[Openid-specs-ab] amr vs acr

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 09:23:30 UTC 2013


Yes, that's the idea. OP will choose an acr (probably the lowest) value
that fits one of the acr values that the RP specified.
The reason that I can think / remember of are:

1. RP will probably not understand the values that it did not ask for.
2. It is possible that returning multiple acr may expose the OP to
unnecessary liability risk.
3. Returning many values are leaking information.

My caution against amr is that the values are not well defined - it has no
repository. It can be very generic like 'otp' whose security
characteristics varies widely, but RPs are prone to make a mistake in its
risk evaluation, etc. For amr to be useful, it has to have common
understanding on the security characteristics of each values and the trust
framework behind it. Once that is defined, then a sophisticated RP can use
it as an input to their own risk evaluation of the transaction, which is
good. But at the same time, a simple RP may go awfully wrong by using the
value without deeply thinking about its meaning.


2013/6/3 Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>

> **
>
> Hi Nat,
>
> we traditionally indicate all authentication classes fullfilled by a
> particular session/login transaction to our RPs, no matter whether the RP
> requested a certain class or not. We would like to keep it that way.
>
> Having said that, I would like to understand how you (and the WG) envision
> the usage of acrs. Does an acr response only make sense, if the RP
> explicitely requested and or more acrs? So is the acr only used to confirm
> the fullfillment of a RP's requirement to a certain login transaction?
>
> regards,
> Torsten.
>
> Am 03.06.2013 01:04, schrieb Nat Sakimura:
>
> Torsten,
>
> What is your use case for multi valued acr response?
>
> FYI, a client can 'request' multiple acr values.
> The server, if it can fulfill, picks one and responds.
>
>
> 2013/6/1 Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
>
>>  Hi Mike,
>>
>> can you still remember the arguments? I couldn't find a note about this
>> discussion in the respective minutes (
>> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/Week-of-Mon-20130304/003231.html
>> ).
>>
>> regards,
>> Torsten.
>>
>> Am 01.06.2013 um 15:25 schrieb Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>:
>>
>>    Having a multi-valued “acr” was what the issue originally proposed.
>> John, Nat, and I think Tony all argued in the March 4th call that that
>> was the wrong thing to do.  They convinced me that they’re right.
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:torsten at lodderstedt.net<torsten at lodderstedt.net>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 11:26 PM
>> *To:* Mike Jones
>> *Cc:* John Bradley; OpenId Connect List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] amr vs acr
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> seems no one is really comfortable with the current design. Why not drop
>> amr and make acr a multi-value?
>>
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Torsten.
>>
>>
>> Am 01.06.2013 um 03:55 schrieb Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>:
>>
>>  That aligns with my thinking as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>]
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 6:54 PM
>> *To:* Mike Jones
>> *Cc:* Nat Sakimura; OpenId Connect List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] amr vs acr
>>
>>
>>
>> amr is something people think they want, but it winds up being too
>> inflexible    for any real use. Mostly it is token venders that push it.
>>  Once an IdP starts saying the user was authenticated wit brand x token or
>> card it is too difficult to keep a federation in sync unless it is quite
>> small.
>>
>>
>>
>> act is a good level of abstraction and can cover all the real use cases I
>> know of.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand amr will let people learn the mistakes of SAML over
>> again.
>>
>> It is not the end of the world to have it as an option.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On 2013-05-31, at 10:19 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  I disagree with the MUSTs.  We already have language in place saying
>> that if claims aren’t understood, they should be ignored, so there’s no
>> actual problem.  (Were there a problem, it would apply to “acr” as well.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I could see going as far as saying, in both “acr” and “amr” that “The
>> definition of particular values to be used in the acr/amr Claim is
>> beyond the scope of this specification.  Parties using this claim will need
>> to agree on the meanings of the values used for it to be useful to them.”
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                                 -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Nat Sakimura [mailto:sakimura at gmail.com <sakimura at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 6:06 PM
>> *To:* Mike Jones
>> *Cc:* Torsten Lodderstedt; OpenId Connect List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] amr vs acr
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, that's the call in the morning of the JICS that you did in the 11th
>> floor of NII.
>>
>> I came in late, sitting at a different table that hearing to the call was
>> a bit hard but did not mind as I was very much distracted by various things
>> to be dealt with JICS.
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember talking about changing 1,2,3,4 as it became non-compliant to
>> the RFC, as well as arguing against conflating authentication method with
>> the authentication class, on the basis that authentication method by itself
