When you log into a service you’re given an authentication token. Each
further request to the site includes that token, allowing the server to
figure out who you are and ensuring that you have access to your
data. Depending on site policy, this token may either be stored in memory
(and so vanish if you restart your browser) or disk. The token is the proof
of your identity. As far as the site is concerned, anyone with your token is
you. These tokens may be traditional browser cookies, but they may also be
stored in either site local storage or (if you’re not using a browser) in
some other storage location.
In recent years we’ve seen infostealer malware (like
LummaC2)
gain the ability to exfiltrate user tokens, allowing attackers to gain
access to the user’s data without needing to retain access to the user’s
machine. This attack is viable even if the site has strong MFA requirements,
so passkeys don’t help. Encrypting the tokens on disk doesn’t prevent the
malware from scraping them out of the browser’s RAM or obtaining whatever
key is used to encrypt them. This feels like a pretty hard problem to solve.
But that hasn’t stopped people from trying! Dirk Balfanz wrote an IETF draft
describing a mechanism for using self-signed certificates for TLS
authentication. This
uses the mutual
authentication
feature of the TLS protocol that requires both sides prove their identity to
each other. In regular TLS, the remote site presents a signed certificate
that tells you who it is. When performing mutual authentication, you then
present a certificate to the remote site telling it who you are. These
client certificates are largely unused outside enterprise environments
because they’re a huge pain to deploy. It’s not so much that this has
sharp edges, it’s that it’s entirely made of sharp edges. Managing
certificate deployment to your devices is hard. Browsers get confused if the
certificates change under them. You have one certificate and it lives
forever, so sites you present it to can track your identity. Users are
prompted to choose a certificate to authenticate with, and if they pick the
wrong one everything breaks and is hard to recover. I’ve deployed this and I
did not have a good time.
But Balfanz’s idea was simple. Rather than require certificates to be
deployed, browsers would simply generate a certificate on the fly. The goal
wasn’t to prove the device or user’s identity in any global way - but it
would associate a TLS session with a specific certificate. You could then,
for example, include a hash of the certificate in the cookie, and if someone
tried to use that cookie without presenting that certificate then the cookie
could be rejected. If the browser used a hardware-backed private key for the
certificate then it would be impossible for an attacker to steal it. Sure,
you could still steal cookies, but you wouldn’t be able to use them.
This was written almost 15 years ago, and seems simple, elegant, and
functional. It didn’t happen. Part of the reason for that is that, well, it
wasn’t quite so simple. One problem was privacy related. Cookies are only
sent after the TLS session is established, so anyone monitoring the network
doesn’t know anything about the user identity. A naive implementation of
this approach would have meant the client certificate being sent before
session establishment, and now user identity can be tracked (no longer an
issue if this was implemented on top of TLS 1.3, but this was a log time
ago). This was avoided by reordering the client handshake, but that meant
having to modify the TLS specification and implementations would have to be
updated to support this. Another was that figuring out the granularity of
the certificates was difficult. You’d want to use different certificates for
every site to avoid them effectively becoming tracking cookies, but you need
to provide the certificate before cookies are set, and you don’t know what
origin the site is going to set in its cookies. If you generate a
certificate for a.example.com and a different one for b.example.com, and
a.example.com sets a cookie for *.example.com and includes the certificate
you used for a.example.com, that cookie isn’t going to work on b.example.com
and things are broken. This meant supporting it wasn’t as straightforward as
it seemed - you’d need to ensure that your cookie scope was compatible with
the certificate scope. You could probably make this work well enough by
aligning it with the Public Suffix List, but
there was still some risk of expectations not being aligned.
And, perhaps most importantly, TLS session
resumption (replaced by
pre-shared keys in
TLS 1.3) somewhat defeats the purpose of the exercise - clients store state
that allows them to re-establish a TLS connection without performing
certificate exchange (this reduces overhead if a connection gets interrupted
or you switch to a new network or anything along those lines), and anyone in
a position to steal cookies could steal that state as well.
The followup attempt was channel
IDs.
