Keywords: Authentication Method Reference, Authentication Method
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Jones
Request for Comments: 8176 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track P. Hunt
ISSN: 2070-1721 Oracle
A. Nadalin
Microsoft
June 2017
Authentication Method Reference Values
Abstract
The "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and
registered in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry, but no
standard Authentication Method Reference values are currently
defined. This specification establishes a registry for
Authentication Method Reference values and defines an initial set of
Authentication Method Reference values.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8176.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Authentication Method Reference Values . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Relationship to "acr" (Authentication Context Class
Reference) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Authentication Method Reference Values Registry . . . . . 8
6.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.2. Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
1. Introduction
The "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and
registered in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry
[IANA.JWT.Claims], but no standard Authentication Method Reference
values are currently defined. This specification establishes a
registry for Authentication Method Reference values and defines an
initial set of Authentication Method Reference values.
For context, the "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is
defined by Section 2 of the OpenID Connect Core 1.0 specification
[OpenID.Core] as follows:
amr
OPTIONAL. Authentication Methods References. JSON array of
strings that are identifiers for authentication methods used in
the authentication. For instance, values might indicate that both
password and OTP authentication methods were used. The definition
of particular values to be used in the "amr" Claim is beyond the
scope of this specification. Parties using this claim will need
to agree upon the meanings of the values used, which may be
context-specific. The "amr" value is an array of case sensitive
strings.
Typically, each "amr" value provides an identifier for a family of
closely related authentication methods. For example, the "otp"
identifier intentionally covers OTPs (One-Time Passwords) based on
both time and HMAC (Hashed Message Authentication Code). Many
relying parties will be content to know that an OTP has been used in
addition to a password; the distinction between which kind of OTP was
used is not useful to them. Thus, there's a single identifier that
can be satisfied in two or more nearly equivalent ways.
Similarly, there's a whole range of nuances between different
fingerprint-matching algorithms. They differ in false-positive and
false-negative rates over different population samples and also
differ based on the kind and model of fingerprint sensor used. Like
the OTP case, many relying parties will be content to know that a
fingerprint match was made, without delving into and differentiating
based on every aspect of the implementation of fingerprint capture
and match. The "fpt" identifier accomplishes this.
Ultimately, the relying party is depending upon the identity provider
to do reasonable things. If it does not trust the identity provider
to do so, it has no business using it. The "amr" value lets the
identity provider signal to the relying party additional information
about what it did, for the cases in which that information is useful
to the relying party.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
The "amr" values defined by this specification are not intended to be
an exhaustive set covering all use cases. Additional values can and
will be added to the registry by other specifications. Rather, the
values defined herein are an intentionally small set and are already
actually being used in practice.
The values defined by this specification only make distinctions that
are known to be useful to relying parties. Slicing things more
finely than would be used in practice would actually hurt
interoperability, rather than helping it, because it would force
relying parties to recognize that several or many different values
actually mean the same thing to them.
For context, while the claim values registered pertain to
authentication, note that OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] is designed for
resource authorization and cannot be used for authentication without
employing appropriate extensions, such as those defined by OpenID
Connect Core 1.0 [OpenID.Core]. The existence of the "amr" claim and
values for it should not be taken as encouragement to try to use
OAuth 2.0 for authentication without employing extensions that enable
secure authentication to be performed.
When used with OpenID Connect, if the identity provider supplies an
"amr" claim in the ID Token resulting from a successful
authentication, the relying party can inspect the values returned and
thereby learn details about how the authentication was performed.
For instance, the relying party might learn that only a password was
used or it might learn that iris recognition was used in combination
with a hardware-secured key. Whether "amr" values are provided and
which values are understood by what parties are both beyond the scope
of this specification. The OpenID Connect MODRNA Authentication
Profile 1.0 [OpenID.MODRNA] is one example of an application context
that uses "amr" values defined by this specification.
1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Terminology
This specification uses the terms defined by JSON Web Token (JWT)
[RFC7519] and OpenID Connect Core 1.0 [OpenID.Core].
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
2. Authentication Method Reference Values
The following is a list of Authentication Method Reference values
defined by this specification:
face
Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using facial recognition.
fpt
Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using a fingerprint.
geo
Use of geolocation information for authentication, such as that
provided by [W3C.REC-geolocation-API-20161108].
hwk
Proof-of-Possession (PoP) of a hardware-secured key. See
Appendix C of [RFC4211] for a discussion on PoP.
iris
Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using an iris scan.
kba
Knowledge-based authentication [NIST.800-63-2] [ISO29115].
mca
Multiple-channel authentication [MCA]. The authentication
involves communication over more than one distinct communication
channel. For instance, a multiple-channel authentication might
involve both entering information into a workstation's browser and
providing information on a telephone call to a pre-registered
number.
mfa
Multiple-factor authentication [NIST.800-63-2] [ISO29115]. When
this is present, specific authentication methods used may also be
included.
otp
One-time password [RFC4949]. One-time password specifications
that this authentication method applies to include [RFC4226] and
[RFC6238].
