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: [email protected]


  Michael B. Jones
  Self-Issued Consulting
  Email: [email protected]
  URI:   https://self-issued.info/

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.