Skip to content
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

Refresh Token Rotation #574

Open
fmarino-ipzs opened this issue Feb 21, 2025 · 0 comments
Open

Refresh Token Rotation #574

fmarino-ipzs opened this issue Feb 21, 2025 · 0 comments
Labels
issuance security standardization Topics related to the standardization process in IETF/OIDF wontfix This will not be worked on

Comments

@fmarino-ipzs
Copy link
Collaborator

As @Sh-Amir pointed out, in our case, using a Refresh Token Rotation mechanism adds no benefits in terms of security.

In fact, Note1 of Section 5.3.2.1 of FAPI 2.0 Security Profile — Draft 04 states:

The use of refresh token rotation does not provide security benefits when used with confidential clients and sender-constrained access tokens. This specification prohibits the use of refresh token rotation for security reasons as it causes user experience degradation and operational issues whenever the client fails to store or receive the new refresh token and has no option to retry.

A confidential client is a client that can perform a client authentication. In our context, a Wallet Instance is able to authenticate to CI using its Wallet Attestation according to OAuth 2.0 Attestation-Based Client Authentication. The abstract of this specification states:

[...]This new method enables Client Instances involved in a client deployment that is traditionally viewed as a public client, to be able to utilize this key-bound attestation to authenticate.

So we think that Note 1 in FAPI applies to our context, making the token rotation no longer needed.

We changed PR #566 accordingly.

@peppelinux @giadas @m-basili ^^^

@fmarino-ipzs fmarino-ipzs added issuance security standardization Topics related to the standardization process in IETF/OIDF wontfix This will not be worked on labels Feb 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
issuance security standardization Topics related to the standardization process in IETF/OIDF wontfix This will not be worked on
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant