Solid-OIDC

Draft Community Group Report,

More details about this document
This version:
https://solid.github.io/solid-oidc/
Latest published version:
https://solidproject.org/TR/oidc
Test Suite:
https://solid-contrib.github.io/solid-oidc-tests/
Created:
Modified:
Feedback:
https://github.com/solid/solid-oidc/issues
Editors:
Aaron Coburn (Inrupt)
elf Pavlik

Christoph Braun (Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI))
Former Editors:
Dmitri Zagidulin
Adam Migus (The Migus Group)

Ricky White (The Migus Group)

Abstract

The Solid OpenID Connect (Solid-OIDC) specification defines how resource servers verify the identity of relying parties and end users based on the authentication performed by an OpenID provider. Solid-OIDC builds on top of OpenID Connect 1.0 for use within the Solid ecosystem.

Status of this document

This report was published by the Solid Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track. Please note that under the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement (CLA) there is a limited opt-out and other conditions apply. Learn more about W3C Community and Business Groups.

1Introduction

This section is non-normative

The Solid project aims to change the way web applications work today to improve privacy and user control of personal data by utilizing current standards, protocols, and tools, to facilitate building extensible and modular decentralized applications based on Linked Data principles.

This specification is written for Authorization and Resource Server owners intending to implement Solid-OIDC. It is also useful to Solid application developers charged with implementing a Solid-OIDC client.

The OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] and OpenID Connect Core 1.0 [OIDC-CORE] web standards were published in October 2012 and November 2014, respectively. Since publication they've seen rapid and widespread adoption across the industry, in turn gaining extensive "real-world" data and experience. The strengths of the protocols are now clear; however, in a changing eco-system where privacy and control of digital identities are becoming more pressing concerns, it is also clear that additional functionality is required.

The additional functionality documented herein aims to address:

  1. Resource servers and their Authorization servers having no existing trust relationship with identity providers.

  2. Ephemeral Clients as a first-order use-case.

1.1Out of Scope

This section is non-normative

While the Solid-OIDC specification describes the structure of an ID Token for use in Solid, the definition of a global access token for use with Solid Resource Servers is beyond the scope of this specification.

2Terminology

This section is non-normative

This specification uses the terms "access token", "authorization server", "resource server" (RS), "token endpoint", "grant type", and "client" as defined by The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749].

Throughout this specification, we will use the term OpenID Provider (OP) in line with the terminology used in the Open ID Connect Core 1.0 specification (OIDC) [OIDC-CORE]. It should be noted that this is distinct from the entity referred to as an Authorization Server by the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework (OAuth) [RFC6749].

This specification also uses the following terms:

WebID as defined by [WEBID]

A WebID is a URI with an HTTP or HTTPS scheme which denotes an Agent (Person, Organization, Group, Device, etc.).

JSON Web Token (JWT) as defined by [RFC7519]

A string representing a set of claims as a JSON object that is encoded in a JWS or JWE, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or MACed and/or encrypted.

JSON Web Key (JWK) as defined by [RFC7517]

A JSON object that represents a cryptographic key. The members of the object represent properties of the key, including its value.

Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP) as defined by [DPOP]

A mechanism for sender-constraining OAuth tokens via a proof-of-possession mechanism on the application level.

DPoP Proof as defined by [DPOP]

A DPoP proof is a JWT that is signed (using JWS) using a private key chosen by the client.

Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE) as defined by [RFC7636]

An extension to the Authorization Code flow which mitigates the risk of an authorization code interception attack.

3Core Concepts

This section is non-normative

In a decentralized ecosystem, such as Solid, an OP may be an identity-as-a-service vendor or, at the other end of the spectrum, a user-controlled OP. In either case, the user may be authenticating from a browser or an application.

Therefore, this specification assumes the use of the Authorization Code Flow with PKCE, in accordance with OAuth and OIDC best practices. It is also assumed that there are no preexisting trust relationships with the OP. This means that client registration, whether dynamic, or static, is entirely optional.

