Skip to content
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

MSC2965: OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata discovery #2965

Open
wants to merge 35 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
35 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ef474ee
OIDC discovery MSC
sandhose Jan 14, 2021
4d9345c
Add `account` field
hughns May 2, 2022
4a24cf6
Add id_token_hint to account management URL
hughns May 6, 2022
f5b54bf
Add reference to MSC3861
hughns Aug 5, 2022
1cc4976
Add missing heading
hughns Sep 22, 2022
6455b1f
Fix reference to MSC3861
hughns Feb 8, 2023
2a242bb
Update proposals/2965-oidc-discovery.md
hughns Aug 21, 2023
ae920ad
Fix typo
hughns Aug 21, 2023
d9d56f3
Update 2965-oidc-discovery.md
hughns Aug 21, 2023
74b29e0
Update proposals/2965-oidc-discovery.md
hughns Aug 21, 2023
610c22c
Update proposals/2965-oidc-discovery.md
hughns Aug 21, 2023
eed9e60
OIDC Provider -> OpenID Provider
hughns Aug 21, 2023
fdcde60
Define account management URL params
hughns Aug 21, 2023
c0b2565
Link for account management URLs
hughns Aug 21, 2023
e9e3ee1
MSC2965: move from well-known discovery to a dedicated C-S endpoint
sandhose Nov 29, 2023
a36c44a
MSC2965: add a note about why the well-known alternative has been dis…
sandhose Nov 30, 2023
7642a60
MSC2965: move the account management URL to the provider metadata
sandhose Dec 5, 2023
a0218df
MSC2965: line breaks
sandhose Dec 5, 2023
e852963
MSC2965: update note about the account endpoint metadata
sandhose Dec 5, 2023
1bb6dde
Move the /auth_issuer endpoint to the v1 prefix
sandhose Feb 21, 2024
e70cd3d
Add the `org.matrix.cross_signing_reset` action
sandhose Feb 21, 2024
754b290
Typo
sandhose Feb 21, 2024
56949de
Merge branch 'matrix-org:main' into msc/sandhose/oidc-discovery
sandhose Sep 3, 2024
45e9063
Rename MSC
sandhose Sep 4, 2024
27bb308
Remove account-related URLs
sandhose Sep 4, 2024
acabca8
Mention RFC8414 as alternative
sandhose Sep 4, 2024
61fc092
Outline another alternative: publish the metadata through a C-S API
sandhose Jan 17, 2025
331ac79
Fix the alternative flow
sandhose Jan 17, 2025
76dfb12
Publish the auth server metadata through a new C-S API endpoint
sandhose Jan 17, 2025
abd969a
renamed 2965-oidc-discovery.md -> 2965-auth-metadata.md
sandhose Jan 17, 2025
0e7cea0
Clarify auth & rate limiting requirements
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
2aed234
Mention the MSCs using each metadata value
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
93d1b09
Explain what to do when next-gen auth is not available
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
ee1c23d
Add rationale for not using a .well-known endpoint
sandhose Jan 22, 2025
885a50f
Reformat with prettier
sandhose Jan 22, 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
223 changes: 223 additions & 0 deletions proposals/2965-auth-metadata.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
# MSC2965: OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata discovery

This proposal is part of the broader [MSC3861: Next-generation auth for Matrix, based on OAuth 2.0/OIDC][MSC3861].

To be able to initiate an OAuth 2.0 login flow to use a Matrix server, the client needs to know the authorization server metadata, as defined in [RFC8414].

## Proposal

This introduces a new Client-Server API endpoint to discover the authorization server metadata used by the homeserver.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we include a rationale for why we don't hardcode the endpoint URLs to be under a /_matrix/oauth2 scheme? We still need the metdata discovery for other fields, so to an extent there is a question as to "why not", but still.


### `GET /auth_metadata`

A request on this endpoint should return a JSON object containing the authorization server metadata as defined in [RFC8414].
sandhose marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
This endpoint does _not_ require authentication, and MAY be rate limited per usual.

