The OAuth 2.

0 Authorization
Protocol
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 authorization protocol enables a third-party application to obtain
limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by
orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP
service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.
This specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 1.0 protocol described in RFC
5849.

Authors:

1. Eran Hammer (editor) [email protected]

2. David Recordon, Facebook [email protected]
3. Dick Hardt, Microsoft [email protected]
 Introduction ....................................................................................................................4
▪ Roles .........................................................................................................................5
▪ Protocol Flow ............................................................................................................6
▪ Authorization Grant ...................................................................................................7
▪ Access Token............................................................................................................8
▪ Refresh Token ...........................................................................................................9
▪ TLS Version .............................................................................................................11
▪ Interoperability ........................................................................................................12
▪ Notational Conventions...........................................................................................12
Client Registration........................................................................................................13
▪ Client Types ............................................................................................................13
▪ Client Identifier ........................................................................................................15
▪ Client Authentication ...............................................................................................15
▪ Unregistered Clients................................................................................................16
Protocol Endpoints ......................................................................................................17
▪ Authorization Endpoint............................................................................................17
▪ Token Endpoint .......................................................................................................20
▪ Access Token Scope ..............................................................................................22
Obtaining Authorization................................................................................................23
▪ Authorization Code Grant .......................................................................................23
▪ Implicit Grant...........................................................................................................30
▪ Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant .......................................................36
▪ Client Credentials Grant..........................................................................................39
▪ Extension Grants.....................................................................................................41
Issuing an Access Token .............................................................................................43
▪ Successful Response..............................................................................................43
▪ Error Response .......................................................................................................44
Refreshing an Access Token .......................................................................................47

Accessing Protected Resources..................................................................................49

▪ Access Token Types ...............................................................................................49
Extensibility ..................................................................................................................51
▪ Defining Access Token Types.................................................................................51
▪ Defining New Endpoint Parameters ........................................................................51
▪ Defining New Authorization Grant Types ................................................................52

ii
 Chapter 1: Abstract

▪ Defining New Authorization Endpoint Response Types .........................................52

▪ Defining Additional Error Codes..............................................................................52
Native Applications ......................................................................................................54

Security Considerations ...............................................................................................56

▪ Client Authentication ...............................................................................................15
▪ Client Impersonation ...............................................................................................56
▪ Access Tokens ........................................................................................................57
▪ Refresh Tokens .......................................................................................................57
▪ Authorization Codes................................................................................................58
▪ Authorization Code Redirection URI Manipulation .................................................59
▪ Resource Owner Password Credentials ...................................................................8
▪ Request Confidentiality ...........................................................................................60
▪ Endpoints Authenticity ............................................................................................60
▪ Credentials Guessing Attacks.................................................................................60
▪ Phishing Attacks .....................................................................................................61
▪ Cross-Site Request Forgery....................................................................................61
▪ Clickjacking .............................................................................................................62
▪ Code Injection and Input Validation ........................................................................62
▪ Open Redirectors ....................................................................................................63
IANA Considerations ....................................................................................................64
▪ The OAuth Access Token Type Registry ................................................................64
▪ The OAuth Parameters Registry .............................................................................65
▪ The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type Registry .................................69
▪ The OAuth Extensions Error Registry......................................................................70
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................72

iii
OAuth 2.0

2. Introduction
In the traditional client-server authentication model, the client requests an access
restricted resource (protected resource) on the server by authenticating with the
server using the resource owner's credentials. In order to provide third-party
applications access to restricted resources, the resource owner shares its credentials
with the third-party. This creates several problems and limitations:

• Third-party applications are required to store the resource owner's credentials for
future use, typically a password in clear-text.

• Servers are required to support password authentication, despite the security

weaknesses created by passwords.

• Third-party applications gain overly broad access to the resource owner's

protected resources, leaving resource owners without any ability to restrict
duration or access to a limited subset of resources.

• Resource owners cannot revoke access to an individual third-party without

revoking access to all third-parties, and must do so by changing their password.

• Compromise of any third-party application results in compromise of the end-

user's password and all of the data protected by that password.

OAuth addresses these issues by introducing an authorization layer and separating

the role of the client from that of the resource owner. In OAuth, the client requests
access to resources controlled by the resource owner and hosted by the resource
server, and is issued a different set of credentials than those of the resource owner.