>> is useless and harmful, as in the previous mail. I mistakingly thought that
>> I have killed the idea of amr, which apparently was not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, the discussion is not recorded in
>> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/Week-of-Mon-20130304/003231.html.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably, we should add some warning text to amr then. At the end of the
>> definition of arm, how about adding the following?
>>
>>
>>
>> When using amr, the RP and OP MUST define the common context including
>> the meaning, security characteristics, and the compliance requirement for
>> using it and the RP MUST be able to evaluate the values according to the
>> defined context.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would mitigate my worries.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/1 Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
>>
>> This was one of the two open issues discussed on the 4-Mar-13 working
>> group call.  You were on that call, according to the minutes.  We had a
>> fairly extensive discussion about the meaning of “acr” and the right way to
>> return information about authentication methods used.  Originally the
>> request was to allow multi-valued “acr” values.  There was a use case where
>> an implementation wanted to communicate the actual methods used such as
>> “password”, “OTP”, “code in text message”, etc. and I’d originally
>> advocated for letting “acr” be multi-valued, just like PAPE did.  John,
>> Tony, and I think you convinced us that that conflating classes with
>> methods would create more problems than it would solve and that it was
>> better to define an optional claim for returning an array of methods used,
>> when needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> On that call we also deleted the LoA values “1”, “2”, “3”, and “4” since
>> as part of that discussion, it came up that they are prohibited by RFC
>> 6711.  Instead, we replaced the example values used with real values from
>> InCommon - urn:mace:incommon:iap:bronze and urn:mace:incommon:iap:silver.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think that we should require “acr” when “amr” is used, because
>> there may not be a class, even though there are methods.  It depends upon
>> the business context in which the parties are communicating.  Like “acr”,
>> “amr” is only useful when the values are understood by both parties.
>> Nonetheless, it’s better to have a standard claim for these methods than to
>> have everyone make up a different one.  This kind of information is used in
>> practice, in some contexts.
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                                 -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
>> openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Nat Sakimura
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 4:53 PM
>> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt
>> *Cc:* OpenId Connect List
>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] amr vs acr
>>
>>
>>
>> s/ where acr gives more context to the values of acr. / where acr gives
>> more context to the values of amr. /
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/1 Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>>
>> I suppose you mean amr, not acm.
>>
>>
>>
>> I actually was not aware of amr till now. It seems it was a fairly quick
>> decision made between March 4 and 6.
>>
>> See
>> https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/789/make-acr-claim-values-be-arrays-of-acr
>>
>> At the time, I was so busy managing JICS 2013, so it went unnoticed for
>> me.
>>
>> I also searched through the list archive, but I cannot find the topic in
>> it. There is no record of the decision on the call notes either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike, could you point us to the record how the WG decision was reached?
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently, amr is the list of authentication methods, while acr is the
>> indicator of the identity proofing and authentication quality.
>>
>> i.e., amr is just the list of such things like "password", "otp", etc.
>> while acr is "InCommons Silver", "ISO29115 LoA 3", etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I do not see much value in amr since it does not indicate any
>> quality information. It may even be harmful when used without context in
>> the sense that it may create sense of false security to the relying
>> parties. For example, "otp" by itself does not mean it is secure. An OTP
>> system with badly managed seed will generate a predictable sequence of "one
>> time passwords", which is not secure at all. It would only be meaningful
>> when there is an assurance that the system is properly managed. In this
>> respect, amr may be meaningful as an auxiliary information only when it is
>> used with acr, where acr gives more context to the values of acr.
>>
>>
>>
>> I might want to require acr if amr is used, or drop amr, but that is only
>> my personal opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/1 Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten at lodderstedt.net>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> could someone please describe me the difference between the id token
>> members acr and acm? From my understanding, they are just the same. I'm
>> also interested to learn why the authorization request allows to specify
>> multiple acrs but does not support to specify any authentication method
>> (via acm). Additionally, why is there no way to indicate more than one acr
>> in the id token?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Torsten.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130603/f327680f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list