Internet-Draft | sd-cwt | June 2024 |
Prorock, et al. | Expires 19 December 2024 | [Page] |
This document describes a data minimization technique for use with CBOR Web Token (CWT) [RFC8392]. The approach is based on SD-JWT [I-D.ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt], with changes to align with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE). This document updates RFC8392.¶
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 19 December 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶
The terminology used in this document is inherited from RFC8392, RFC9052 and RFC9053.¶
This document defines the following new terms related to concepts originally described in SD-JWT.¶
This document updates RFC8392, enabling the holder of a CWT to disclose or redact special claims marked disclosable by the issuer of a CWT. The approach is modeled after SD-JWT, with changes to align with conventions from CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE). The ability to minimize disclosure of sensitive identity attributes, while demonstrating possession of key material and enabling a verifier to confirm the attributes have been unaltered by the issuer, is an important building block for many digital credential use cases. This specification brings selective disclosure capabilities to CWT, enabling application profiles to impose additional security criteria beyond the minimum security requirements this specification requires. Specific use cases are out of scope for this document. However, feedback has been gathered from a wide range of stakeholders, some of which is reflected in the examples provided in the appendix.¶
Figure 1: High level SD-CWT Issuance and Presentation Flow¶
Issuer Holder Verifier │ │ │ │ ├───┐ │ │ │ │ Key Gen │ │ Request SD-CWT │◄──┘ │ │◄─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ │ ├─────────────────────────────────────►│ Request Nonce │ │ Receive SD-CWT ├─────────────────────────────────────────►│ │ │ │ │ │◄─────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ Receive Nonce │ │ ├───┐ │ │ │ │ Redact Claims │ │ │◄──┘ │ │ │ │ │ ├───┐ │ │ │ │ Demonstrate │ │ │◄──┘ Posession │ │ │ │ │ │ Present SD-CWT │ │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────►│ │ │ │¶
This diagram captures the essential details necessary to issue and present an SD-CWT. The parameters necessary to support these processes can be obtained using transports or protocols which are out of scope for this specification. However the following guidance is generally recommended, regardless of protocol or transport.¶
cnf
claim.¶
An SD-CWT is a CWT containing zero or more Digested Salted Disclosed Claim, and zero or more Salted Disclosed Claims.
The salt acts as a blinding factor, preventing a Verifier of an SD-CWT from learning claims that were not intentionally disclosed by a Holder.
A confirmation claim cnf (8)
MUST be present in the CWT Claimset.
The sd_kbt
MUST NOT be set by the Issuer, and MUST be set by the Holder, and is therefore marked optional in the following normative defintion of SD-CWT in CDDL:¶
digested-salted-disclosed-claim = bstr; salted-disclosed-claim = salted-claim / salted-element salted-claim = [ bstr .size 16, ; 128-bit salt (int / text), ; claim name any ; claim value ] salted-element = [ bstr .size 16, ; 128-bit salt any ; claim value ] sd-cwt-cnf = COSE_Key / Encrypted_COSE_Key / kid sd-cwt = [ protected, unprotected: { ?(sd_claims: TBD1): bstr .cbor [ + salted-disclosed-claim ], ?(sd_kbt: TBD2): bstr .cbor sd-cwt-kbt, }, payload : bstr .cbor { ?(iss: 1) => tstr, ; "https://issuer.example" ?(sub: 2) => tstr, ; "https://device.example" ?(aud: 3) => tstr, ; "https://verifier.example" ?(exp: 4) => int, ; 1883000000 ?(nbf: 5) => int, ; 1683000000 ?(iat: 6) => int, ; 1683000000 &(cnf: 8) => sd-cwt-cnf, ; 1683000000 ?(sd_alg: TBD4) => int, ; -16 for sha-256 ?(redacted_keys: TBD5) => [ ; redacted map keys digested-salted-disclosed-claim ], ; redaction in an example map value that is an array &(example-array-key: -65537) => [ 123, { ; redacted array element &(redacted_element: TBD6) => digested-salted-disclosed-claim }, 789, { ; redacted array element &(redacted_element: TBD6) => digested-salted-disclosed-claim }, ] } signature : bstr, ]¶
As described above, an SD-CWT is a CWT with claims that require confirmation and support selective disclosure. Confirmation mitigates risks associated with bearer token theft. Note that new confirmation methods might be registered and used after this document is published. Selective disclosure enables data minimization. The mechanism through which map keys and array elements are disclosed is different, see SD-CWT Validation for details. CWT Claims which are not explictly marked redactable by the Issuer are mandatory to disclose by the Holder. A detailed privacy and security analysis of all mandatory and optionally disclosed claims SHOULD be performed prior to issuance.¶
Presentations of an SD-CWT by a Holder to a Verifier require the Holder to issue an SD-CWT-KBT.¶
The SD-CWT-KBT is essential to assuring the Verifier:¶
The SD-CWT-KBT prevents an attacker from copying and pasting disclosures, or from adding or removing disclosures without detection.
