Skip to content

MSC2966: Usage of OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration in Matrix #2966

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
Merged
Changes from 15 commits
Commits
Show all changes
35 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1b1bcdd
OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Registration MSC
sandhose Jan 14, 2021
d923a45
contacts is required non-empty
hughns Sep 7, 2023
2bdcc4a
Make client_uri mandatory
hughns Sep 7, 2023
d4caa5a
Merge branch 'matrix-org:main' into msc/sandhose/oauth2-dynamic-regis…
sandhose Sep 3, 2024
32c9ead
Rework MSC
sandhose Sep 12, 2024
1ba6ce9
Mention the `token_endpoint_auth_method` client metadata
sandhose Dec 9, 2024
6eb5fdf
Update proposals/2966-oauth2-dynamic-registration.md
sandhose Dec 9, 2024
a67a2e8
State that the homeserver should display the tos_uri and policy_uri
sandhose Jan 16, 2025
d9fd175
Make the wording for the refresh token clearer
sandhose Jan 16, 2025
a7ddac2
Clarify that native callbacks with no slashes are allowed
sandhose Jan 16, 2025
4deb3c8
Give an example where the server ignores an unsupported grant type
sandhose Jan 16, 2025
0e2f0f1
Add security considerations
sandhose Jan 17, 2025
2a20e6d
must -> MUST, should -> SHOULD, may -> MAY
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
c7e55ec
Clarify the client should store the client_id
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
fe4ef69
Simplify definition of client_uri, already covered by the RFC
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
24d0ab8
Explain the point of the MSC earlier
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
fae9c29
Remove empty section
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
f3d30e9
Explicitly state that the client_uri is required
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
a65bd6b
Apply suggestions from code review
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
1768d54
Fix the web/native client sub-sub-sub sections
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
a98b2ba
Clarify the localhost port-less redirect URIs
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
6e32a71
The server should return a 201 on successful registration
sandhose Mar 5, 2025
8b2f387
Explain better the restrictions on URIs
sandhose Mar 13, 2025
03ba6f2
Allow custom ports in the redirect URI
sandhose Mar 13, 2025
6b03a53
Client regs won't grow exponentially
sandhose Mar 13, 2025
b6abea5
Explain how to mitigate the problem of client registrations growing o…
sandhose Mar 13, 2025
650a449
Add missing metadata in the dynamic registration response
sandhose Mar 18, 2025
15a3c87
Make 'metadata localization' its own sub-sub-sub-sub-section
sandhose Mar 25, 2025
4d7ff6c
Server may still deduplicate registrations
sandhose Mar 25, 2025
a0e8b37
Suggest different strategies to mitigate the growing number of client…
sandhose Mar 25, 2025
1f489ee
Let the server delete client registrations that have no active sessions
sandhose Mar 26, 2025
ee36393
Really, shoud MUST do a new client reg
sandhose Mar 26, 2025
55433db
Make sure the summary doesn't sound authoritative
sandhose Mar 31, 2025
70f017c
Put the links at the end of the file
sandhose Mar 31, 2025
dbb6163
Explain what is Matrix-specific, what is not
sandhose Mar 31, 2025
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
244 changes: 244 additions & 0 deletions proposals/2966-oauth2-dynamic-registration.md
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live Jan 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Implementation requirements:

  • Client using web flow
  • Client using native flow
  • Server supporting both flows (may be two different servers)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Known working clients with the web flow:

  • Element Web

Known working clients with the native flow:

  • Element Desktop
  • Element X iOS
  • Element X Android

Server supporting both:

  • Synapse with Matrix Authentication Service
  • Dendrite with Matrix Authentication Service (PR)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
# MSC2966: Usage of OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration in Matrix

This proposal is part of the broader [MSC3861: Next-generation auth for Matrix, based on OAuth 2.0/OIDC](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3861).

This MSC specifies how Matrix clients SHOULD leverage the OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol ([RFC 7591](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591)) to register themselves before initiating an authorization flow.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not to be a stickler, but I think having this 'should' in formal capitals technically implies the whole MSC is optional, which is probably not what you want.


## Proposal

### Prerequisites

This proposal requires the client to know the following authorization server metadata about the homeserver:

- `registration_endpoint`: the URL where the client is able to register itself.

The discovery of the above metadata is out of scope for this MSC and is currently covered by [MSC2965](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2965).

### Client metadata

In OAuth 2.0, clients have a set of metadata values associated with their client identifier at an authorization server.
These values are used to describe the client to the user and define how the client interacts with the authorization server.

