1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Looker
Request for Comments: 9597 Mattr
Category: Standards Track M.B. Jones
ISSN: 2070-1721 Self-Issued Consulting
June 2024
CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers
Abstract
This document describes how to include CBOR Web Token (CWT) claims in
the header parameters of any CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
(COSE) structure. This functionality helps to facilitate
applications that wish to make use of CWT claims in encrypted COSE
structures and/or COSE structures featuring detached signatures,
while having some of those claims be available before decryption and/
or without inspecting the detached payload. Another use case is
using CWT claims with payloads that are not CWT Claims Sets,
including payloads that are not CBOR at all.
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
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9597.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
(https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Terminology
2. Representation
3. Privacy Considerations
4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
In some applications of COSE, it is useful to have a standard
representation of CWT claims [RFC8392] available in the header
parameters. These include encrypted COSE structures, which may or
may not be an encrypted CWT, and/or those featuring a detached
signature. Another use case is using CWT claims with payloads that
are not CWT Claims Sets, including payloads that are not CBOR at all.
For instance, an application might want to include an "iss" (issuer)
claim in a COSE_Sign1 structure when the payload being signed is a
non-CBOR data structure, such as a bitmap image, and the issuer value
is used for key discovery.
Section 5.3 of [RFC7519], "JSON Web Token (JWT)", defined a similar
mechanism for expressing selected JWT-based claims as JSON Object
Signing and Encryption (JOSE) header parameters. This JWT feature
was motivated by the desire to have certain claims, such as the
Issuer value, be visible to software processing the JWT, even though
the JWT is encrypted. No corresponding feature was standardized for
CWTs, which was an omission that this specification corrects.
Directly including CWT claim values as COSE header parameter values
would not work, since there are conflicts between the numeric header
parameter assignments and the numeric CWT claim assignments.
Instead, this specification defines a single header parameter
registered in the IANA "COSE Header Parameters" registry that creates
a location to store CWT claims in a COSE header parameter.
This specification does not define how to use CWT claims and their
semantics for particular applications, whether they are in the COSE
payload or the CWT Claims header parameter, or both. Therefore,
understanding how to process the CWT Claims header parameter requires
unambiguously knowing the intended interpretation. The necessary
information about this MAY come from other header parameters. Unless
there already is a natural way of providing this information at an
appropriate level of integrity protection and authentication, a
RECOMMENDED way to include this information in the COSE structure is
use of the "typ" (type) Header Parameter [RFC9596]. Other methods
for determining the intended interpretation MAY also be used.
Recipients of the CWT Claims header parameter MUST NOT use the
information in the CWT Claims header parameter beyond the integrity
protection or authentication afforded to the CWT Claims header and
the information used to derive its intended interpretation.
1.1. Requirements Terminology
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.
2. Representation
This document defines the following COSE header parameter:
+========+=======+=======+==============+===============+===========+
| Name | Label | Value | Value | Description | Reference |
| | | Type | Registry | | |
+========+=======+=======+==============+===============+===========+
| CWT | 15 | map | map keys in | Location | Section 2 |
| Claims | | | [CWT.Claims] | for CWT | of RFC |
| | | | | Claims in | 9597 |
| | | | | COSE Header | |
| | | | | Parameters | |
+--------+-------+-------+--------------+---------------+-----------+
Table 1
The following is a non-normative description for the value type of
the CWT claim header parameter using CDDL [RFC8610].
CWT-Claims = {
* Claim-Label => any
}
Claim-Label = int / text
In cases where CWT claims are present both in the payload and the
header of a CWT, an application receiving such a structure MUST
verify that their values are identical, unless the application
defines other specific processing rules for these claims.
It is RECOMMENDED that the CWT Claims header parameter only be used
in a protected header to avoid the contents being malleable. The
header parameter MUST only occur once in either the protected or
unprotected header of a COSE structure.
The CWT Claims header parameter MAY be used in any COSE object using
header parameters, such as COSE_Sign objects. Its use is not
restricted to CWTs.
3. Privacy Considerations
Some of the registered CWT claims may contain privacy-sensitive
information. Since CWT claims in COSE headers are not encrypted,
when privacy-sensitive information is present in these claims,
applications and protocols using them should ensure that these COSE
objects are only made visible to parties for which it is appropriate
for them to have access to this sensitive information.
4. Security Considerations
Implementers should also review the security considerations for CWT,
which are documented in Section 8 of [RFC8392].
As described in [RFC9052], if the COSE payload is transported
separately ("detached content"), then it is the responsibility of the
application to ensure that it will be transported without changes.
The reason for applications to verify that CWT claims present in both
the payload and the header of a CWT are identical, unless they define
other specific processing rules for these claims, is to eliminate
potential confusion that might arise by having different values for
the same claim, which could result in inconsistent processing of such
claims.
Processing information in claims prior to validating that their
integrity is cryptographically secure can pose security risks. This
is true whether the claims are in the payload or a header parameter.
Implementers must ensure that any tentative decisions made based on
previously unverified information are confirmed once the
cryptographic processing has been completed. This includes any
information that was used to derive the intended interpretation of
the CWT claims parameter.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the new COSE header parameter "CWT Claims"
defined in Table 1 in the "COSE Header Parameters" registry
[COSE.HeaderParameters].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[COSE.HeaderParameters]
IANA, "COSE Header Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/>.
[CWT.Claims]
IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
[RFC9596] Jones, M.B. and O. Steele, "CBOR Object Signing and
Encryption (COSE) "typ" (type) Header Parameter",
RFC 9596, DOI 10.17487/RFC9596, June 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9596>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Daisuke Ajitomi, Claudio Allocchio, Carsten
Bormann, Laurence Lundblade, Ivaylo Petrov, Ines Robles, Orie Steele,
Hannes Tschofenig, Paul Wouters, and Peter Yee for their valuable
contributions to this specification.
Authors' Addresses
Tobias Looker
Mattr
Email: tobias.looker@mattr.global
Michael B. Jones
Self-Issued Consulting
Email: michael_b_jones@hotmail.com
URI: https://self-issued.info/
|