3.1WebIDs

This section is non-normative

In line with Linked Data principles, a WebID is a HTTP URI that, when dereferenced, resolves to a profile document that is structured data in an RDF 1.1 format. This profile document allows people to link with others to grant access to identity resources as they see fit. WebIDs underpin Solid and are used as a primary identifier for Users in this specification.

4Basic Flow

This section is non-normative

Details of the flow are available in [SOLID-OIDC-PRIMER]

sequenceDiagram
  participant WebID as 👩 End-User's WebID Document
  participant OP as 👩 OpenID Provider
  participant ClientID as ⚙️ Client's ID Document
  participant C as ⚙️ Client
  participant RS as ☁️ Resource Server
  participant AS as ☁️ Authorization Server
  C ->> RS: unauthenticated request
  RS ->> C: 401 with a WWW-Authenticate HTTP header
  Note over C: 👩 User provides their WebID ⌨️
  C ->> WebID: get WebID document to discover OpenID Provider
  WebID ->> C: WebID document
  C ->> OP: start Authorization Code grant
  OP->> ClientID: get Client ID document
  ClientID->> OP: ClientID document
  Note over OP: compare redirect_uri
  OP ->> C: return Authorization Code
  C ->> OP: present Authorization Code and DPoP proof
  Note over OP:  ⚙️ Client is authenticated ✅
  OP ->> C: return DPoP bound OIDC ID Token
  Note over C: 👩 User is authenticated ✅
  C ->> AS: request Access Token and push solid Claim Token (including ID Token)
  AS ->> WebID: get WebID document to verify OpenID Provider
  WebID ->> AS: WebID document
  AS ->> OP: get OP's public key to verify ID Token (JWS)
  OP ->> AS: JWKS
  Note over AS: 👩 User and ⚙️ Client are authenticated ✅
  AS ->> C: provide Access Token
  C ->> RS: request with Access Token
  alt Token introspection
  RS ->> AS: token introspection request
  AS ->> RS: token introspection response
  else signed JWT
    Note over RS, AS: Verify AS signature
  end
  Note over RS: 👩 User and ⚙️ Client are authenticated ✅
  RS ->> C: representation

Basic sequence of authenticating the user and the client.

5Client Identifiers

OAuth and OIDC require the Client application to identify itself to the OP and RS by presenting a client identifier (Client ID). Solid applications SHOULD use a URI that can be dereferenced as a Client ID Document.

5.1Client ID Document

When a Client Identifier is dereferenced, the resource MUST be serialized as an application/ld+json document unless content negotiation requires a different outcome.

The serialized JSON form of a Client ID Document MUST use the normative JSON-LD @context provided at https://www.w3.org/ns/solid/oidc-context.jsonld such that the resulting document produces a JSON serialization of an OIDC client registration, per the definition of client registration metadata from [RFC7591] section 2.

Also, the OP MUST dereference the Client ID Document and match any Client-supplied parameters with the values in the Client ID Document.

Further, the redirect_uri provided by the Client MUST be included in the registration redirect_uris list.

This example uses JSON-LD for the Client ID Document:

5.1.1JSON-LD context

This specification defines a JSON-LD context for use with OIDC Client ID Documents. This context is available at https://www.w3.org/ns/solid/oidc-context.jsonld. Client ID Documents that reference this JSON-LD context MUST use the HTTPS scheme.

Full content of JSON-LD context can be also seen in §15 Appendix A: Full JSON-LD context

5.2OIDC Registration

For non-dereferencable identifiers, the Client MUST present a client_id value that has been registered with the OP via either OIDC dynamic or static registration. See also [OIDC-DYNAMIC-CLIENT-REGISTRATION].

When requesting Dynamic Client Registration, the Client MUST specify the scope in the metadata and include webid in its value (space-separated list).

6WebID Profile

Dereferencing the WebID URL results in a WebID Profile.

6.1OIDC Issuer Discovery

A WebID Profile lists the OpenID Providers who are trusted to issue tokens on behalf of the agent who controls the WebID. This prevents a malicious OpenID Provider from issuing otherwise valid ID Tokens for arbitrary WebIDs. An entity that verifies ID Tokens will use this mechanism to determine if the issuer is authoritative for the given WebID.

