domain A by "johndoe@a.org" but in domain B by "doe.john@b.org". The mapping from one identifier to the other MAY either happen in the token exchange step and the updated identifer is reflected in returned authorization grant or in the assertion step where the updated identifier would be reflected in the access token. To support this both authorization servers MAY add, change or remove claims as described above.

  • Selective disclosure: Authorization servers MAY remove or hide certain claims due to privacy requirements or reduced trust towards the targeting trust domain. To hide and enclose claims [I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt] MAY be used.

  • Controlling scope: Clients MAY use the scope parameter to control transcribed claims (e.g. downscoping). Authorization Servers SHOULD verify that requested scopes are not higher priveleged than the scopes of presented subject_token.

  • Including authorization grant claims: The authorization server performing the assertion flow MAY leverage claims from the presented authorization grant and include them in the returned access token. The populated claims SHOULD be namespaced or validated to prevent the injection of invalid claims.

The representation of transcribed claims and their format is not defined in this specification.

3. IANA Considerations

To be added.

4. Security Considerations

4.1. Client Authentication

Authorization Servers SHOULD follow the OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics] for client authentication.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[RFC6749]
Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
[RFC8693]
Jones, M., Nadalin, A., Campbell, B., Ed., Bradley, J., and C. Mortimore, "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange", RFC 8693, DOI 10.17487/RFC8693, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8693>.
[RFC7521]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland, "Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", RFC 7521, DOI 10.17487/RFC7521, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7521>.
[RFC7523]
Jones, M., Campbell, B., and C. Mortimore, "JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants", RFC 7523, DOI 10.17487/RFC7523, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7523>.
[RFC8707]
Campbell, B., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0", RFC 8707, DOI 10.17487/RFC8707, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8707>.
[RFC8414]
Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8414>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

5.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt]
Fett, D., Yasuda, K., and B. Campbell, "Selective Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-06, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-06>.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
Lodderstedt, T., Bradley, J., Labunets, A., and D. Fett, "OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-24>.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-metadata]
Jones, M. B., Hunt, P., and A. Parecki, "OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-01>.

Appendix A. Examples

This section contains two examples, demonstrating how this specification may be used in different environments with specific requirements. The first example shows the resource server acting as the client and the second example shows the authorization server acting as the client.

A.1. Resource server acting as client

Resources servers may act as clients if the following is true:

  • Authorization Server B is reachable by the resource server by network and is able to perform the appropiate client authentication (if required).

  • The resource server has the ability to determine the authorization server of the protected resource outside its trust domain.

The flow would look like this:

+-------------+          +--------+         +-------------+ +---------+
|Authorization|          |Resource|         |Authorization| |Protected|
|Server       |          |Server  |         |Server       | |Resource |
|Domain A     |          |Domain A|         |Domain B     | |Domain B |
+-------------+          +--------+         +-------------+ +---------+
       |                     |                     |             |
       |                     |   (A) request protected resource  |
       |                     |      metadata                     |
       |                     | --------------------------------->|
       |                     | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
       |                     |                     |             |
       | (C) exchange token  |                     |             |
       |   [RFC 8693]        |                     |             |
       |<--------------------|                     |             |
       |                     |                     |             |
       | (D) <authorization  |                     |             |
       |        grant>       |                     |             |
       | - - - - - - - - - ->|                     |             |
       |                     |                     |             |
       |                     | (E) present         |             |
       |                     |  authorization      |             |
       |                     |  grant [RFC 7521]   |             |
       |                     | ------------------->|             |
       |                     |                     |             |
       |                     | (F) <access token>  |             |
       |                     | <- - - - - - - - - -|             |
       |                     |                     |             |
       |                     |               (G) access          |
       |                     | --------------------------------->|
       |                     |                     |             |
       |                     |                     |             |
Figure 6: Resource server acting as client

The flow contains the following steps:

(A) The resource server of domain A needs to access protected resource in Domain B. It requires an access token to do so which it does not possess. In this example [I-D.ietf-oauth-resource-metadata] is used to receive information about the authorization server which protects the resource in domain B. This step MAY be skipped if discovery is not needed and other means of discovery MAY be used. The protected resource returns its metadata along with the authorization server information.