Confirmation is established according to RFC 8747, using the cnf
claim in the payload of the SD-CWT.
The Digested Salted Disclosed Claim are included in the sd_hash
claim in the payload of the SD-CWT-KBT.¶
The proof of possession associated with the confirmation claim in an SD-CWT is called the SD-CWT-KBT.
As noted above, SD-CWT Issuance, sd_kbt
SHALL be present in every presentation of an SD-CWT by a Holder to a Verifier.¶
digested-sd-claims = bstr ; sd-cwt-kbt = [ protected: bstr .cbor { ?(alg: 1) => int ; CWT algorithm ?(typ: 16) => int ; Explicit type according to draft-ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter }, unprotected: {}, payload : bstr .cbor { &(cnonce: 39) => bstr, ; e0a156bb3f &(aud: 3) => tstr, ; "https://verifier.example" &(iat: 6) => int, ; 1683000000 &(sd_hash: TBD3) => digested-sd-claims, ; f0e4c2f76c589...61b1816e13b ?(exp: 4) => int, ; 1883000000 ?(nbf: 5) => int, ; 1683000000 ; additional CWT claims are allowed. } signature : bstr, ]¶
Note that sd_hash
is the digest using sd_alg
of the sd_claims
which are either Partially or Fully Redacted in the Presented SD-CWT.¶
The cnonce
and audience
are essential to assure the Verifier that the Holder is currently in control of the associated confirmation method, and that the holder intended to disclose the SD-CWT to the Verifier.¶
Note that cnonce
is a bstr
and MUST be treated as opaque to the Holder.¶
The details associated with these protocol parameters are out of scope for this document.¶
The exact order of the following steps MAY be changed, as long as all checks are performed before deciding if an SD-CWT is valid.¶
First the Verifier must validate the SD-CWT as described in {{Section 7.2 of RFC 8392}}.¶
After validation, the SD-CWT-KBT MUST be extracted from the unprotected header, and validated as described in {{Section 7.2 of RFC 8392}}.¶
The Verifier MUST confirm the sd_hash
claim of the validated SD-CWT-KBT matches the hash of the sd_claims
member of the unprotected header, using the hash algorithm obtained from the validated sd_alg
claim of the SD-CWT.¶
Next, the Verifier MUST extract and decode the disclosed claims from the sd_claims
in the unprotected header.¶
The decoded sd_claims
are converted to an intermediate data structure called a Digest To Disclosed Claim Map which is used to transform the Presented Disclosed Claimset, into a Validated Disclosed Claimset.¶
The Verifier MUST compute the hash of each salted-disclosed-claim
, in order to match each disclosed value to each entry of the Presented Disclosed Claimset.¶
One possible concrete representation of the intermediate data structure for the Digest To Disclosed Claim Map could be:¶
{ &(digested-salted-disclosed-claim) => salted-disclosed-claim }¶
The Verifier constructs an empty cbor map called the Validated Disclosed Claimset, and initializes it with all mandatory to disclose claims from the verified Presented Disclosed Claimset.¶
Next the Verifier performs a breadth first or depth first traversal of the Presented Disclosed Claimset, Validated Disclosed Claimset, using the Digest To Disclosed Claim Map to insert claims into the Validated Disclosed Claimset when they appear in the Presented Disclosed Claimset. By performing these steps, the recipient can cryptographically verify the integrity of the protected claims and verify they have not been tampered with. If there remain unused Digest To Disclosed Claim Map at the end of this procedure the SD-CWT MUST be considered invalid, as if the siganture had failed to verify. Otherwise the SD-CWT is considered valid, and the Validated Disclosed Claimset is now a CWT Claimset with no claims marked for redaction. Further validation logic can be applied to the Validated Disclosed Claimset, as it might normally be applied to a validated CWT claimset.¶
This specification defines the CWT claim vct (for verifiable credential type). The vct value MUST be a case-sensitive StringOrURI (see [RFC7519]) value serving as an identifier for the type of the SD-CWT claimset. The vct value MUST be a Collision-Resistant Name as defined in Section 2 of [RFC7515].¶
This claim is defined COSE based verifiable credentials, similar to the JOSE based verifiable credentials described in Section 3.2.2.1.1 of SD-JWT-VC.¶
Profiles built on this specifiation are also encouraged to use more specific media types, as described in draft-ietf-cose-typ-header-parameter.¶
TBD - Provide more examples¶
The following example contains claims needed to demonstrate redaction of key-value pairs and array elements.¶
/ cose-sign1 / 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1 : -35 / ES384 / / typ / 16 : "application/sd+cwt" / kid / : "https://issuer.example/cwt-key3" } >>, / unprotected / { / disclosed claims / / sd_claims / TBD1 : <<[ [ / salt / h'c93c7ff5...72c71e26', / claim / "age_over_18", / value / true ], [ / salt / h'399c641e...2aa18c1e', / claim / "region", / value / "ca" / California / ], [ / salt / h'82501bb4...6c655f32', / value / "4.1.7" ] ] / sd_kbt / TBD2 : << [ / protected / << { / alg / 1 : -35 / ES384 / / typ / 16 : "application/kb+cwt" } >>, / unprotected / {}, / payload / << / cnonce / 39 : h'e0a156bb3f', / aud / 3 : "https://verifier.example", / iat / 6 : 1783000000, / sd_alg / TBD4 : -16 /SHA-256/ / sd_hash / TBD3 : h'c341bb...4a5f3f', / hash of sd_claims / / using sd_alg / >>, / signature / h'1237af2e...6789456' ] >> }, / payload / << / iss / 1 : "https://issuer.example", / sub / 2 : "https://device.example", / exp / 2 : 1883000000, / iat / 2 : 1683000000, / cnf / 8 : { / cose key / 1 : { / alg: ES256 / 3: 35, / kty: EC2 / 1: 2, / crv: P-256 / -1: 1, / x / -2: h'768ed8...8626e', / y / -3: h'6a48cc...fd5d5' } }, / sd_alg / TBD4 : -16, / SHA-256 / / redacted_keys / TBD5 : [ h'abbd...efef', / redacted age_over_18 / h'132d...75e7', / redacted age_over_21 / ], / example array as map value / -65537 : [ 123, { TBD6 : h'45dd...87af' / redacted_element / }, 789, { TBD6 : h'45dd...87af' / redacted_element / }, ], "address": { "country" : "us", / United States / / redacted_keys / TBD5 : [ h'adb70604...03da225b', / redacted region / h'e04bdfc4...4d3d40bc' / redacted post_code / ] } >>, / signature / h'3337af2e...66959614' ])¶
Security considerations from COSE [RFC9052] and CWT [RFC8392] apply to this specificaton.¶
Each salt used to protect disclosed claims MUST be generated independently from the salts of other claims. The salts MUST be generated from a source of entropy that is acceptable to the issuer. Poor choice of salts can lead to brute force attacks that can reveal redacted claims.¶
IANA is requested to add the following entries to the CWT claims registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#header-parameters).¶
The following completed registration template per RFC8152 is provided:¶
Name: sd_claims Label: TBD (requested assignment TBD1) Value Type: bstr Value Registry: (empty) Description: A list of selectively disclosed claims, which were originally redacted, then later disclosed at the discretion of the sender. Reference: RFC XXXX¶
IANA is requested to add the following entries to the CWT claims registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml).¶
