fix: IDToken nonce should not be checked (PS-385)

[splaunov]

This PR deletes code which checks nonce in passed OIDC IDToken against another string passed in the same request.
Replay protection cannot be based on comparing two strings taken from the same request.

Related issue(s)

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines.
• I have referenced an issue containing the design document if my change
  introduces a new feature.
• I am following the
  contributing code guidelines.
• I have read the security policy.
• I confirm that this pull request does not address a security
  vulnerability. If this pull request addresses a security vulnerability, I
  confirm that I got the approval (please contact
  security@ory.sh) from the maintainers to push
  the changes.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature
  works.
• I have added or changed the documentation.

Further Comments

[jonas-jonas]

Not sure I understand the reason here.
The nonce that is compared to the nonce value from the request, comes from the JWT, which is cryptographically signed, by the OIDC provider, right? So the nonce is not really coming from the same request.

What issue does this solve?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.12%. Comparing base (1a70648) to head (42c5270).
Report is 77 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3994      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.10%   78.12%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         362      362              
  Lines       25329    25313      -16     
==========================================
- Hits        19783    19775       -8     
+ Misses       4028     4022       -6     
+ Partials     1518     1516       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[splaunov]

Hi Jonas!
Here are some issues that come to mind:

• a false sense of security. We might be thinking that we are protected from replay attacks but we are not
• unnecessary lines of code on both client and server side. There is no other way for calling party to send the nonce but just extract it from idtoken and copy into the id_token_nonce

[aeneasr]

There are two nonces:

• The nonce we keep in our application and send as verification to Ory Kratos
• The nonce the upstream server send in the ID token

Since the second nonce (the user-provided value) is in a signed ID token, and the first nonce comes (most likely) from you initializing the OIDC call, the verification very much makes sense.

[splaunov]

Nonce checking only makes sense for party which generates the nonce.
On the kratos side we cannot trust the value in id_token_nonce field. As we do not know if it was just copied from the token itself or really generated before receiving the token.

And the client libs out there do not necessarily provide nonce value that was originally generated. Client-side code can take it only from the received idtoken.
As an example: https://pub.dev/documentation/google_sign_in/latest/google_sign_in/GoogleSignInAuthentication-class.html

[aeneasr]

By using this endpoint you delegate "Nonce checking only makes sense for party which generates the nonce." to Ory Kratos. Therefore, in my view, it is totally legitimate for Ory Kratos to do the heavy lifting of giving it's client the ability to verify the nonce it generated against the verified claims of the ID token.

If no nonce is availalbe, omit it and it will be ignored

[splaunov]

If no nonce is availalbe, omit it and it will be ignored

If no generated nonce is available we still need to send in the id_token_nonce field a copy of the value taken from idtoken.
Otherwise kratos generates error.

[aeneasr]

The nonce in the ID Token is only set if the OIDC request included a nonce (/oauth2/auth?client_id=...&nonce=...), otherwise the field is empty. If you did supply a nonce, then yes, it needs to be verified by the server.

[aeneasr]

We're looking into a solution for this now!

[aeneasr]

After careful review, it appears that some SDKs do not correctly handle the nonce (don't return it) or even return the same token multiple times. So I think this PR is valid, we'll just have to see if we disable it completely or on a provider-per-provider basis.

[wonrax]

We have exchanged emails in april with the same vulnerability description but it was impossible to make you consider this important so I gave up. Simply removing the nonce check does not address the elephant in the room. The nonce is still useless as it is right now, and @splaunov is absolutely right: it gives "a false sense of security. We might be thinking that we are protected from replay attacks but we are not".

If you are confident enough to assume that your users' ID tokens will never get leaked (by any mean such as accidental server-side logging, local network breach, etc.) I still think it's better just to drop the nonce support altogether, to reduce cognitive and maintenance burden.

Below are the emails I sent.

In the login with OIDC flow, the nonce is checked in the update registration flow step [1], however, the nonce value is retrieved from the request payload [2] instead of server side storage (e.g. database or in-memory). This imposes a possible replay attack where the attacker captures and retransmits the legitimate ID Token in the POST request. Correct nonce implementations such as invalidating nonce after the first use or associating the nonce with an identifier (e.g. hashing your flow ID and using it as the nonce value) can be used to prevent this from happening.

Also, in the OpenID Connect Basic Client Implementer's Guide 1.0 - draft 47 [3], under Section 2.2.1. ID Token Validation there states:
The iat Claim can be used to reject tokens that were issued too far away from the current time, limiting the amount of time that nonces need to be stored to prevent attacks. The acceptable range is Client specific.

[1] https://github.com/ory/kratos/blob/v1.1.0/selfservice/strategy/oidc/strategy.go#L700
[2] https://github.com/ory/kratos/blob/v1.1.0/selfservice/strategy/oidc/strategy_registration.go#L156
[3] https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-basic-1_0.html

I believe you were referring to the OIDC implicit flow, which uses the Id Token scope including Apple Google Sign In on iOS [1] and web [2], Google Sign In on Android [3] and web [4], etc. In contrast to the code flow in which the authorization providers will allow the code to be used only once (to exchange for access tokens), this flow does not require direct communication between the authorization server and the relying client party because the validation of Id Tokens is performed using the public keys provided by these services. Consequently, it is theoretically possible for an attacker to initiate a flow and exploit a leaked Id Token from a legitimate user to complete the authentication process.

This is where the importance of a nonce comes into play. By definition, nonce is "a value that is used only once" [5], ensuring that an Id Token is invalidated after its initial use. However, based on my shallow reading, it appears that your current implementation may not be fully leveraging the nonce to its intended purpose. However, if you decide to incorporate this security measure, I strongly recommend ensuring its correct application to avoid potential confusion and maintenance challenges in the future.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/implementing_user_authentication_with_sign_in_with_apple
[2] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple/sign_in_with_apple_js/configuring_your_webpage_for_sign_in_with_apple
[3] https://developer.android.com/training/sign-in/credential-manager
[4] https://developers.google.com/identity/gsi/web/guides/features
[5] https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/nonce