[Openid-specs-fapi] HTTP Signing
bcampbell at pingidentity.com
Fri Jan 8 22:33:55 UTC 2021
It's definitely more than just the claims as it uses and extends DPoP
including the HTTP header that carries the DPoP JWT proof.
A slight modification to part of Dave's description might be helpful:
*This specification is an extension to DPoP that supports the following 1.
Inclusion of a digest of the HTTP body as a claim in the DPoP proof 2.
Using DPoP proofs in HTTP responses 3. Allowing a signed HTTP response to
be cryptographically linked to a signed HTTP request*
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:17 PM Anders Rundgren via Openid-specs-fapi <
openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> I would like the draft to clearly state that it only uses DPoP claims
> rather than the DPoP protocol.
> Or is this assertion is wrong? If so, I'm obviously confused :(
> On 2021-01-06 16:15, Dave Tonge via Openid-specs-fapi wrote:
> > Dear WG
> > The FAPI2 Advanced spec requires a mechanism for HTTP signing.
> > Brian and I have worked on the following spec based on DPoP that could
> be used to enable this:
> > There has been some discussion in this issue <
> > I'll provide some more info below, but my ask of the WG is:
> > *Should the FAPI WG adopt this document as a WG draft and start working
> on it?*
> > I would be grateful for any feedback. If there is not support to work on
> such a spec within the WG then we can leave it and potentially in FAPI2
> advanced require http signing but without specifying the method to use.
> > ---
> > Here is an overview of the spec from the intro:
> > /The OAuth working group at the IETF has defined the DPOP standard which
> "enables a client to demonstrate proof-of-possession of a public/private
> key pair by including a DPoP header in an HTTP request". DPOP specifies a
> way for a client to sign a proof which contains claims for the HTTP method
> and URI. The specification allows DPoP proofs to be extended to protect
> additional HTTP data.
> > This specification is an extension to DPoP that supports the following
> > 1. Signing a digest of the HTTP body data
> > 2. Using DPoP proofs in HTTP responses
> > 3. Allowing a signed HTTP response to be cryptographically linked to a
> signed HTTP request
> > The aim of this specification is to provide a simple, interoperable
> method of signing HTTP requests and responses. By utilizing DPOP (which
> itself utilizes the JOSE suite of standards) and DIGEST there is no need
> for custom canonicalization rules. The DPoP proof is a simple
> self-contained JWT and is therefore simple to verify./
> > ----
> > I personally think that the ability to have a standards based approach
> to link the request and response for http signing will be important for the
> non-repudiation use-case.
> > Issues with other solutions:
> > 1. Draft Cavage - custom (error prone) canonicalization and algorithm
> > 2. OBE / ETSI - same problem as Cavage, but with the addition of a
> strange use of detached JWS for signing caoniclisated http headers rather
> than the body
> > 3. Detached JWS (used by OB UK) - only signs the body, requires custom
> JWT header claims
> > In contrast SHIMP has these advantages:
> > - uses simple JWTs, easy to implement, interoperable
> > - no need for custom JWT header claims
> > - no error-prone canonicalization
> > I look forward to receiving your feedback.
> > Dave
> > Moneyhub Enterprise is a trading style of Moneyhub Financial Technology
> Limited which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct
> Authority ("FCA"). Moneyhub Financial Technology is entered on the
> Financial Services Register (FRN 809360) at https://register.fca.org.uk/ <
> https://register.fca.org.uk/>. Moneyhub Financial Technology is
> registered in England & Wales, company registration number 06909772.
> Moneyhub Financial Technology Limited 2020 © Moneyhub Enterprise, Regus
> Building, Temple Quay, 1 Friary, Bristol, BS1 6EA.
> > DISCLAIMER: This email (including any attachments) is subject to
> copyright, and the information in it is confidential. Use of this email or
> of any information in it other than by the addressee is unauthorised and
> unlawful. Whilst reasonable efforts are made to ensure that any attachments
> are virus-free, it is the recipient's sole responsibility to scan all
> attachments for viruses. All calls and emails to and from this company may
> be monitored and recorded for legitimate purposes relating to this
> company's business. Any opinions expressed in this email (or in any
> attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the
> opinions of Moneyhub Financial Technology Limited or of any other group
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
> > Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi
> Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
> Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your
computer. Thank you._
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-fapi