-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
fix using use_attestation_challenge error parameter code for missing … #132
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ To validate an HTTP request which contains the client attestation headers, the r | |||
2. There is precisely one OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP HTTP request header field, where its value is a single well-formed JWT conforming to the syntax outlined in [](#client-attestation-pop-jwt). | |||
3. The signature of the Client Attestation PoP JWT obtained from the OAuth-Client-Attestation-PoP HTTP header verifies with the Client Instance Key contained in the `cnf` claim of the Client Attestation JWT obtained from the OAuth-Client-Attestation HTTP header. | |||
|
|||
An error parameter according to Section 3 of {{RFC6750}} SHOULD be included to indicate why a request was declined. If the Client Attestation is absent or not using an expected server-provided challenge, the value `use_attestation_challenge` can be used to indicate that an attestation with a server-provided challenge was expected. If the attestation and proof of possession was present but could not be successfully verified, the value `invalid_client_attestation` is used. | |||
An error parameter according to Section 3 of {{RFC6750}} SHOULD be included to indicate why a request was declined. If the Client Attestation is not using an expected server-provided challenge, the value `use_attestation_challenge` can be used to indicate that an attestation with a server-provided challenge was expected. If the attestation and proof of possession was present but could not be successfully verified, the value `invalid_client_attestation` is used. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An error parameter according to Section 3 of {{RFC6750}} SHOULD be included to indicate why a request was declined. If the Client Attestation is not using an expected server-provided challenge, the value `use_attestation_challenge` can be used to indicate that an attestation with a server-provided challenge was expected. If the attestation and proof of possession was present but could not be successfully verified, the value `invalid_client_attestation` is used. | |
When validation errors are encountered the following error codes are defined for use in either Authorization Server authenticated endpoint error responses or Resource Server error responses. | |
- `use_attestation_challenge` MUST be used when the Client Attestation PoP JWT is not using an expected server-provided challenge. When used this error code MUST be accompanied by the `OAuth-Client-Attestation-Challenge` HTTP header field parameter (as described in [](#challenge-header)). | |
- `invalid_client_attestation` MAY be used if the attestation or its proof of possession could not be successfully verified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And change
## Providing Challenges on Previous Responses
to
## Providing Challenges on Previous Responses {#challenge-header}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am making this suggestion because a) this section is referenced from Token and PAR endpoint sections and linking 6750 error handling is invalid.
Making use_attestation_challenge
a MUST use when challenge validations fail just makes sense and having to have it accompanied by OAuth-Client-Attestation-Challenge
as well. I don't mind defining invalid_client_attestation
but only as a MAY because on the AS authenticated endpoints the convention is already invalid_client
for client authentication failures.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've opened #135 as an alternative to this PR with all suggestions applied.
solves #131