For example:

```http
GET /_matrix/client/v1/auth_metadata
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Host: example.com
Accept: application/json
```

```http
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: public, max-age=3600
```

```json
{
"authorization_endpoint": "https://account.example.com/oauth2/auth",
"token_endpoint": "https://account.example.com/oauth2/token",
"registration_endpoint": "https://account.example.com/oauth2/clients/register",
"revocation_endpoint": "https://account.example.com/oauth2/revoke",
"jwks_uri": "https://account.example.com/oauth2/keys",
"response_types_supported": ["code"],
"grant_types_supported": ["authorization_code", "refresh_token"],
"response_modes_supported": ["query", "fragment"],
"code_challenge_methods_supported": ["S256"],
"...": "some fields omitted"
}
```

**Note**: The fields required for the main flow outlined by [MSC3861] and its sub-proposals are:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here we define some required fields for the matrix proposals but I think some clarity is needed on whether requirements from RFC8414 also apply.


- `authorization_endpoint` ([MSC2964])
- `token_endpoint` ([MSC2964])
- `revocation_endpoint` ([MSC4254])
- `registration_endpoint` ([MSC2966])
- `response_types_supported` including the value `code` ([MSC2964])
- `grant_types_supported` including the values `authorization_code` and `refresh_token` ([MSC2964])
- `response_modes_supported` including the values `query` and `fragment` ([MSC2964])
- `code_challenge_methods_supported` including the value `S256` ([MSC2964])

See individual proposals for more details on each field.
sandhose marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Fallback

If the homeserver does not offer next-generation authentication as described in [MSC3861], this endpoint should return a 404 with the `M_UNRECOGNIZED` error code.

In this case, clients should fall back to using the User-Interactive Authentication flows instead to authenticate the user.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

or /login ?


## Rationale for not using a `.well-known` document
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Editorial nit: put this under the corresponding "Alternatives" entry, rather than making it its own h2 heading?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes -- it is really confusing to present this before the alternative of using well-known.


[RFC8414] suggests using an application-specific well-known endpoint instead of the `.well-known/oauth-authorization-server` endpoint.

Considering the rest of the client-server API, there are two potential locations where this could be hosted:

1. On the server name domain, with well-known delegation, e.g. `https://example.com/.well-known/matrix/auth-metadata`
2. On the client-server API endpoint root, e.g. `https://matrix-client.example.com/.well-known/matrix/auth-metadata`

The first option would require making well-known documents mandatory on the server name domain, with a document that may need to be updated more frequently than existing ones.
This isn't practical for some server deployments, and clients may find it challenging to consistently perform this discovery.

The second option is also impractical, as all other Matrix APIs on this domain are prefixed with `/_matrix`, and it could easily be confused with the set of well-known documents hosted on the server name domain.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand this -- I think the thread (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2965/files#r1924524746) talks about before/after finding the client API. That rationale seems to be missing here.

Frankly to me, I'd expect this to be under well-known.


## Potential issues

The authorization server metadata is relatively large and may change over time. The client should:

- Cache the metadata appropriately based on HTTP caching headers
- Refetch the metadata if it is stale

## Alternatives

### Discovery via OpenID Connect Discovery

Instead of directly exposing the metadata through a Client-Server API endpoint, the homeserver could expose only the issuer URL and let clients discover the metadata using OpenID Connect Discovery.

In this approach, a new endpoint `/_matrix/client/v1/auth_issuer` would return just the issuer URL:

```http
GET /_matrix/client/v1/auth_issuer
Host: example.com
Accept: application/json
```

```http
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
```

```json
{
"issuer": "https://account.example.com/"
}
```

The Matrix client would then discover the OpenID Connect Provider configuration by using [OpenID Connect Discovery].

The downside of this approach is that it requires an extra roundtrip to get the metadata.
It also introduces a dependency on an OpenID Connect specification: [MSC3861] proposals tries to build on OAuth 2.0/IETF standards as much as possible.