Instead of using the resource owner's credentials to access protected resources, the
client obtains an access token - a string denoting a specific scope, lifetime, and other
access attributes. Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an authorization
server with the approval of the resource owner. The client uses the access token to
access the protected resources hosted by the resource server.

For example, an end-user (resource owner) can grant a printing service (client) access
to her protected photos stored at a photo sharing service (resource server), without
sharing her username and password with the printing service. Instead, she
authenticates directly with a server trusted by the photo sharing service (authorization

4
 Chapter 2: Introduction

server) which issues the printing service delegation-specific credentials (access

token).

This specification is designed for use with HTTP RFC2616. The use of OAuth with any
transport protocol other than HTTP is undefined.

2.1. Roles
OAuth defines four roles:

resource owner
An entity capable of granting access to a protected resource. When the resource
owner is a person, it is refered to as an end-user.

resource server
The server hosting the protected resources, capable of accepting and responding to
protected resource requests using access tokens.

client
An application making protected resource requests on behalf of the resource owner
and with its authorization. The term client does not imply any particular
implementation characteristics (e.g. whether the application executes on a server, a
desktop, or other devices).

authorization server
The server issuing access tokens to the client after successfully authenticating the
resource owner and obtaining authorization.

The interaction between the authorization server and resource server is beyond the
scope of this specification. The authorization server may be the same server as the
resource server or a separate entity. A single authorization server may issue access
tokens accepted by multiple resource servers.

5
OAuth 2.0

2.2. Protocol Flow

Abstract Protocol Flow

+--------+ +---------------+
| |--(A)- Authorization Request ->| Resource |
| | | Owner |
| |<-(B)-- Authorization Grant ---| |
| | +---------------+
| |
| | +---------------+
| |--(C)-- Authorization Grant -->| Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<-(D)----- Access Token -------| |
| | +---------------+
| |
| | +---------------+
| |--(E)----- Access Token ------>| Resource |
| | | Server |
| |<-(F)--- Protected Resource ---| |
+--------+ +---------------+

The abstract flow illustrated in Abstract Protocol Flow describes the interaction
between the four roles and includes the following steps:

A. The client requests authorization from the resource owner. The authorization
request can be made directly to the resource owner (as shown), or preferably
indirectly via the authorization server as an intermediary.

B. The client receives an authorization grant which is a credential representing the

resource owner's authorization, expressed using one of four grant types defined
in this specification or using an extension grant type. The authorization grant type
depends on the method used by the client to request authorization and the types
supported by the authorization server.

C. The client requests an access token by authenticating with the authorization

server and presenting the authorization grant.

D. The authorization server authenticates the client and validates the authorization
grant, and if valid issues an access token.

6
 Chapter 2: Introduction

E. The client requests the protected resource from the resource server and
authenticates by presenting the access token.

F. The resource server validates the access token, and if valid, serves the request.

2.3. Authorization Grant

An authorization grant is a credential representing the resource owner's authorization
(to access its protected resources) used by the client to obtain an access token. This
specification defines four grant types: authorization code, implicit, resource owner
password credentials, and client credentials, as well as an extensibility mechanism for
defining additional types.

2.3.1. Authorization Code

The authorization code is obtained by using an authorization server as an
intermediary between the client and resource owner. Instead of requesting
authorization directly from the resource owner, the client directs the resource owner
to an authorization server (via its user-agent as defined in RFC2616), which in turn
directs the resource owner back to the client with the authorization code.

Before directing the resource owner back to the client with the authorization code, the
authorization server authenticates the resource owner and obtains authorization.
Because the resource owner only authenticates with the authorization server, the
resource owner's credentials are never shared with the client.

The authorization code provides a few important security benefits such as the ability
to authenticate the client, and the transmission of the access token directly to the
client without passing it through the resource owner's user-agent, potentially
exposing it to others, including the resource owner.

2.3.2. Implicit
The implicit grant is a simplified authorization code flow optimized for clients
implemented in a browser using a scripting language such as JavaScript. In the
implicit flow, instead of issuing the client an authorization code, the client is issued an
access token directly (as the result of the resource owner authorization). The grant
type is implicit as no intermediate credentials (such as an authorization code) are
issued (and later used to obtain an access token).