This MSC specifies what metadata values are required by the Matrix specification and how a client can register itself with a Matrix homeserver to get a client identifier.

The metadata names are registered in the IANA [OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata](https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml#client-metadata) registry, and normative definitions of them are available in their respective RFCs in the registry.

#### Localizable metadata

#### `client_uri` and relationship with other URIs

Per [RFC 7591](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591), the `client_uri` MUST be a valid URL that SHOULD give the user more information about the client.
This URL SHOULD NOT require authentication to access.

This URI is a common base for all the other URIs in the metadata: those MUST be either on the same host or on a subdomain of the host of the `client_uri`.
For example, if the `client_uri` is `https://example.com/`, then one of the `redirect_uris` can be `https://example.com/callback` or `https://app.example.com/callback`, but not `https://app.com/callback`.

#### User-visible metadata values

The following metadata values SHOULD be used by clients to help users identify the client:

- `client_name`: Human-readable name of the client to be presented to the user
- `logo_uri`: URL that references a logo for the client
- `tos_uri`: URL that points to a human-readable terms of service document for the client
- `policy_uri`: URL that points to a human-readable policy document for the client

All the URIs MUST use the `https` scheme and use the `client_uri` as a common base.

If provided by the client, the homeserver SHOULD show or link to the `tos_uri` and `policy_uri` to the user.

All of these metadata values are optional.

As per [RFC 7591 sec. 2.2](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-2.2), these metadata values MAY be localized.
For example:

```json
{
"client_name": "Digital mailbox",
"client_name#en-US": "Digital mailbox",
"client_name#en-GB": "Digital postbox",
"client_name#fr": "Boîte aux lettres numérique",
"tos_uri": "https://example.com/tos.html",
"tos_uri#fr": "https://example.com/fr/tos.html",
"policy_uri": "https://example.com/policy.html",
"policy_uri#fr": "https://example.com/fr/policy.html"
}
```

#### Metadata values required by the OAuth 2.0 authorization grant flow

The following metadata values are required to be present to use the OAuth 2.0 authorization code grant and refresh token grant, as described in [MSC2964]:

- `redirect_uris`: Array of redirection URIs for use in redirect-based flows
- `response_types`: Array of the OAuth 2.0 response types that the client may use
- `grant_types`: Array of OAuth 2.0 grant types that the client may use
- `token_endpoint_auth_method`: String indicator of the requested authentication method for the token endpoint

The homeserver MUST support the `none` value for the `token_endpoint_auth_method`, as most Matrix clients are client-side only, do not have a server component, and therefore are public clients.

To use this grant:

- the `redirect_uris` MUST have at least one value
- the `response_types` MUST include `code`
- the `grant_types` MUST include `authorization_code` and `refresh_token`

#### Redirect URI validation

The redirect URI plays a critical role in validating the authenticity of the client.
The client 'proves' its identity by demonstrating that it controls the redirect URI.
This is why it is critical to have strict validation of the redirect URI.

The `application_type` metadata is used to determine the type of client.
It defaults to `web` if not present, and can be set to `native` to indicate that the client is a native application.

In all cases, the redirect URI MUST not have a fragment component.

#### Web clients

`web` clients can use redirect URIs that:

- MUST use the `https` scheme
- MUST omit the port (to use the default port for https: 443)
- MUST not use a user or password in the authority component of the URI
- MUST use the client URI as a common base for the authority component

Examples of valid redirect URIs (with `https://example.com/` as the client URI):

- `https://example.com/callback`
- `https://app.example.com/callback`
- `https://example.com/?query=value`

Examples of invalid redirect URIs (with `https://example.com/` as the client URI):

- `https://example.com/callback#fragment`
- `https://example.com:8080/callback`
- `http://example.com/callback`
- `http://localhost/`

#### Native clients

`native` clients can use three types of redirect URIs:

1. Private-Use URI Scheme:
- the scheme MUST be prefixed with the client URI hostname in reverse-DNS notation. For example, if the client URI is `https://example.com/`, then a valid custom URI scheme would be `com.example.app:/`.
- the URI MUST not have an authority component. This means that it MUST have either a single slash or none immediately following the scheme, with no hostname, username, or port.
2. "http" URIs on the loopback interface:
- it MUST use the `http` scheme
- the host part MUST be `localhost`, `127.0.0.1`, or `[::1]`
- it MUST have no port registered. The homeserver MUST then accept any port number during the authorization flow.
3. Claimed "https" Scheme URI:
- some operating systems allow apps to claim "https" scheme URIs in the domains they control
- when the browser encounters a claimed URI, instead of the page being loaded in the browser, the native app is launched with the URI supplied as a launch parameter
- the same rules as for `web` clients apply

These restrictions are the same as defined by [RFC8252 sec. 7](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8252#section-7).