To discover a list of valid issuers, the WebID Profile MUST be checked for the existence of statements matching

sparql
?webid <http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/terms#oidcIssuer> ?iss .

where ?webid is set to WebID. The ?iss will result in an IRI denoting valid issuer for that WebID. The WebID Profile Document MUST include one or more statements matching the OIDC issuer pattern.

7Requesting the WebID Claim using a Scope Value

Solid-OIDC uses scope values, as defined in [RFC6749] Section 3.3 and [OIDC-CORE] Section 5.4 to specify what information is made available as Claim Values.

Solid-OIDC defines the following scope value for use with claim requests:

webid

REQUIRED. This scope requests access to the End-User's webid Claim.

8Issuer Validation after receiving the Authorization Code

In accordance with Best Current Practice [RFC9700], defense against Mix-Up Attacks is required in Solid-OIDC as clients are expected to interact with more than one OP. To this end, this specification adopts the mechanism defined in [RFC9207].

The OP MUST include the iss query parameter alongside the authorization code when redirecting the user agent back to the Client's redirect_uri. The value of the iss parameter MUST be the Issuer Identifier of the OP, as defined in [OIDC-CORE].

Upon receiving the authorization response, the Client MUST validate the iss parameter:

  • The Client MUST check for the presence of the iss parameter.

  • The Client MUST verify that the iss value matches the Issuer Identifier of the OP to which the authorization request was sent.

If the iss parameter is missing or does not match the expected value, the Client MUST reject the response, MUST NOT exchange the authorization code for tokens, and SHOULD signal an error to the user.

9Token Instantiation

Assuming one of the following options

  • Client ID and Secret, and valid DPoP Proof (for dynamic and static registration)

  • Dereferencable Client Identifier with a proper Client ID Document and valid DPoP Proof (for a Solid client identifier)

the OP MUST return A DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token.

9.1DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token

When requesting a DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token, the Client MUST send a DPoP proof JWT that is valid according to the OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP) § section-5. The DPoP proof JWT is used to bind the OIDC ID Token to a public key. See also: [DPOP].

With the webid scope, the DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token payload MUST contain these claims:

  • webid — The WebID claim MUST be the user's WebID.

  • iss — The issuer claim MUST be a valid URL of the OP instantiating this token.

  • aud — The audience claim MUST be an array of values. The values MUST include the authorized party claim azp and the string solid. In the decentralized world of Solid-OIDC, the audience of an ID Token is not only the client (azp), but also any Solid Authorization Server at any accessible address on the world wide web (solid). See also: JSON Web Token (JWT) § section-4.1.3.

  • azp - The authorized party claim is used to identify the client (See also: section 5. Client Identifiers).

  • iat — The issued-at claim is the time at which the DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token was issued.

  • exp — The expiration claim is the time at which the DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token becomes invalid.

  • cnf — The confirmation claim is used to identify the DPoP Public Key bound to the OIDC ID Token. See also: OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP) § section-7.

9.1.1ID Token Validation

An ID Token must be validated according to OIDC-CORE, Section 3.1.3.7

The Verifying party MUST perform §6.1 OIDC Issuer Discovery using the value of the webid claim to dereference the WebID Profile Document.

Unless the verifying party acquires OP keys through some other means, or it chooses to reject tokens issued by this OP, the verifying party MUST follow OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 [OIDC-DISCOVERY] to find an OP's signing keys (JWK).

10Resource Access

10.1Authorization Server Discovery

When a Client performs an unauthenticated request to a protected resource, the Resource Server MUST respond with the HTTP 401 status code, and a WWW-Authenticate HTTP header. See also: [RFC9110](11.6.1. WWW-Authenticate)

The WWW-Authenticate HTTP header MUST include an as_uri parameter unless the authentication scheme requires a different mechanism for discovering an associated authorization server.

Authorization Servers SHOULD implement User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Grant for OAuth 2.0 Authorization [UMA].

10.2Obtaining an Access Token

For Authorization Servers that conform to [UMA], the http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1\_0.html#IDToken profile MUST be supported. This profile MUST be advertised in the uma_profiles_supported metadata of the Authorization Server discovery document User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Grant for OAuth 2.0 Authorization § rfc.section.2.

When using the http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1\_0.html#IDToken profile with an UMA-based Authorization Server, the Authorization Server MUST be capable of exchanging a valid Solid-OIDC ID Token §9.1 DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token for an OAuth 2.0 Access Token.

Authorization Server MUST pefrom §10.3 DPoP Validation and §9.1.1 ID Token Validation

10.3DPoP Validation

A DPoP Proof that is valid according to DPoP Internet-Draft, Section 4.3, MUST be present when a DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token is used.

The DPoP-bound OIDC ID Token MUST be validated according to DPoP Internet-Draft, Section 6, but the AS MAY perform additional verification in order to determine whether to grant access to the requested resource.

11Solid-OIDC Conformance Discovery

An OpenID Provider that conforms to the Solid-OIDC specification MUST advertise it in the OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 [OIDC-DISCOVERY] resource by including webid in its scopes_supported metadata property.

12Security Considerations

This section is non-normative

As this specification builds upon existing web standards, security considerations from OAuth, OIDC, PKCE, and the DPoP specifications may also apply unless otherwise indicated. The following considerations should be reviewed by implementors and system/s architects of this specification.

Some of the references within this specification point to documents with a Living Standard or Draft status, meaning their contents can still change over time. It is advised to monitor these documents, as such changes might have security implications.

In addition to above considerations, implementors should consider the Security Considerations in context of the Solid Protocol [SOLID-PROTOCOL].

12.1TLS Requirements

All TLS requirements outlined in [BCP195] apply to this specification.

All tokens, Client, and User credentials MUST only be transmitted over TLS.

12.2Client IDs

An AS SHOULD assign a fixed set of low trust policies to any client identified as anonymous.

Implementors SHOULD expire ephemeral Client IDs that are kept in server storage to mitigate the potential for a bad actor to fill server storage with unexpired or otherwise useless Client IDs.

12.3Client Secrets

Client secrets SHOULD NOT be stored in browser local storage. Doing so will increase the risk of data leaks should an attacker gain access to Client credentials.

12.4Client Trust

This section is non-normative

Clients are ephemeral, client registration is optional, and most Clients cannot keep secrets. These, among other factors, are what makes Client trust challenging.

13Privacy Considerations

13.1OIDC ID Token Reuse

This section is non-normative

With JWTs being extendable by design, there is potential for a privacy breach if OIDC ID Tokens get reused across multiple authorization servers. It is not unimaginable that a custom claim is added to the OIDC ID Token on instantiation. This addition may unintentionally give other authorization servers consuming the OIDC ID Token information about the user that they may not wish to share outside of the intended AS.

14Acknowledgments

This section is non-normative

The Solid Community Group would like to thank the following individuals for reviewing and providing feedback on the specification (in alphabetical order):

Tim Berners-Lee, Justin Bingham, Sarven Capadisli, Aaron Coburn, Matthias Evering, Jamie Fiedler, Michiel de Jong, Ted Thibodeau Jr, Kjetil Kjernsmo, Mitzi László, Pat McBennett, Adam Migus, Jackson Morgan, Davi Ottenheimer, Justin Richer, severin-dsr, Henry Story, Michael Thornburgh, Emmet Townsend, Ruben Verborgh, Ricky White, Paul Worrall, Dmitri Zagidulin.

15Appendix A: Full JSON-LD context

The JSON-LD context is defined as:

