Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 13 additions & 5 deletions 1.0/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ This specification defines the following Client Identifier Prefixes, followed by

In case of using OpenID4VP over DC API, as defined in (#dc_api), it is at the discretion of the Wallet whether it validates the signature on the Request Object following the processing rules defined by a relevant Client Identifier Prefix. Factors that influence the Wallet's decision include, but are not limited to, the trust framework the Wallet supports, the specific policies defined by the Issuers or ecosystem, and profiles of this specification.

* `redirect_uri`: This prefix value indicates that the original Client Identifier part (without the prefix `redirect_uri:`) is the Verifier's Redirect URI (or Response URI when Response Mode `direct_post` is used). The Verifier MAY omit the `redirect_uri` Authorization Request parameter (or `response_uri` when Response Mode `direct_post` is used). All Verifier metadata parameters MUST be passed using the `client_metadata` parameter defined in (#new_parameters). An example Client Identifier value is `redirect_uri:https://client.example.org/cb`. Requests using the `redirect_uri` Client Identifier Prefix cannot be signed because there is no method for the Wallet to obtain a trusted key for verification. Therefore, implementations requiring signed requests cannot use the `redirect_uri` Client Identifier Prefix.
* `redirect_uri`: This prefix value indicates that the original Client Identifier part (without the prefix `redirect_uri:`) is the Verifier's Redirect URI (or Response URI when Response Mode `direct_post` is used). The Verifier MAY omit the `redirect_uri` Authorization Request parameter (or `response_uri` when Response Mode `direct_post` is used). An example Client Identifier value is `redirect_uri:https://client.example.org/cb`. Requests using the `redirect_uri` Client Identifier Prefix cannot be signed because there is no method for the Wallet to obtain a trusted key for verification. Therefore, implementations requiring signed requests cannot use the `redirect_uri` Client Identifier Prefix.

The following is a non-normative example of an unsigned request with the `redirect_uri` Client Identifier Prefix:

Expand All @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ In case of using OpenID4VP over DC API, as defined in (#dc_api), it is at the di

* `openid_federation`: This prefix value indicates that the original Client Identifier (the part without the prefix `openid_federation:`) is an Entity Identifier defined in OpenID Federation [@!OpenID.Federation]. Processing rules given in [@!OpenID.Federation] MUST be followed. The Authorization Request MAY also contain a `trust_chain` parameter. The final Verifier metadata is obtained from the Trust Chain after applying the policies, according to [@!OpenID.Federation]. The `client_metadata` parameter, if present in the Authorization Request, MUST be ignored when this Client Identifier Prefix is used. Example Client Identifier: `openid_federation:https://federation-verifier.example.com`.

* `decentralized_identifier`: This prefix value indicates that the original Client Identifier (the part without the prefix `decentralized_identifier:`) is a Decentralized Identifier as defined in [@!DID-Core]. The request MUST be signed with a private key associated with the DID. A public key to verify the signature MUST be obtained from the `verificationMethod` property of a DID Document. Since DID Document may include multiple public keys, a particular public key used to sign the request in question MUST be identified by the `kid` in the JOSE Header. To obtain the DID Document, the Wallet MUST use DID Resolution defined by the DID method used by the Verifier. All Verifier metadata other than the public key MUST be obtained from the `client_metadata` parameter as defined in (#new_parameters). Example Client Identifier: `decentralized_identifier:did:example:123`.
* `decentralized_identifier`: This prefix value indicates that the original Client Identifier (the part without the prefix `decentralized_identifier:`) is a Decentralized Identifier as defined in [@!DID-Core]. The request MUST be signed with a private key associated with the DID. A public key to verify the signature MUST be obtained from the `verificationMethod` property of a DID Document. Since DID Document may include multiple public keys, a particular public key used to sign the request in question MUST be identified by the `kid` in the JOSE Header. To obtain the DID Document, the Wallet MUST use DID Resolution defined by the DID method used by the Verifier. Example Client Identifier: `decentralized_identifier:did:example:123`.