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
pin
Personal Identification Number (PIN) [RFC4949] or pattern (not
restricted to containing only numbers) that a user enters to
unlock a key on the device. This mechanism should have a way to
deter an attacker from obtaining the PIN by trying repeated
guesses.
pwd
Password-based authentication [RFC4949].
rba
Risk-based authentication [JECM].
retina
Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using a retina scan.
sc
Smart card [RFC4949].
sms
Confirmation using SMS [SMS] text message to the user at a
registered number.
swk
Proof-of-Possession (PoP) of a software-secured key. See
Appendix C of [RFC4211] for a discussion on PoP.
tel
Confirmation by telephone call to the user at a registered number.
This authentication technique is sometimes also referred to as
"call back" [RFC4949].
user
User presence test. Evidence that the end user is present and
interacting with the device. This is sometimes also referred to
as "test of user presence" [W3C.WD-webauthn-20170216].
vbm
Biometric authentication [RFC4949] using a voiceprint.
wia
Windows integrated authentication [MSDN].
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
3. Relationship to "acr" (Authentication Context Class Reference)
The "acr" (Authentication Context Class Reference) claim and
"acr_values" request parameter are related to the "amr"
(Authentication Methods References) claim, but with important
differences. An Authentication Context Class specifies a set of
business rules that authentications are being requested to satisfy.
These rules can often be satisfied by using a number of different
specific authentication methods, either singly or in combination.
Interactions using "acr_values" request that the specified
Authentication Context Classes be used and that the result should
contain an "acr" claim saying which Authentication Context Class was
satisfied. The "acr" claim in the reply states that the business
rules for the class were satisfied -- not how they were satisfied.
In contrast, interactions using the "amr" claim make statements about
the particular authentication methods that were used. This tends to
be more brittle than using "acr", since the authentication methods
that may be appropriate for a given authentication will vary over
time, both because of the evolution of attacks on existing methods
and the deployment of new authentication methods.
4. Privacy Considerations
The list of "amr" claim values returned in an ID Token reveals
information about the way that the end user authenticated to the
identity provider. In some cases, this information may have privacy
implications.
While this specification defines identifiers for particular kinds of
credentials, it does not define how these credentials are stored or
protected. For instance, ensuring the security and privacy of
biometric credentials that are referenced by some of the defined
Authentication Method Reference values is beyond the scope of this
specification.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations in OpenID Connect Core 1.0 [OpenID.Core],
OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749], and the entire OAuth 2.0 Threat Model [RFC6819]
apply to applications using this specification.
As described in Section 3, taking a dependence upon particular
authentication methods may result in brittle systems since the
authentication methods that may be appropriate for a given
authentication will vary over time.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Authentication Method Reference Values Registry
This specification establishes the IANA "Authentication Method
Reference Values" registry for "amr" claim array element values. The
registry records the Authentication Method Reference value and a
reference to the specification that defines it. This specification
registers the Authentication Method Reference values defined in
Section 2.
Values are registered on an Expert Review [RFC5226] basis after a
three-week review period on the <jwt-reg-review@ietf.org> mailing
list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts. To increase
potential interoperability, the Designated Experts are requested to
encourage registrants to provide the location of a publicly
accessible specification defining the values being registered, so
that their intended usage can be more easily understood.
Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register Authentication
Method Reference value: otp").
Within the review period, the Designated Experts will either approve
or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if
applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
<iesg@ietf.org> mailing list) for resolution.
IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Experts
and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing
list.
It is suggested that the same Designated Experts evaluate these
registration requests as those who evaluate registration requests for
the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry [IANA.JWT.Claims].
Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Experts include
determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
functionality; whether it is likely to be of general applicability or
whether it is useful only for a single application; whether the value
is actually being used; and whether the registration description is
clear.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
6.1.1. Registration Template
Authentication Method Reference Name:
The name requested (e.g., "otp") for the authentication method or
family of closely related authentication methods. Because a core
goal of this specification is for the resulting representations to
be compact, it is RECOMMENDED that the name be short -- that is,
not to exceed 8 characters without a compelling reason to do so.
To facilitate interoperability, the name must use only printable
ASCII characters excluding double quote ('"') and backslash ('\')
(the Unicode characters with code points U+0021, U+0023 through
U+005B, and U+005D through U+007E). This name is case sensitive.
Names may not match other registered names in a case-insensitive
manner unless the Designated Experts state that there is a
compelling reason to allow an exception.
Authentication Method Reference Description:
Brief description of the Authentication Method Reference (e.g.,
"One-time password").
Change Controller:
For Standards Track RFCs, state "IESG". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification Document(s):
Reference to the document or documents that specify the parameter,
preferably including URIs that can be used to retrieve copies of
the documents. An indication of the relevant sections may also be
included but is not required.
