Add a security consideration not to use VP Token as Access Token.#702
Open
Vanderkast wants to merge 3 commits intoopenid:mainfrom
Open
Add a security consideration not to use VP Token as Access Token.#702Vanderkast wants to merge 3 commits intoopenid:mainfrom
Vanderkast wants to merge 3 commits intoopenid:mainfrom
Conversation
Vanderkast
force-pushed
the
vp-token-as-authz-material-security-consideration
branch
from
d238856 to
458dcac
Compare
ve7jtb
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2026
ve7jtb
left a comment
ve7jtb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would be OK with making this a Must. What is the reason for not doing that.
Other than that this is fine
c2bo
reviewed
Feb 26, 2026
|
|
||
| Clients intending to authenticate the End-User utilizing a claim in a Credential MUST ensure this claim is stable for the End-User as well as locally unique and never reassigned within the Credential Issuer to another End-User. Such a claim MUST also only be used in combination with the Credential Issuer identifier to ensure global uniqueness and to prevent attacks where an attacker obtains the same claim from a different Credential Issuer and tries to impersonate the legitimate End-User. | ||
|
|
||
| Clients intending to access a Resource Server on-behalf of the End-User authenticated via Credential presentation, SHOULD NOT use VP Token as an Access Token. The way to produce Access Token based on Credential presentation is out of scope of this specification. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Clients intending to access a Resource Server on-behalf of the End-User authenticated via Credential presentation, SHOULD NOT use VP Token as an Access Token. The way to produce Access Token based on Credential presentation is out of scope of this specification. | |
| Clients intending to access a Resource Server on-behalf of the End-User authenticated via Credential presentation, MUST NOT use the VP Token as an Access Token. The way to produce Access Tokens based on Credential presentations is out of scope of this specification. |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general, I agree that it should be a MUST.
But it seems to be a breaking change since there is no such requirement in OID4VP 1.0.
Am I missing something?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #701
I would prefer making this security consideration a MUST, but I use SHOULD to avoid introducing a breaking change.