The following is a non-normative example of a header and a body of a signed Request Object when the Client Identifier Prefix is `decentralized_identifier`:

Expand All @@ -612,11 +612,11 @@ In case of using OpenID4VP over DC API, as defined in (#dc_api), it is at the di

<{{examples/request/request_object_client_id_did.json}}

* `verifier_attestation`: This Client Identifier Prefix allows the Verifier to authenticate using a JWT that is bound to a certain public key as defined in (#verifier_attestation_jwt). When the Client Identifier Prefix is `verifier_attestation`, the original Client Identifier (the part without the `verifier_attestation:` prefix) MUST equal the `sub` claim value in the Verifier attestation JWT. The request MUST be signed with the private key corresponding to the public key in the `cnf` claim in the Verifier attestation JWT. This serves as proof of possession of this key. The Verifier attestation JWT MUST be added to the `jwt` JOSE Header of the request object (see (#verifier_attestation_jwt)). The Wallet MUST validate the signature on the Verifier attestation JWT. The `iss` claim value of the Verifier Attestation JWT MUST identify a party the Wallet trusts for issuing Verifier Attestation JWTs. If the Wallet cannot establish trust, it MUST refuse the request. If the issuer of the Verifier Attestation JWT adds a `redirect_uris` claim to the attestation, the Wallet MUST ensure the `redirect_uri` request parameter value exactly matches one of the `redirect_uris` claim entries. All Verifier metadata other than the public key MUST be obtained from the `client_metadata` parameter. Example Client Identifier: `verifier_attestation:verifier.example`.
* `verifier_attestation`: This Client Identifier Prefix allows the Verifier to authenticate using a JWT that is bound to a certain public key as defined in (#verifier_attestation_jwt). When the Client Identifier Prefix is `verifier_attestation`, the original Client Identifier (the part without the `verifier_attestation:` prefix) MUST equal the `sub` claim value in the Verifier attestation JWT. The request MUST be signed with the private key corresponding to the public key in the `cnf` claim in the Verifier attestation JWT. This serves as proof of possession of this key. The Verifier attestation JWT MUST be added to the `jwt` JOSE Header of the request object (see (#verifier_attestation_jwt)). The Wallet MUST validate the signature on the Verifier attestation JWT. The `iss` claim value of the Verifier Attestation JWT MUST identify a party the Wallet trusts for issuing Verifier Attestation JWTs. If the Wallet cannot establish trust, it MUST refuse the request. If the issuer of the Verifier Attestation JWT adds a `redirect_uris` claim to the attestation, the Wallet MUST ensure the `redirect_uri` request parameter value exactly matches one of the `redirect_uris` claim entries. Example Client Identifier: `verifier_attestation:verifier.example`.

* `x509_san_dns`: When the Client Identifier Prefix is `x509_san_dns`, the original Client Identifier (the part after the `x509_san_dns:` prefix) MUST be a DNS name and match a `dNSName` Subject Alternative Name (SAN) [@!RFC5280] entry in the leaf certificate passed with the request. The request MUST be signed with the private key corresponding to the public key in the leaf X.509 certificate of the certificate chain added to the request in the `x5c` JOSE header [@!RFC7515] of the signed request object. The Wallet MUST validate the signature and the trust chain of the X.509 certificate. All Verifier metadata other than the public key MUST be obtained from the `client_metadata` parameter. The following requirement applies unless the interaction is using the DC API as defined in (#dc_api): If the Wallet can establish trust in the Client Identifier authenticated through the certificate, e.g. because the Client Identifier is contained in a list of trusted Client Identifiers, it may allow the client to freely choose the `redirect_uri` value. If not, the FQDN of the `redirect_uri` value MUST match the Client Identifier without the prefix `x509_san_dns:`. Example Client Identifier: `x509_san_dns:client.example.org`.
* `x509_san_dns`: When the Client Identifier Prefix is `x509_san_dns`, the original Client Identifier (the part after the `x509_san_dns:` prefix) MUST be a DNS name and match a `dNSName` Subject Alternative Name (SAN) [@!RFC5280] entry in the leaf certificate passed with the request. The request MUST be signed with the private key corresponding to the public key in the leaf X.509 certificate of the certificate chain added to the request in the `x5c` JOSE header [@!RFC7515] of the signed request object. The Wallet MUST validate the signature and the trust chain of the X.509 certificate. The following requirement applies unless the interaction is using the DC API as defined in (#dc_api): If the Wallet can establish trust in the Client Identifier authenticated through the certificate, e.g. because the Client Identifier is contained in a list of trusted Client Identifiers, it may allow the client to freely choose the `redirect_uri` value. If not, the FQDN of the `redirect_uri` value MUST match the Client Identifier without the prefix `x509_san_dns:`. Example Client Identifier: `x509_san_dns:client.example.org`.