When issuing an access token during the implicit grant flow, the authorization server
does not authenticate the client. In some cases, the client identity can be verified via
the redirection URI used to deliver the access token to the client. The access token

7
OAuth 2.0

may be exposed to the resource owner or other applications with access to the
resource owner's user-agent.

Implicit grants improve the responsiveness and efficiency of some clients (such as a
client implemented as an in-browser application) since it reduces the number of
round trips required to obtain an access token. However, this convenience should be
weighed against the security implications of using implicit grants, especially when the
authorization code grant type is available.

2.3.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials

The resource owner password credentials (i.e. username and password) can be used
directly as an authorization grant to obtain an access token. The credentials should
only be used when there is a high degree of trust between the resource owner and
the client (e.g. the client is part of the device operating system or a highly privileged
application), and when other authorization grant types are not available (such as an
authorization code).

Even though this grant type requires direct client access to the resource owner
credentials, the resource owner credentials are used for a single request and are
exchanged for an access token. This grant type can eliminate the need for the client
to store the resource owner credentials for future use, by exchanging the credentials
with a long-lived access token or refresh token.

2.3.4. Client Credentials

The client credentials (or other forms of client authentication) can be used as an
authorization grant when the authorization scope is limited to the protected resources
under the control of the client, or to protected resources previously arranged with the
authorization server. Client credentials are used as an authorization grant typically
when the client is acting on its own behalf (the client is also the resource owner), or is
requesting access to protected resources based on an authorization previously
arranged with the authorization server.

2.4. Access Token

Access tokens are credentials used to access protected resources. An access token
is a string representing an authorization issued to the client. The string is usually
opaque to the client. Tokens represent specific scopes and durations of access,
granted by the resource owner, and enforced by the resource server and
authorization server.

8
 Chapter 2: Introduction

The token may denote an identifier used to retrieve the authorization information, or
self-contain the authorization information in a verifiable manner (i.e. a token string
consisting of some data and a signature). Additional authentication credentials, which
are beyond the scope of this specification, may be required in order for the client to
use a token.

The access token provides an abstraction layer, replacing different authorization

constructs (e.g. username and password) with a single token understood by the
resource server. This abstraction enables issuing access tokens more restrictive than
the authorization grant used to obtain them, as well as removing the resource server's
need to understand a wide range of authentication methods.

Access tokens can have different formats, structures, and methods of utilization (e.g.
cryptographic properties) based on the resource server security requirements. Access
token attributes and the methods used to access protected resources are beyond the
scope of this specification and are defined by companion specifications.

2.5. Refresh Token

Refresh tokens are credentials used to obtain access tokens. Refresh tokens are
issued to the client by the authorization server and are used to obtain a new access
token when the current access token becomes invalid or expires, or to obtain
additional access tokens with identical or narrower scope (access tokens may have a
shorter lifetime and fewer permissions than authorized by the resource owner).
Issuing a refresh token is optional at the discretion of the authorization server. If the
authorization server issues a refresh token, it is included when issuing an access
token.

A refresh token is a string representing the authorization granted to the client by the
resource owner. The string is usually opaque to the client. The token denotes an
identifier used to retrieve the authorization information. Unlike access tokens, refresh
tokens are intended for use only with authorization servers and are never sent to
resource servers.

9
OAuth 2.0

Refreshing an Expired Access Token

+--------+
+---------------+
| |--(A)------- Authorization Grant
--------->| |
| |
| |
| |<-(B)----------- Access Token
-------------| |
| | & Refresh Token
| |
| |
| |
| | +----------+
| |
| |--(C)---- Access Token ---->| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| |<-(D)- Protected Resource --| Resource | |
Authorization |
| Client | | Server | |
Server |
| |--(E)---- Access Token ---->| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| |<-(F)- Invalid Token Error -| |
| |
| | +----------+
| |
| |
| |
| |--(G)----------- Refresh Token
----------->| |
| |

10
 Chapter 2: Introduction

| |
| |<-(H)----------- Access Token
-------------| |
+--------+ & Optional Refresh Token
+---------------+

The flow illustrated in Refreshing an Expired Access Token includes the following
steps:

A. The client requests an access token by authenticating with the authorization

server, and presenting an authorization grant.