This simplified the implementation somewhat - rather than certificates, a
raw public key would be sent, along with proof of possession of the private
key in the form of a signature over a portion of the TLS handshake. This was
required even in the event of session resumption, which avoided having to
worry about theft of session secrets. The timing of the exchange was after
the encrypted session had been established, so user identity couldn’t be
leaked that way either. Cookies could then be bound to this
identifier. Unfortunately it didn’t really deal with the problem of scoping
keys in a way that would match cookie requirements, and the spec suggests
that the right way of handling this is to scope keys to TLDs, which would
enable user tracking across sites (Chrome’s implementation apparently
restricted it to eTLD+1, which would match the third party cookie policy and
avoid the tracking risk).
Chrome added support for this, but it was removed in early
2018. The
discussion of some of the pain points in that message is interesting,
explicitly calling out problems with connection coalescing across domains
and the incompatibility with zero-RTT TLS1.3. The overall consensus at the
time seems to be that trying to solve this entirely at the TLS layer has too
many rough edges, and a different approach should be taken.
And so almost 7 years after the initial draft for origin bound certificates,
we come to token
binding. This ended up being
a rather more complex endeavour, covering 3 different RFCs describing how it
impacts TLS, how to incorporate it into HTTP, and how to manage all the
various parties involved in the process. The short version is that it’s
pretty similar to channel ID, except that there’s also a documented
mechanism for allowing tokens to be bound to one party and consumed by
another, avoiding any need for widely scoped keys. Token binding effectively
solved all the issues in the original proposal, but at the cost of somewhat
more complexity.
The RFC was finalised in October 2018. Chrome removed its (incomplete,
draft) support for token binding in November 2018. Edge carried support
until late 2024. Despite getting all the way through the RFC process, it’s
functionally dead.
The process up until this point had been largely initiated by Google, with
Microsoft contributing significantly to the token binding standards. The
work had been focused on identifying a generic solution to the problem
rather than tying it to any specific authentication flow. The next step was
in a different direction - rather than trying to fix this for the entire
internet, how about we try to fix it for OAuth?
RFC 8705 is titled “OAuth
2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access
Tokens”. This is basically the 2011 approach, but (a) with an explicit
definition of how the certificate should be incorporated into issued auth
cookies, and (b) with a proviso that well uh if you’re going to use tokens
issued by your IdP to authenticate to someone else then well you’re going to
need to use the same cert for both. This is probably fine for the
company-owned-laptop case where you’re actually fine with multiple sites
being able to tie identities together (that’s kind of the point here!), and
also works for “I am using an app and not a browser”, but doesn’t work for
more generic scenarios. It also doesn’t seem to take the session resumption
case into account at all? Support for RFC8705 seems poor, as far as I can
tell of the big players only Auth0 implements it. In theory it works fine
with self-signed client certs but in reality that’s going to be almost as
difficult to support across multiple platforms as just issuing proper client
certs in the first place, so deployment is going to be kind of a pain. But
the good news is it doesn’t rely on any TLS extensions or custom browser
behaviour, so at the client side it works fine with any browser.
Which brings us on to RFC
9449, “Demonstrating Proof
of Possession”. This goes even further than RFC8705 in terms of reducing the
burden of deployment - it works fine with existing browsers, and it
doesn’t even require any certs. The client generates a keypair and provides
the pubkey when requesting the cookie. The cookie contains the pubkey. Every
request to the service now provides the cookie with the pubkey and also
provides a signature over the URI and HTTP method. If the signature matches
the pubkey in the token then clearly the signature came from the machine the
token was issued to, and everything is good.
This does come with some downsides, though. The first is that it uses
browser interfaces to generate the keys (typically
crypto.subtle.generatekey())
and as far as I can tell there are no browsers that guarantee that that key
is going to be generated in hardware even if it’s marked non-exportable, so
anyone able to steal the cookies can also steal the keys. The second is that
the signature only covers the URI and HTTP method, and not the message
content or any other headers, so anyone able to exfiltrate a valid signature
can replay it against the same URI with different message content. The
recommended way to handle this is to reject any signatures that weren’t
generated within the last few seconds, which is a wonderful additional way
to allow clock skew to give you a Bad Day. And the third is that every
single request has to be separately signed, which is not intrinsically a
problem because computers are fast and have multiple cores, but if you’re
trying to solve the first problem by sticking the key in a TPM then you’re
dealing with something that’s slow and single threaded and that’s maybe
acceptable if you’re using client certificates (because there’s going to be
one signature per session and you can use the same session for multiple
requests) but probably not if you’re dealing with a user opening a browser
that restores previous tabs and each of those is a webapp that fires off 100
requests in parallel.