jsonld
{
  "@context": {
    "@version": 1.1,
    "@protected": true,
    "oidc": "http://www.w3.org/ns/solid/oidc#",
    "xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",
    "client_id": {
      "@id": "@id",
      "@type": "@id"
    },
    "client_uri": {
      "@id": "oidc:client_uri",
      "@type": "@id"
    },
    "logo_uri": {
      "@id": "oidc:logo_uri",
      "@type": "@id"
    },
    "policy_uri": {
      "@id": "oidc:policy_uri",
      "@type": "@id"
    },
    "tos_uri": {
      "@id": "oidc:tos_uri",
      "@type": "@id"
    },
    "redirect_uris": {
      "@id": "oidc:redirect_uris",
      "@type": "@id",
      "@container": [
        "@id",
        "@set"
      ]
    },
    "require_auth_time": {
      "@id": "oidc:require_auth_time",
      "@type": "xsd:boolean"
    },
    "default_max_age": {
      "@id": "oidc:default_max_age",
      "@type": "xsd:integer"
    },
    "application_type": {
      "@id": "oidc:application_type"
    },
    "client_name": {
      "@id": "oidc:client_name"
    },
    "contacts": {
      "@id": "oidc:contacts"
    },
    "grant_types": {
      "@id": "oidc:grant_types"
    },
    "response_types": {
      "@id": "oidc:response_types"
    },
    "scope": {
      "@id": "oidc:scope"
    },
    "token_endpoint_auth_method": {
      "@id": "oidc:token_endpoint_auth_method"
    }
  }
}

Conformance

Document conventions

Conformance requirements are expressed with a combination of descriptive assertions and RFC 2119 terminology. The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in the normative parts of this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. However, for readability, these words do not appear in all uppercase letters in this specification.

All of the text of this specification is normative except sections explicitly marked as non-normative, examples, and notes. [RFC2119]

Examples in this specification are introduced with the words “for example” or are set apart from the normative text with class="example", like this:

Informative notes begin with the word “Note” and are set apart from the normative text with class="note", like this:

References

Normative References

[DPOP]
OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP). D. Fett, B. Campbell, J. Bradley, T. Lodderstedt, M. Jones, D. Waite. IETF. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dpop
[OIDC-CORE]
OpenID Connect Core 1.0. N. Sakimura, J. Bradley, M. Jones, B. de Medeiros, C. Mortimore. The OpenID Foundation. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html
[OIDC-DISCOVERY]
OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0. N. Sakimura, J. Bradley, M. Jones, E. Jay. The OpenID Foundation. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html
[OIDC-DYNAMIC-CLIENT-REGISTRATION]
OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0. N. Sakimura, J. Bradley, M.B. Jones. The OpenID Foundation. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html
[RFC2119]
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. S. Bradner, March 1997, Best Current Practice. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
[RFC6749]
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework. D. Hardt, Ed., October 2012, Proposed Standard. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749
[RFC7517]
JSON Web Key (JWK). M. Jones, May 2015, Proposed Standard. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7517
[RFC7519]
JSON Web Token (JWT). M. Jones, J. Bradley, N. Sakimura, May 2015, Proposed Standard. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519
[RFC7591]
OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol. J. Richer, Ed., M. Jones, J. Bradley, M. Machulak, P. Hunt, July 2015, Proposed Standard. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7591
[RFC7636]
Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients. N. Sakimura, Ed., J. Bradley, N. Agarwal, September 2015, Proposed Standard. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636
[RFC9207]
OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Issuer Identification. K. Meyer zu Selhausen, D. Fett, March 2022, Proposed Standard. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9207
[SOLID-OIDC-PRIMER]
Solid-OIDC Primer. Jackson Morgan, Aaron Coburn, Matthieu Bosquet. W3C Solid Community Group. https://solid.github.io/solid-oidc/primer/
[SOLID-PROTOCOL]
Solid Protocol. Sarven Capadisli, Tim Berners-Lee, Ruben Verborgh, Kjetil Kjernsmo, Justin Bingham, Dmitri Zagidulin. W3C Solid Community Group. https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol
[UMA]
User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Grant for OAuth 2.0 Authorization. Eve Maler, Maciej Machulak, Justin Richer. Kantara Initiative, Inc. https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/rec-oauth-uma-grant-2.0.html
[WEBID]
WebID 1.0. Andrei Sambra, Henry Story, Tim Berners-Lee. WebID Incubator Group. https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/identity/

Informative References

[BCP195]
Best Current Practice 195. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195
[RFC9110]
HTTP Semantics. R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed., June 2022, Internet Standard. IETF. https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9110.html
[RFC9700]
Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security. T. Lodderstedt, J. Bradley, A. Labunets, D. Fett, January 2025, Best Current Practice. IETF. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700