Repository navigation
sep-1932 authorization-server scenario: dpop_jkt enforcement is untested (RFC 9449 §10) #549
Description
Gap
The AS acceptance suite never exercises authorization code binding. dpop_jkt does not appear anywhere in src/scenarios/authorization-server/ on main, so an AS that silently ignores the parameter — issuing a token for a jkt-bound code exchanged with a wrong-key proof — passes the suite today.
The attack this binding exists to stop: an attacker who steals an authorization code (referrer leak, log, open redirect) exchanges it with a DPoP proof from their own key. A conformant AS compares the proof key's thumbprint to the dpop_jkt from the authorization request and rejects; an AS that ignores the parameter issues the attacker a token bound to the attacker's key.
#523 adds the client side of this (does the client send dpop_jkt), and its test AS enforces the binding — but nothing tests a real AS under test for the enforcement itself. The counterpart SEP text (client SHOULD) is in modelcontextprotocol/ext-auth#35.
Spec text
RFC 9449 §10:
When a token request is received, the authorization server computes the JWK Thumbprint of the proof-of-possession public key in the DPoP proof and verifies that it matches the dpop_jkt parameter value in the authorization request. If they do not match, it MUST reject the request.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9449.html#section-10
Proposal
Add two probes to the authorization-server DPoP scenario (builds on the surface #525 touches). Both run the full flow with dpop_jkt = thumbprint of key A on the authorization request, then vary the token exchange:
| Check | Token exchange | SUCCESS | WARNING | FAILURE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
sep-1932-as-dpop-jkt-accepted |
valid proof from key A | token issued | — | request rejected (RFC 6749 §3.1: unrecognized request parameters MUST be ignored, so rejecting the matching flow breaks every client that sends the parameter) |
sep-1932-as-dpop-jkt-mismatch-rejected |
valid proof from key B | request rejected | token issued — binding not enforced | — |
Grading rationale for the WARNING: authorization code binding is a SHOULD in the MCP profile (modelcontextprotocol/ext-auth#35) and the dpop_jkt parameter is OPTIONAL in RFC 9449 §10, so an AS that issues a token on the mismatch has either not implemented an optional mechanism or implemented it without enforcement — indistinguishable from outside, and both correctly graded WARNING. This mirrors the client side in #523, where omitting dpop_jkt is likewise a SHOULD miss graded WARNING. An AS that rejects the mismatched exchange is enforcing RFC 9449 §10's MUST and passes.
@nbarbettini, flagging this issue as a natural follow-up to #523 / #525 once both land as the dpop_jkt tests don't cover AS scenarios at present.
Generated with the aid of Claude (Fable 5).
Activity