The following completed registration template per RFC8392 is provided:¶
Claim Name: sd_alg Claim Description: Hash algorithm used for selective disclosure JWT Claim Name: sd_alg Claim Key: TBD (request assignment TBD4) Claim Value Type(s): integer Change Controller: IETF Specification Document(s): RFC XXXX¶
The following completed registration template per RFC8392 is provided:¶
Claim Name: sd_hash Claim Description: Hash of encoded disclosed claims JWT Claim Name: sd_hash Claim Key: TBD (request assignment TBD3) Claim Value Type(s): bstr Change Controller: IETF Specification Document(s): RFC XXXX¶
The following completed registration template per RFC8392 is provided:¶
Claim Name: redacted_keys Claim Description: Redacted claims in a map. JWT Claim Name: redacted_keys Claim Key: TBD (request assignment TBD5) Claim Value Type(s): array of bstr Change Controller: IETF Specification Document(s): RFC XXXX¶
The following completed registration template per RFC8392 is provided:¶
Claim Name: redacted_element Claim Description: Redacted element of an array JWT Claim Name: redacted_element Claim Key: TBD (request assignment TBD6) Claim Value Type(s): array of bstr Change Controller: IETF Specification Document(s): RFC XXXX¶
This section requests the registration of new media types in https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml.¶
IANA is requested to add the following entry to the media types registry in accordance with RFC6838, RFC4289, and RFC6657.¶
The following completed registration template is provided:¶
IANA is requested to add the following entry to the media types registry in accordance with RFC6838, RFC4289, and RFC6657.¶
The following completed registration template is provided:¶
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section as well as references to {{BCP205}} before AUTH48.¶
This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in {{BCP205}}. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.¶
According to {{BCP205}}, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".¶
Organization: Transmute Industries Inc¶
Name: https://github.com/transmute-industries/sd-cwt¶
Description: An open source implementation of this draft.¶
Maturity: Prototype¶
Coverage: The current version ('main') implements functionality similar to that described in this document, and will be revised, with breaking changes to support the generation of example data to support this specification.¶
License: Apache-2.0¶
Implementation Experience: No interop testing has been done yet. The code works as proof of concept, but is not yet production ready.¶
Contact: Orie Steele (orie@transmute.industries)¶
The authors would like to thank those that have worked on similar items for providing selective disclosure mechanisms in JSON, especially: Brent Zundel, Roy Williams, Tobias Looker, Kristina Yasuda, Daniel Fett, Oliver Terbu, and Michael Jones.¶
SD-CWT is modeled after SD-JWT, with adjustments to align with conventions in CBOR and COSE.¶
The COSE equivalent of application/sd-jwt
is application/sd+cwt
.¶
THe COSE equivalent of application/kb+jwt
is application/kb+cwt
.¶
The COSE equivalent of _sd
is TBD5.¶
The COSE equivalent of ...
is TBD6.¶
The issuance process for SD-CWT is similar to SD-JWT, with the exception that a confirmation claim is REQUIRED.¶
The presentation process for SD-CWT is similar to SD-JWT, with the exception that a Key Binding Token is REQUIRED.¶
The validation process for SD-JWT is similar to SD-JWT, however, JSON Objects are replaced with CBOR Maps which can contain integer keys and CBOR Tags.¶