6.1.2. Initial Registry Contents
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "face"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Facial recognition
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "fpt"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Fingerprint biometric
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "geo"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Geolocation
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "hwk"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Proof-of-possession
of a hardware-secured key
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "iris"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Iris scan biometric
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "kba"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Knowledge-based
authentication
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "mca"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Multiple-channel
authentication
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "mfa"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Multiple-factor
authentication
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "otp"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: One-time password
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "pin"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Personal
Identification Number or pattern
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "pwd"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Password-based
authentication
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "rba"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Risk-based
authentication
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "retina"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Retina scan biometric
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "sc"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Smart card
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "sms"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Confirmation using
SMS
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "swk"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Proof-of-possession
of a software-secured key
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "tel"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Confirmation by
telephone call
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "user"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: User presence test
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "vbm"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Voice biometric
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
o Authentication Method Reference Name: "wia"
o Authentication Method Reference Description: Windows integrated
authentication
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 2 of [RFC8176]
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IANA.JWT.Claims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token Claims",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[OpenID.Core]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., and
C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0", November 2014,
<http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
7.2. Informative References
[ISO29115] International Organization for Standardization,
"ISO/IEC 29115:2013 Information technology - Security
techniques - Entity authentication assurance framework",
ISO/IEC 29115:2013, April 2013,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/45138.html>.
[JECM] Williamson, G., "Enhanced Authentication In Online
Banking", Journal of Economic Crime Management 4.2: 18-19,
2006,
<http://utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/
articles/51D6D996-90F2-F468-AC09C4E8071575AE.pdf>.
[MCA] ldapwiki.com, "Multiple-channel Authentication", August
2016, <https://www.ldapwiki.com/wiki/
Multiple-channel%20Authentication>.
[MSDN] Microsoft, "Integrated Windows Authentication with
Negotiate", September 2011,
<http://blogs.msdn.com/b/benjaminperkins/
archive/2011/09/14/iis-integrated-windows-authentication-
with-negotiate.aspx>.
[NIST.800-63-2]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Electronic Authentication Guideline", NIST Special
Publication 800-63-2, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2, August
2013, <http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/
nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-63-2.pdf>.
[OpenID.MODRNA]
Connotte, J. and J. Bradley, "OpenID Connect MODRNA
Authentication Profile 1.0", March 2017,
<http://openid.net/specs/
openid-connect-modrna-authentication-1_0.html>.
[RFC4211] Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4211, September 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4211>.
[RFC4226] M'Raihi, D., Bellare, M., Hoornaert, F., Naccache, D., and
O. Ranen, "HOTP: An HMAC-Based One-Time Password
Algorithm", RFC 4226, DOI 10.17487/RFC4226, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4226>.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC6238] M'Raihi, D., Machani, S., Pei, M., and J. Rydell, "TOTP:
Time-Based One-Time Password Algorithm", RFC 6238,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6238, May 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6238>.
[RFC6819] Lodderstedt, T., Ed., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0
Threat Model and Security Considerations", RFC 6819,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6819, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6819>.
[SMS] 3GPP, "Technical realization of the Short Message Service
(SMS)", 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 03.40
Version 7.5.0 (2001-12), January 2002,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=141>.
[W3C.REC-geolocation-API-20161108]
Popescu, A., "Geolocation API Specification 2nd Edition",
World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-geolocation-
API-20161108, November 2016, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/
REC-geolocation-API-20161108>.
[W3C.WD-webauthn-20170216]
Bharadwaj, V., Le Van Gong, H., Balfanz, D., Czeskis, A.,
Birgisson, A., Hodges, J., Jones, M., Lindemann, R., and
J. Jones, "Web Authentication: An API for accessing Scoped
Credentials", World Wide Web Consortium Working Draft
WD-webauthn-20170216, February 2017,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-webauthn-20170216/>.
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8176 Authentication Method Reference Values June 2017
Appendix A. Examples
In some cases, the "amr" claim value returned may contain a single
Authentication Method Reference value. For example, the following
"amr" claim value indicates that the authentication performed used an
iris scan biometric:
"amr": ["iris"]
In other cases, the "amr" claim value returned may contain multiple
Authentication Method Reference values. For example, the following
"amr" claim value indicates that the authentication performed used a
password and knowledge-based authentication:
"amr": ["pwd", "kba"]
Acknowledgements
Caleb Baker participated in specifying the original set of "amr"
values. Jari Arkko, John Bradley, Ben Campbell, Brian Campbell,
William Denniss, Linda Dunbar, Stephen Farrell, Paul Kyzivat, Elaine
Newton, James Manger, Catherine Meadows, Alexey Melnikov, Kathleen
Moriarty, Nat Sakimura, and Mike Schwartz provided reviews of the
specification.
Authors' Addresses
Michael B. Jones
Microsoft
Email: mbj@microsoft.com
URI: http://self-issued.info/
Phil Hunt
Oracle
Email: phil.hunt@yahoo.com
Anthony Nadalin
Microsoft
Email: tonynad@microsoft.com
Jones, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]