B. The authorization server authenticates the client and validates the authorization
grant, and if valid issues an access token and a refresh token.

C. The client makes a protected resource request to the resource server by

presenting the access token.

D. The resource server validates the access token, and if valid, serves the request.

E. Steps (C) and (D) repeat until the access token expires. If the client knows the
access token expired, it skips to step (G), otherwise it makes another protected
resource request.

F. Since the access token is invalid, the resource server returns an invalid token
error.

G. The client requests a new access token by authenticating with the authorization
server and presenting the refresh token. The client authentication requirements
are based on the client type and on the authorization server policies.

H. The authorization server authenticates the client and validates the refresh token,
and if valid issues a new access token (and optionally, a new refresh token).

Steps C, D, E, and F are outside the scope of this specification as described in

Accessing Protected Resources.

2.6. TLS Version

Whenever TLS is required by this specification, the appropriate version (or versions)
of TLS will vary over time, based on the widespread deployment and known security
vulnerabilities. At the time of this writing, TLS version 1.2 RFC5246 is the most recent

11
OAuth 2.0

version, but has a very limited deployment base and might not be readily available for
implementation. TLS version 1.0 RFC2246 is the most widely deployed version, and
will provide the broadest interoperability.

Implementations MAY also support additional transport-layer mechanisms that meet

their security requirements.

2.7. Interoperability
OAuth 2.0 provides a rich authorization framework with well-defined security
properties. However, as a rich and highly extensible framework with many optional
components, on its own, this specification is likely to produce a wide range of non-
interoperable implementations. In addition, this specification leaves a few required
components partially or fully undefined (e.g. client registration, authorization server
capabilities, endpoint discovery).

This protocol was designed with the clear expectation that future work will define
prescriptive profiles and extensions necessary to achieve full web-scale
interoperability.

2.8. Notational Conventions

The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT',
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
specification are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.

This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of

RFC5234.

Certain security-related terms are to be understood in the sense defined in RFC4949.

These terms include, but are not limited to, 'attack', 'authentication', 'authorization',
'certificate', 'confidentiality', 'credential', 'encryption', 'identity', 'sign', 'signature',
'trust', 'validate', and 'verify'.

Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values are case
sensitive.

12
 Chapter 3: Client Registration

3. Client Registration
Before initiating the protocol, the client registers with the authorization server. The
means through which the client registers with the authorization server are beyond the
scope of this specification, but typically involve end-user interaction with an HTML
registration form.

Client registration does not require a direct interaction between the client and the
authorization server. When supported by the authorization server, registration can rely
on other means for establishing trust and obtaining the required client properties (e.g.
redirection URI, client type). For example, registration can be accomplished using a
self-issued or third-party-issued assertion, or by the authorization server performing
client discovery using a trusted channel.

When registering a client, the client developer:

• specifies the client type as described in Client Types,

• provides its client redirection URIs as described in Redirection Endpoint, and

• includes any other information required by the authorization server (e.g.

application name, website, description, logo image, the acceptance of legal
terms).

3.1. Client Types

OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to authenticate securely with the
authorization server (i.e. ability to maintain the confidentiality of their client
credentials):

confidential
Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their credentials (e.g. client
implemented on a secure server with restricted access to the client credentials), or
capable of secure client authentication using other means.

public
Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their credentials (e.g. clients
executing on the device used by the resource owner such as an installed native
application or a web browser-based application), and incapable of secure client
authentication via any other means.

13
OAuth 2.0

The client type designation is based on the authorization server's definition of secure
authentication and its acceptable exposure levels of client credentials.

The authorization server SHOULD NOT make assumptions about the client type, nor
accept the type information provided by the client developer without first establishing
trust.

A client application consisting of multiple components, each with its own client type
(e.g. a distributed client with both a confidential server-based component and a
public browser-based component), MUST register each component separately as a
different client to ensure proper handling by the authorization server. The
authorization server MAY provider tools to manage such complex clients through a
single administration interface.

