27 KiB
title | description | lead | date | draft | images | menu | weight | toc | aliases | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OpenID Connect | An introduction into integrating the Authelia OpenID Connect 1.0 Provider with an OpenID Connect 1.0 Relying Party | An introduction into integrating the Authelia OpenID Connect 1.0 Provider with an OpenID Connect 1.0 Relying Party. | 2022-06-15T17:51:47+10:00 | false |
|
610 | true |
|
Authelia can act as an OpenID Connect 1.0 Provider as part of an open beta. This section details implementation specifics that can be used for integrating Authelia with an OpenID Connect 1.0 Relying Party, as well as specific documentation for some OpenID Connect 1.0 Relying Party implementations.
See the OpenID Connect 1.0 Provider and OpenID Connect 1.0 Clients configuration guides for information on how to configure the Authelia OpenID Connect 1.0 Provider (note the clients guide is for configuring the registered clients in the provider).
This page is intended as an integration reference point for any implementers who wish to integrate an OpenID Connect 1.0 Relying Party (client application) either as a developer or user of the third party Reyling Party.
Scope Definitions
The following scope definitions describe each scope supported and the associated effects including the individual claims returned by granting this scope. By default we do not issue any claims which reveal the users identity which allows administrators semi-granular control over which claims the client is entitled to.
openid
This is the default scope for OpenID Connect 1.0. This field is forced on every client by the configuration validation that Authelia does.
Important Note: The subject identifiers or sub
Claim has been changed to a RFC4122 UUID V4 to identify the
individual user as per the Subject Identifier Types section of the OpenID Connect 1.0 specification. Please use the
preferred_username
Claim instead.
Claim | JWT Type | Authelia Attribute | Description |
---|---|---|---|
iss | string | hostname | The issuer name, determined by URL |
jti | string(uuid) | N/A | A RFC4122 UUID V4 representing the JWT Identifier |
rat | number | N/A | The time when the token was requested |
exp | number | N/A | Expires |
iat | number | N/A | The time when the token was issued |
auth_time | number | N/A | The time the user authenticated with Authelia |
sub | string(uuid) | opaque id | A RFC4122 UUID V4 linked to the user who logged in |
scope | string | scopes | Granted scopes (space delimited) |
scp | array[string] | scopes | Granted scopes |
aud | array[string] | N/A | Audience |
amr | array[string] | N/A | An RFC8176 list of authentication method reference values |
azp | string | id (client) | The authorized party |
client_id | string | id (client) | The client id |
offline_access
This scope is a special scope designed to allow applications to obtain a Refresh Token which allows extended access to an application on behalf of a user. A Refresh Token is a special Access Token that allows refreshing previously issued token credentials, effectively it allows the relying party to obtain new tokens periodically.
As per OpenID Connect 1.0 Section 11 Offline Access can only be granted during the Authorization Code Flow or a Hybrid Flow. The Refresh Token will only ever be returned at the [Token Endpoint] when the client is exchanging their OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code.
Generally unless an application supports this and actively requests this scope they should not be granted this scope via the client configuration.
It is also important to note that we treat a Refresh Token as single use and reissue a new Refresh Token during the refresh flow.
groups
This scope includes the groups the authentication backend reports the user is a member of in the Claims of the ID Token.
Claim | JWT Type | Authelia Attribute | Description |
---|---|---|---|
groups | array[string] | groups | List of user's groups discovered via authentication |
This scope includes the email information the authentication backend reports about the user in the Claims of the ID Token.
Claim | JWT Type | Authelia Attribute | Description |
---|---|---|---|
string | email[0] | The first email address in the list of emails | |
email_verified | bool | N/A | If the email is verified, assumed true for the time being |
alt_emails | array[string] | email[1:] | All email addresses that are not in the email JWT field |
profile
This scope includes the profile information the authentication backend reports about the user in the Claims of the ID Token.
Claim | JWT Type | Authelia Attribute | Description |
---|---|---|---|
preferred_username | string | username | The username the user used to login with |
name | string | display_name | The users display name |
Signing and Encryption Algorithms
OpenID Connect 1.0 and OAuth 2.0 support a wide variety of signature and encryption algorithms. Authelia supports a subset of these.
Response Object
Authelia's response objects can have the following signature algorithms:
Algorithm | Key Type | Hashing Algorithm | Use | JWK Default Conditions | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RS256 | RSA | SHA-256 | Signature | RSA Private Key without a specific algorithm | Requires an RSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
RS384 | RSA | SHA-384 | Signature | N/A | Requires an RSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
RS512 | RSA | SHA-512 | Signature | N/A | Requires an RSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
ES256 | ECDSA P-256 | SHA-256 | Signature | ECDSA Private Key with the P-256 curve | |
ES384 | ECDSA P-384 | SHA-384 | Signature | ECDSA Private Key with the P-384 curve | |
ES512 | ECDSA P-521 | SHA-512 | Signature | ECDSA Private Key with the P-521 curve | Requires an ECDSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
PS256 | RSA (MGF1) | SHA-256 | Signature | N/A | Requires an RSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
PS384 | RSA (MGF1) | SHA-384 | Signature | N/A | Requires an RSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
PS512 | RSA (MGF1) | SHA-512 | Signature | N/A | Requires an RSA Private Key with 2048 bits or more |
Request Object
Authelia accepts a wide variety of request object types.