In case it wasn’t clear, I don’t like DPoP. It doesn’t feel like it actually
solves the underlying problem that we see in the real world (malware running
in a context where if it can grab the tokens it can grab the keys), it adds
a massive amount of overhead, and it has baked in replay vulnerabilities. I
don’t know why it exists and I’m incredibly suspicious of vendors telling me
that it fixes my problems, because if they’re telling me that then I’m going
to end up assuming that they either don’t understand my problems or they
don’t understand their technology, and neither of those is good.
Still. Then we get to the thing that prompted me to write this - Chrome’s
announcement that they had launched device-bound session
credentials. This
is interesting because it’s a Chrome feature that’s explicitly intended to
counter on-device malware, which was one of the things that was out of scope
in 2018 when token binding was being removed. Since this is entire web level
it doesn’t have to be an RFC, and so is instead defined by
W3C. I’m going to handwave all the
complexity and say that it’s basically a way to register a public key when a
cookie is issued, and then prove possession of the private key when it’s
time to renew the cookie. By making the cookies shortlived and having
support for rotating them in the background, user impact is basically zero
and while it’s still possible for an attacker to exfiltrate and use a cookie
they’ll only be able to do so for a short window before it needs to be
refreshed - something the attacker can’t do, since they don’t have the
private key. This avoids the DPoP overhead because you only need to do
signing once per cookie per cookie lifetime, and not on every single
request. I don’t like this due to the window where exfiltrated tokens can
be used, but it feels like a strict improvement over the status quo. An
extension called device-bound session credentials for
enterprise
allows pre-enrollment of device keys, so even though the actual runtime DBCE
flow doesn’t involve certificates, certificates can be used for device
registration in enterprise environments and you can make sure that auth
cookies only go to trusted devices. Unfortunately this is Chrome-only, and
so we’re going to need to wait for it to be backported to all the random app
frameworks for it to have widespread support on mobile or for almost
everyone’s desktop app that’s actually three websites in an Electron
wrapper. Mozilla’s current
position
is that they’re not in favour of it, so I guess we’ll see where Safari lands
in terms of broad uptake.
The last thing on my list is another client cert/OAuth
binding,
this one still in draft state at the time of writing. This one is aimed
primarily at the use of agent-driven tooling, where you have something
running in the background using a whole bunch of tools that are each acting
on your behalf. Authenticating to all of them separately isn’t a fun time,
but giving broadly scoped access tokens to a non-deterministic agent and
trusting that it’ll never post them somewhere public also isn’t a fun
time. The key distinction between it and RFC8705 is that it’s aimed at
connections rather than sessions, which avoids the worries about session
resumption. This is done with TLS
Exporters, which in TLS 1.3
should be unique to the connection even over session resumption (TLS 1.2 may
reuse some of the same key material for exporters over session resumption,
so it’s recommended to enforce 1.3 for this). By providing a new signature
alongside the cookie on every new connection, the client proves that it
still has access to the private key. This is a very new spec and I haven’t
had much time to work through it yet, but my naive understanding is that
unlike RFC8705 this would require some additional client support to be able
to regenerate the client signature on every TLS reconnection.
This doesn’t avoid all the problems that RFC8705 has, including how to scope
certificates. For the agentic use case that probably doesn’t matter - all
these tools are acting on behalf of the same user, it’s fine if all the
sites involved know they’re the same user. But it doesn’t solve the general
purpose user use case, and right now DBSC seems like the best we have there.
But. Part of me still wonders whether Dirk
Balfanz’s
approach was the right one. Yes, there’s risk associated with TLS session
resumption, but in the worst case you could just switch that off for high
risk setups. The cookie scope argument is real, and also in cases where it
could violate privacy the site owner could already choose to broaden their
cookie scope and violate your privacy, and in cases where it breaks things
you could just not make use of it. The other problems are largely fixed by
TLS 1.3, and then we’re just left with “Browsers handle client certificates
badly” to which my answer is “Yes, and we should fix that anyway”.
Despite having a pretty good answer to this solution over a decade ago, the
closest we have to actual deployment is something that offers strictly worse
security guarantees. And tokens keep getting stolen, and compromises keep
occurring, and for the most part people shrug and get on with things.
Log in
Volkswagen is planning to offer Apple Wallet car keys in future vehicles, according to new server-side Apple code.
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Amazon. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