(B) Now, after the resource server has identified the authorization server for Domain B, the resource server requests an authorization grant for the authorization server in Domain B from its own authorization server (Domain A). This happens via the token exchange protocol.

(C) If successful, the authorization server returns an authorization grant to the resource server.

(D) The resource server presents the authorization grant to the authorization server of Domain B.

(E) The authorization server of Domain B uses claims from the authorization grant to identify the user and its access. If access is granted an access token is returned.

(F) The resource server uses the access token to access the protected resource at Domain B.

A.2. Authorization server acting as client

Authorization servers may act as clients too. This can be necessary because of following reasons:

  • Resource servers may not have knowledge of authorization servers.

  • Resource servers may not have network access to other authorization servers.

  • A strict access control on resources outside the trust domain is required and enforced by authorization servers.

  • Authorization servers require client authentication. Managing clients for resource servers outside of the trust domain is not intended.

The flow when authorization servers act as client would look like this:

+--------+          +-------------+         +-------------+ +---------+
|Resource|          |Authorization|         |Authorization| |Protected|
|Server  |          |Server       |         |Server       | |Resource |
|Domain A|          |Domain A     |         |Domain B     | |Domain B |
+--------+          +-------------+         +-------------+ +---------+
    |                      |                       |             |
    | (A) request or       |                       |             |
    | exchange token for   |                       |             |
    | protected resource   |                       |             |
    | in domain B.         |                       |             |
    | -------------------->|                       |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      |----+                  |             |
    |                      |    | (B) determine    |             |
    |                      |<---+ authorization    |             |
    |                      |      server B         |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      |----+                  |             |
    |                      |    | (C) issue        |             |
    |                      |<---+ authorization    |             |
    |                      |      grant ("internal |             |
    |                      |      token exchange") |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      | (D) present           |             |
    |                      |   authorization grant |             |
    |                      |   [RFC 7521]          |             |
    |                      | --------------------->|             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      | (E) <access token>    |             |
    |                      | <- - - - - - - - - - -|             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |  (F) <access token>  |                       |             |
    | <- - - - - - - - - - |                       |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      |           (G) access  |             |
    | ---------------------------------------------------------->|
    |                      |                       |             |
    |                      |                       |             |
Figure 7: Authorization server acting as client

The flow contains the following steps:

(A) The resource server of Domain A requests a token for the protected resource in Domain B from the authorization server in Domain A. This specification does not cover this step. A profile of Token Exchange [RFC8693] may be used.

(B) The authorization server (of Domain A) determines the authorization server (of Domain B). This could have been passed by the client, is statically maintained or dynamically resolved.

(C) Once the authorization server is determined an authorization grant is issued internally. This reflects to Token exchange (Section 2.4) of this specification and can be seen as an "internal token exchange".

(D) The issued authorization grant is presented to the authorization server of Domain B. This presentation happens between the authorization servers and authorization server A may be required to perform client authentication while doing so.

(E) The authorization server of Domain B returns an access token for access to the protected resource in Domain B to the authorization server in Domain A.

(F) The authorization server of Domain A returns that access token to the resource server in Domain A.

(G) The resource server in Domain A uses the received access token to access the protected resource in Domain B.

Acknowledgements

Joe Jubinski, Justin Richer

Contributors

Atul Tulshibagwale
SGNL
George Fletcher
Capital One
Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
EY
Hannes Tschofenig

Authors' Addresses

Arndt Schwenkschuster
Microsoft
Pieter Kasselmann
Microsoft
Kelley Burgin
MITRE
Mike Jenkins
NSA-CCSS
Brian Campbell
Ping Identity