Algorithm | Key Type | Hashing Algorithm | Use | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
none | None | None | N/A | N/A |
HS256 | HMAC Shared Secret | SHA-256 | Signature | Client Authentication Method client_secret_jwt |
HS384 | HMAC Shared Secret | SHA-384 | Signature | Client Authentication Method client_secret_jwt |
HS512 | HMAC Shared Secret | SHA-512 | Signature | Client Authentication Method client_secret_jwt |
RS256 | RSA | SHA-256 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
RS384 | RSA | SHA-384 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
RS512 | RSA | SHA-512 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
ES256 | ECDSA P-256 | SHA-256 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
ES384 | ECDSA P-384 | SHA-384 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
ES512 | ECDSA P-521 | SHA-512 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
PS256 | RSA (MFG1) | SHA-256 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
PS384 | RSA (MFG1) | SHA-384 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
PS512 | RSA (MFG1) | SHA-512 | Signature | Client Authentication Method private_key_jwt |
Parameters
The following section describes advanced parameters which can be used in various endpoints as well as their related configuration options.
Response Types
The following describes the supported response types. See the OAuth 2.0 Multiple Response Type Encoding Practices for more technical information. The default response modes column indicates which response modes are allowed by default on clients configured with this flow type value. If more than a single response type is configured
Flow Type | Value | Default Response Modes Values |
---|---|---|
Authorization Code Flow | code |
form_post , query |
Implicit Flow | id_token token |
form_post , fragment |
Implicit Flow | id_token |
form_post , fragment |
Implicit Flow | token |
form_post , fragment |
Hybrid Flow | code token |
form_post , fragment |
Hybrid Flow | code id_token |
form_post , fragment |
Hybrid Flow | code id_token token |
form_post , fragment |
Response Modes
The following describes the supported response modes. See the OAuth 2.0 Multiple Response Type Encoding Practices for more technical information. The default response modes of a client is based on the Response Types configuration.
Name | Value |
---|---|
OAuth 2.0 Form Post | form_post |
Query String | query |
Fragment | fragment |
Grant Types
The following describes the various [OAuth 2.0] and OpenID Connect 1.0 grant types and their support level. The value
field is both the required value for the grant_type
parameter in the authorization request and the grant_types
configuration option.
Grant Type | Supported | Value | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code | Yes | authorization_code |
|
OAuth 2.0 Resource Owner Password Credentials | No | password |
This Grant Type has been deprecated and should not normally be used |
OAuth 2.0 Client Credentials | No | client_credentials |
|
OAuth 2.0 Implicit | Yes | implicit |
This Grant Type has been deprecated and should not normally be used |
OAuth 2.0 Refresh Token | Yes | refresh_token |
This Grant Type should genreally only be used for clients which have the offline_access scope |
OAuth 2.0 Device Code | No | urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:device_code |
|
Client Authentication Method
The following describes the supported client authentication methods. See the OpenID Connect 1.0 Client Authentication specification and the OAuth 2.0 - Client Types specification for more information.
Description | Value / Name | Supported Client Types | Default for Client Type | Assertion Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
Secret via HTTP Basic Auth Scheme | client_secret_basic |
confidential |
N/A | N/A |
Secret via HTTP POST Body | client_secret_post |
confidential |
N/A | N/A |
JWT (signed by secret) | client_secret_jwt |
confidential |
N/A | urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer |
JWT (signed by private key) | private_key_jwt |
confidential |
N/A | urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:jwt-bearer |
OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS | tls_client_auth |
Not Supported | N/A | N/A |
OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS (Self Signed) | self_signed_tls_client_auth |
Not Supported | N/A | N/A |
No Authentication | none |
public |
public |
N/A |
Authentication Method References
Authelia currently supports adding the amr
Claim to the ID Token utilizing the RFC8176 Authentication Method
Reference values.
The values this Claim has are not strictly defined by the OpenID Connect 1.0 specification. As such, some backends may expect a specification other than RFC8176 for this purpose. If you have such an application and wish for us to support it then you're encouraged to create a feature request.