Examples of valid redirect URIs (with `https://example.com/` as the client URI):

- `com.example.app:/callback`
- `com.example:/`
- `com.example:callback`
- `http://localhost/callback`
- `http://127.0.0.1/callback`
- `http://[::1]/callback`

Examples of invalid redirect URIs (with `https://example.com/` as the client URI):

- `example:/callback`
- `com.example.app://callback`
- `https://localhost/callback`
- `http://localhost:1234/callback`

### Dynamic client registration

Before initiating an authorization flow, the client MUST advertise its metadata to the homeserver to get back a `client_id`.

This is done through the `registration_endpoint` as described by [RFC7591 sec. 3](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-3).

To register, the client sends an HTTP POST to the `registration_endpoint` with its metadata as JSON in the body.
For example, the client could send the following registration request:

```http
POST /register HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
Accept: application/json
Server: auth.example.com
```

```json
{
"client_name": "My App",
"client_name#fr": "Mon application",
"client_uri": "https://example.com/",
"logo_uri": "https://example.com/logo.png",
"tos_uri": "https://example.com/tos.html",
"tos_uri#fr": "https://example.com/fr/tos.html",
"policy_uri": "https://example.com/policy.html",
"policy_uri#fr": "https://example.com/fr/policy.html",
"redirect_uris": ["https://app.example.com/callback"],
"token_endpoint_auth_method": "none",
"response_types": ["code"],
"grant_types": [
"authorization_code",
"refresh_token",
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange"
],
"application_type": "web"
}
```

The server replies with a JSON object containing the `client_id` allocated, as well as all the metadata values that the server registered.
It MUST ignore fields, `grant_types` and `response_types` that are not understood by the server.

With the previous registration request, the server would reply with:

```json
{
"client_id": "s6BhdRkqt3",
"client_name": "My App",
"client_uri": "https://example.com/",
"logo_uri": "https://example.com/logo.png",
"tos_uri": "https://example.com/tos.html",
"policy_uri": "https://example.com/policy.html",
"redirect_uris": ["https://app.example.com/callback"],
"response_types": ["code"],
"grant_types": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"],
"application_type": "web"
}
```

**Note**: in this example, the server has not registered the locale-specific values for `client_name`, `tos_uri`, and `policy_uri`, which is why they are not present in the response. The server also does not support the `urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange` grant type, which is why it is not present in the response.

The client MUST store the `client_id` for future use.
It SHOULD reuse the `client_id` for all future authorization requests done against the same homeserver.

## Potential issues

Because each client on each user device will do its own registration, they will all have different `client_id`s.
This means that the number of client registrations will grow exponentially.
A subsequent MSC could be proposed to identify multiple instances of the same client using signed client metadata.

## Alternatives

An alternative approach would be to have the client host a JSON file containing its metadata and use that URL as the `client_id`.
This is what the following [*OAuth Client ID Metadata Document* draft](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-parecki-oauth-client-id-metadata-document) proposes.

This approach has the advantage of being able to use the same `client_id` for different instances of the same client, but it has the disadvantage of requiring the client to host a JSON file on its own domain, as well as difficulties in handling updates to the metadata.

## Security considerations

The restrictions on the metadata values laid out in this MSC are a best effort to prevent client impersonation, but they are not flawless.

For web clients, it relies on the client's ability to prove ownership of the redirect URI, which can be guaranteed to some extent by sane DNS management and its use of TLS.
If a client-related domain name hosts an open redirector, it could be used to impersonate the client.

For native clients, because they can use private-use URI schemes and localhost redirectors, it relies more on the underlying operating system's security model and their application distribution model.
A good example of this is if a mobile client distributed through an app store registers the `app.acme.corp:` scheme in an effort to impersonate "ACME Corp's" app, then "ACME Corp" would have a valid case to take down the malicious app from the app store.

In both cases, it is crucial for the server to strictly enforce these restrictions and to show as much information about the client as possible to the user so they can make an informed decision.

## Unstable prefix

None relevant.

[RFC7591]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591
[MSC2964]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2964
Loading