### Discovery via [RFC8414] well-known endpoint

[RFC8414] OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata already defines a standard well-known endpoint, under `.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`.
However, the RFC states that an application leveraging this standard should define its own application-specific endpoint, e.g. `/.well-known/matrix-authorization-server`, and _not_ use the `.well-known/oauth-authorization-server` endpoint.
To avoid confusion with the existing `.well-known/matrix/*` documents, this proposal suggests defining a new C-S API endpoint instead.
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

### Discovery via the well-known client discovery
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: it's server discovery rather than client discovery, if anything.

maybe:

Suggested change
### Discovery via the well-known client discovery
### Discovery via existing `.well-known` mechanism


A previous version of this proposal suggested using the well-known client discovery mechanism to discover the authentication server.
Clients already discover the homeserver when doing a server discovery via the well-known document.

A new `m.authentication` field is added to this document to support OpenID Connect Provider (OP) discovery.
Comment on lines +123 to +126
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
A previous version of this proposal suggested using the well-known client discovery mechanism to discover the authentication server.
Clients already discover the homeserver when doing a server discovery via the well-known document.
A new `m.authentication` field is added to this document to support OpenID Connect Provider (OP) discovery.
A previous version of this proposal suggested using the existing [homeserver discovery mechanism](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.13/client-server-api/#server-discovery) to discover the authentication server.
A new `m.authentication` field is added to the `.well-known` document to support OpenID Connect Provider (OP) discovery.

It is an object containing two fields:

- REQUIRED `issuer` - the OpenID Connect Provider that is trusted by the homeserver
- OPTIONAL `account` - the URL where the user is able to access the account management capabilities of the OpenID Connect Provider

For example:

```http
GET /.well-known/matrix/client
Host: example.com
Accept: application/json
```

```http
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json
```

```json
{
"m.homeserver": {
"base_url": "https://matrix-client.example.com"
},
"m.identity_server": {
"base_url": "https://identity.example.com"
},
"m.authentication": {
"issuer": "https://account.example.com",
"account": "https://account.example.com/myaccount"
}
}
```

This proposal, although implemented in some clients and in Synapse, has the downside of making the well-known discovery mandatory.
When implemented in clients, in many circumstances it was hard to go back and use well-known discovery, as they may already know the homeserver URL.
Since the authentication server is always tightly coupled to the homeserver (as opposed to the identity server), it makes sense to discover it via a Client-Server API endpoint.

The account management URL was also part of this proposal, but it was moved to the OpenID Connect Provider metadata because it makes more sense for the provider to advertise it, and not the homeserver.

### Discovery via the `m.login.oauth2` authentication method

The spec already defines a `m.login.oauth2` authentication method, but it was never implemented.
The downside of this approach is that the plan is to deprecate the old login mechanism and it does not make sense to keep it just to discover the issuer.

### Discovery via WebFinger

OIDC already has a standard way to discover OP from an identifier: WebFinger.
This is already adopted by Mastodon, and might help solve logging in via 3PIDs like emails.

Sample exchange:

```
GET /.well-known/webfinger?
resource= mxid:@john:example.com &
rel= http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/issuer
Host: example.com
```

```json
{
"subject": "mxid:@john:matrix.org",
"links": [
{
"rel": "http://openid.net/specs/connect/1.0/issuer",
"href": "https://account.example.com"
}
]
}
```

The `mxid` scheme is a bit arbitrary here.
The parameters in the URL should be percent-encoded, this was left unencoded for clarity.

The benefits of this approach are that it is standard and decouples the authentication server from the Matrix server:
different authentication servers could be used by different accounts on the server.

The downsides of this approach are:

- the `.well-known/webfinger` resource is dynamic, which can be harder to host/delegate & might conflict with other services leveraging it like Mastodon
- this does not cover discovering the authentication server for user registration

## Security considerations

None relevant.
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Unstable prefix

While this MSC is not in a released version of the specification,
clients should use the `org.matrix.msc2965` unstable prefix for the endpoint,
e.g. `GET /_matrix/client/unstable/org.matrix.msc2965/auth_metadata`.

[RFC8414]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8414
[MSC2964]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2964
[MSC2966]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2966
[MSC3861]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3861
[MSC4254]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/4254
[OpenID Connect Discovery]: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html
Loading