Below is a list of the potential values we place in the Claim and their meaning:
Value | Description | Factor | Channel |
---|---|---|---|
mfa | User used multiple factors to login (see factor column) | N/A | N/A |
mca | User used multiple channels to login (see channel column) | N/A | N/A |
user | User confirmed they were present when using their hardware key | N/A | N/A |
pin | User confirmed they are the owner of the hardware key with a pin | N/A | N/A |
pwd | User used a username and password to login | Know | Browser |
otp | User used TOTP to login | Have | Browser |
hwk | User used a hardware key to login | Have | Browser |
sms | User used Duo to login | Have | External |
User Information Signing Algorithm
The following table describes the response from the UserInfo endpoint depending on the userinfo_signing_alg.
Signing Algorithm | Encoding | Content Type |
---|---|---|
none |
JSON | application/json; charset="UTF-8" |
RS256 |
JWT (Signed) | application/jwt; charset="UTF-8" |
Endpoint Implementations
The following section documents the endpoints we implement and their respective paths. This information can traditionally be discovered by relying parties that utilize OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0, however this information may be useful for clients which do not implement this.
The endpoints can be discovered easily by visiting the Discovery and Metadata endpoints. It is recommended regardless of your version of Authelia that you utilize this version as it will always produce the correct endpoint URLs. The paths for the Discovery/Metadata endpoints are part of IANA's well known registration but are also documented in a table below.
These tables document the endpoints we currently support and their paths in the most recent version of Authelia. The paths are appended to the end of the primary URL used to access Authelia. The tables use the url https://auth.example.com as an example of the Authelia root URL which is also the OpenID Connect 1.0 Issuer.
Well Known Discovery Endpoints
These endpoints can be utilized to discover other endpoints and metadata about the Authelia OP.
Discoverable Endpoints
These endpoints implement OpenID Connect 1.0 Provider specifications.
Endpoint | Path | Discovery Attribute |
---|---|---|
JSON Web Key Set | https://auth.example.com/jwks.json | jwks_uri |
Authorization | https://auth.example.com/api/oidc/authorization | authorization_endpoint |
Pushed Authorization Requests | https://auth.example.com/api/oidc/pushed-authorization-request | pushed_authorization_request_endpoint |
Token | https://auth.example.com/api/oidc/token | token_endpoint |
UserInfo | https://auth.example.com/api/oidc/userinfo | userinfo_endpoint |
Introspection | https://auth.example.com/api/oidc/introspection | introspection_endpoint |
Revocation | https://auth.example.com/api/oidc/revocation | revocation_endpoint |
Security
The following information covers some security topics some users may wish to be familiar with.
Pushed Authorization Requests Endpoint
The Pushed Authorization Requests endpoint is discussed in depth in RFC9126 as well as in the OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests documentation.
Essentially it's a special endpoint that takes the same parameters as the Authorization endpoint (including Proof Key Code Exchange) with a few caveats:
- The same Client Authentication mechanism required by the Token endpoint MUST be used.
- The request MUST use the HTTP POST method.
- The request MUST use the
application/x-www-form-urlencoded
content type (i.e. the parameters MUST be in the body, not the URI). - The request MUST occur over the back-channel.
The response of this endpoint is a JSON Object with two key-value pairs:
request_uri
expires_in
The expires_in
indicates how long the request_uri
is valid for. The request_uri
is used as a parameter to the
Authorization endpoint instead of the standard parameters (as the request_uri
parameter).
The advantages of this approach are as follows:
- Pushed Authorization Requests cannot be created or influenced by any party other than the Relying Party (client).
- Since you can force all Authorization requests to be initiated via Pushed Authorization Requests you drastically improve the authorization flows resistance to phishing attacks (this can be done globally or on a per-client basis).
- Since the Pushed Authorization Requests endpoint requires all of the same Client Authentication mechanisms as the
Token endpoint:
- Clients using the confidential Client Type can't have Pushed Authorization Requests generated by parties who do not have the credentials.
- Clients using the public Client Type and utilizing Proof Key Code Exchange never
transmit the verifier over any front-channel making even the
plain
challenge method relatively secure.
Proof Key Code Exchange
The Proof Key Code Exchange mechanism is discussed in depth in RFC7636 as well as in the OAuth 2.0 Proof Key Code Exchange documentation.
Essentially a random opaque value is generated by the Relying Party and optionally (but recommended) passed through a
SHA256 hash. The original value is saved by the Relying Party, and the hashed value is sent in the Authorization
request in the code_verifier
parameter with the code_challenge_method
set to S256
(or plain
using a bad practice
of not hashing the opaque value).
When the Relying Party requests the token from the Token endpoint, they must include the code_verifier
parameter
again (in the body), but this time they send the value without it being hashed.
The advantages of this approach are as follows:
- Provided the value was hashed it's certain that the Relying Party which generated the authorization request is the same party as the one requesting the token or is permitted by the Relying Party to make this request.
- Even when using the public Client Type there is a form of authentication on the Token endpoint.