* `x509_hash`: When the Client Identifier Prefix is `x509_hash`, the original Client Identifier (the part without the `x509_hash:` prefix) MUST be a hash and match the hash of the leaf certificate passed with the request. The request MUST be signed with the private key corresponding to the public key in the leaf X.509 certificate of the certificate chain added to the request in the `x5c` JOSE header parameter [@!RFC7515] of the signed request object. The value of `x509_hash` is the base64url-encoded value of the SHA-256 hash of the DER-encoded X.509 certificate. The Wallet MUST validate the signature and the trust chain of the X.509 leaf certificate. All Verifier metadata other than the public key MUST be obtained from the `client_metadata` parameter. Example Client Identifier: `x509_hash:Uvo3HtuIxuhC92rShpgqcT3YXwrqRxWEviRiA0OZszk`
* `x509_hash`: When the Client Identifier Prefix is `x509_hash`, the original Client Identifier (the part without the `x509_hash:` prefix) MUST be a hash and match the hash of the leaf certificate passed with the request. The request MUST be signed with the private key corresponding to the public key in the leaf X.509 certificate of the certificate chain added to the request in the `x5c` JOSE header parameter [@!RFC7515] of the signed request object. The value of `x509_hash` is the base64url-encoded value of the SHA-256 hash of the DER-encoded X.509 certificate. The Wallet MUST validate the signature and the trust chain of the X.509 leaf certificate. Example Client Identifier: `x509_hash:Uvo3HtuIxuhC92rShpgqcT3YXwrqRxWEviRiA0OZszk`.

* `origin`: This reserved Client Identifier Prefix is defined in (#dc_api_request). The Wallet MUST NOT accept this Client Identifier Prefix in requests. In OpenID4VP over the Digital Credentials API, the audience of the Credential Presentation is always the origin value prefixed by `origin:`, for example `origin:https://verifier.example.com`.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1933,6 +1933,14 @@ these constraints. The Wallet is not controlled by the Verifier and the Verifier
MUST perform its own security checks on the returned Credentials and
Presentations.

## Source of Verifier Metadata

Wallet implementers need to choose a source of client metadata they can trust within their own ecosystem or implementation. This should determine whether it is safe to use or display to a User. For example, a client name obtained from an X.509 leaf certificate that chains to a trust anchor the Wallet trusts may be appropriate to be displayed to an End-User, whereas a client name from the `client_metadata` parameter is not suitable to display.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This uses a "should" which we should avoid here I think.
It's not really clear what the second sentence actually is intended to mean: "should" it determine or does it determine?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This addresses both your points I think, as well as cleaning up a bit of terminology and simplifying wording:

Suggested change
Wallet implementers need to choose a source of client metadata they can trust within their own ecosystem or implementation. This should determine whether it is safe to use or display to a User. For example, a client name obtained from an X.509 leaf certificate that chains to a trust anchor the Wallet trusts may be appropriate to be displayed to an End-User, whereas a client name from the `client_metadata` parameter is not suitable to display.
Wallet implementers need to choose a source of Verifier metadata they can trust within their own ecosystem or implementation, including determining whether metadata is safe to use or display to an End-User. For example, a Verifier name obtained from an X.509 leaf certificate that chains to a trust anchor the Wallet trusts may be suitable to display to an End-User, whereas a Verifier name from the `client_metadata` parameter is not suitable to display.


It is recommended to use `client_metadata` parameters only for client-supplied parameters that can be used untrusted, for example, a public key used to encrypt the response.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This uses a "recommended" which we should probably either avoid or capitalize.

Also, the example should be a new sentence.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Applying Frederik's suggestion, plus also resolving my currently unresolved comment #735 (comment)

Suggested change
It is recommended to use `client_metadata` parameters only for client-supplied parameters that can be used untrusted, for example, a public key used to encrypt the response.
Profiles of this specification MAY define additional `client_metadata` parameters, as described in (#new_parameters). It is RECOMMENDED that such parameters are limited to client-supplied values that can safely be used without being trusted. One example of such a value is a public key used to encrypt the Authorization Response.


Ecosystems can use other ecosystem-specific trusted data sources as long as they conduct a proper trust evaluation.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can -> MAY?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggestion that resolves that and my own ecosystem vs profiles point.

Suggested change
Ecosystems can use other ecosystem-specific trusted data sources as long as they conduct a proper trust evaluation.
Wallets MAY use other ecosystem-specific trusted sources of Verifier metadata, provided the Wallet is able to establish trust in those sources. As described in (#new_parameters), authoritative data obtained from such sources takes precedence over the values passed in the `client_metadata` parameter.


## Parsing of untrusted inputs

Wallets MUST treat all incoming requests as untrusted input. To mitigate injection and resource exhaustion attacks, Wallets MUST implement input validation on the Authorization Request and its enclosed DCQL query.
Expand Down
Loading
Loading