[Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Client credential lifecycle mgmt for Native Apps
t.lodderstedt at telekom.de
Wed Apr 22 15:45:22 UTC 2015
we had an intensive discussion in the call and came to the following consensus:
Our working assumption is option 2.
The software statement is issued during development time whereas the client obtains the actual client_id/client_secret (for a particular MNO) at runtime using dynamic client registration (typically when it is about to interact with a particular MNO for the first time).
In worst case, this approach could result in scalability problems of the OP if it has to manage billions of client credentials. We will therefore add implementation guidelines to the spec, which describe or refer to ways to implement client credential management in a stateless way (e.g. use software statement as client id or encode client data within the client_id/secret).
@Bjorn: Please add this to the draft. Thanks.
We also discussed the option to use software statements “by reference”. In this case, the client would just refer to its statement via an URL and the registration endpoint would obtain the statement from the issuers directly. This has two advantages:
- The statement can be changed to reflect changes regarding the configuration/authorization of the client (w/o the need to rollout a new client version)
- The payload of registration requests is smaller
On the other hand, impact on availability requirements and security need to be investigated.
Von: philippe.clement at orange.com [mailto:philippe.clement at orange.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. April 2015 18:37
An: Torsten Lodderstedt; GONZALO FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ; Lodderstedt, Torsten; openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net
Betreff: RE: [Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Client credential lifecycle mgmt for Native Apps
I’m pretty in line with option 2.
However, I must admit that having to manage hundreds of thousands of application credentials (multiplied by the number of partners) could be a disadvantage for some OP, and not for other OP.
Do we have really to choose between the 2 options? or said in another way, can we imagine that some OP could provide option 1, and others option 2 ? More than this, we can imagine that some OP would provide the 2 options, according the business and partner context. In any case, option 2 reinforces security and I like it.
My 2 cts
De : Openid-specs-mobile-profile [mailto:openid-specs-mobile-profile-bounces at lists.openid.net] De la part de Torsten Lodderstedt
Envoyé : lundi 13 avril 2015 11:30
À : GONZALO FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ; Lodderstedt, Torsten; openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net>
Objet : Re: [Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Client credential lifecycle mgmt for Native Apps
interesting comment. So far I assumed the service provider would need to sign Terms of Service for every MNO and the MNOs the SP had signed up for would be carried in the software statement.
Mapping this to your use case would mean to issue and roll out a new software statement - so no benefit with respect to this use case.
Am 13. April 2015 11:03:03 MESZ, schrieb GONZALO FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ <gonzalo.fernandezrodriguez at telefonica.com<mailto:gonzalo.fernandezrodriguez at telefonica.com>>:
I don't have a clear preference on which is the best option, however I see another "pro" in the second one, I think it offers a smooth integration in case of a new operator is on boarded in Mobile Connect because is transparent for the Service Providers. If a user that belongs to the new operator is going to be authenticated, once the operator is discovered, the Service Provider would only have to send a registration request without needing to be aware if the operator is new or not in Mobile Connect. I don't know how could manage this scenario using the first approach.
De: <Lodderstedt>, Torsten <t.lodderstedt at telekom.de<mailto:t.lodderstedt at telekom.de>>
Fecha: viernes 10 de abril de 2015 18:39
Para: "openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net>" <openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net>>
Asunto: [Openid-specs-mobile-profile] Client credential lifecycle mgmt for Native Apps
during the working session at IIW it became apparent that we don’t have a consent on the way client credentials are managed for native apps in the context of the mobile profile. As this an important design consideration, which will drive not only the registration spec but also considerations with respect to signature algorithms and so on, I would like to come to a consensus on that topic soon.
There are basically two options:
1) All instances of a native app (== the software package) share the same identity. This typically means, the app is registered as a so-called public client with the AS/OP and only gets issued a client_id. In the context of the mobile profile, I would assume the developer registers with a developer portal and gets issued distinct client_ids per MNO (a pair of issuer and client_id). At runtime, the app can decide based on the outcome of the discovery process which client_id to use for the respective MNO.
2) Every instance of a native app on a device is registered with the MNO. This would typically happen when the user uses the login with a certain MNO on this device for the first time. So the app first would discover the MNO and determine whether it already is in possession of client credentials for this particular MNO (based on its Issuer). If not, it would send a registration request to the MNO.
I see the following pros and cons:
Option (1) is established practice (except the fact an app managing several client ids for different OPs). So developers know how to work that way. Software statements could be used to automate the way client ids are obtain in the deployment process. But there are other ways as well.
Option (2) is a new approach. It has the advantage to provide every instance with a distinct credential, which allows to recognize and authenticate this instance later on. It could be used to prevent authz code theft on the device, something we already have SPOP for (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-10 - sorry John, forgot the new acronym). Do you see other advantages? On the other hand, this option would require the OP to implement credential management for potentially a lot of client instances. This will be a challenge with respect to state management on the OP’s side.
Please comment on this topic.
Thanks in Advance,
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG
Products & Innovation
Dr.-Ing. Torsten Lodderstedt
Head of Development
T-Online Allee 1, 64295 Darmstadt
+49 6151 680 7038 (Tel.)
E-Mail: t.lodderstedt at telekom.de<mailto:t.lodderstedt at telekom.de>
ERLEBEN, WAS VERBINDET.
Die gesetzlichen Pflichtangaben finden Sie unter:
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
Openid-specs-mobile-profile mailing list
Openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-mobile-profile at lists.openid.net>
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-mobile-profile