This specification has been designed around the following client profiles:

web application
A web application is a confidential client running on a web server. Resource owners
access the client via an HTML user interface rendered in a user-agent on the device
used by the resource owner. The client credentials as well as any access token
issued to the client are stored on the web server and are not exposed to or
accessible by the resource owner.

user-agent-based application
A user-agent-based application is a public client in which the client code is
downloaded from a web server and executes within a user-agent (e.g. web browser)
on the device used by the resource owner. Protocol data and credentials are easily
accessible (and often visible) to the resource owner. Since such applications reside
within the user-agent, they can make seamless use of the user-agent capabilities
when requesting authorization.

native application
A native application is a public client installed and executed on the device used by
the resource owner. Protocol data and credentials are accessible to the resource
owner. It is assumed that any client authentication credentials included in the
application can be extracted. On the other hand, dynamically issued credentials
such as access tokens or refresh tokens can receive an acceptable level of
protection. At a minimum, these credentials are protected from hostile servers with
which the application may interact with. On some platforms these credentials might
be protected from other applications residing on the same device.

14
 Chapter 3: Client Registration

3.2. Client Identifier

The authorization server issues the registered client a client identifier - a unique string
representing the registration information provided by the client. The client identifier is
not a secret, it is exposed to the resource owner, and MUST NOT be used alone for
client authentication.

3.3. Client Authentication

If the client type is confidential, the client and authorization server establish a client
authentication method suitable for the security requirements of the authorization
server. The authorization server MAY accept any form of client authentication meeting
its security requirements.

Confidential clients are typically issued (or establish) a set of client credentials used
for authenticating with the authorization server (e.g. password, public/private key
pair).

The authorization server MAY establish a client authentication method with public
clients. However, the authorization server MUST NOT rely on public client
authentication for the purpose of identifying the client.

The client MUST NOT use more than one authentication method in each request.

3.3.1. Client Password

Clients in possession of a client password MAY use the HTTP Basic authentication
scheme as defined in RFC2617 to authenticate with the authorization server. The
client identifier is used as the username, and the client password is used as the
password. The authorization server MUST support the HTTP Basic authentication
scheme for authenticating clients which were issued a client password.

For example (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0Mzo3RmpmcDBaQnIxS3REUmJuZlZkbUl3

Alternatively, the authorization server MAY support including the client credentials in
the request body using the following parameters:

client_id
REQUIRED. The client identifier issued to the client during the registration process
described by Client Identifier.

15
OAuth 2.0

client_secret
REQUIRED. The client secret. The client MAY omit the parameter if the client secret
is an empty string.

Including the client credentials in the request body using the two parameters is NOT
RECOMMENDED, and should be limited to clients unable to directly utilize the HTTP
Basic authentication scheme (or other password-based HTTP authentication
schemes). The parameters can only be transmitted in the request body and MUST
NOT be included in the request URI.

For example, requesting to refresh an access token (Refreshing an Access Token)

using the body parameters (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

POST /token HTTP/1.1

Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

grant_type=refresh_token&refresh_token=tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA
&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&client_secret=7Fjfp0ZBr1KtDRbnfVdmIw

The authorization server MUST require TLS as described in TLS Version when
sending requests using password authentication.

Since this client authentication method involves a password, the authorization server
MUST protect any endpoint utilizing it against brute force attacks.

3.3.2. Other Authentication Methods

The authorization server MAY support any suitable HTTP authentication scheme
matching its security requirements. When using other authentication methods, the
authorization server MUST define a mapping between the client identifier (registration
record) and authentication scheme.

3.4. Unregistered Clients

This specification does not exclude the use of unregistered clients. However, the use
with such clients is beyond the scope of this specification, and requires additional
security analysis and review of its interoperability impact.

16
 Chapter 4: Protocol Endpoints

4. Protocol Endpoints
The authorization process utilizes two authorization server endpoints (HTTP
resources):

• Authorization endpoint - used by the client to obtain authorization from the

resource owner via user-agent redirection.

• Token endpoint - used by the client to exchange an authorization grant for an

access token, typically with client authentication.

As well as one client endpoint:

• Redirection endpoint - used by the authorization server to return authorization

credentials responses to the client via the resource owner user-agent.

Not every authorization grant type utilizes both endpoints. Extension grant types MAY
define additional endpoints as needed.

4.1. Authorization Endpoint

The authorization endpoint is used to interact with the resource owner and obtain an
authorization grant. The authorization server MUST first verify the identity of the
resource owner. The way in which the authorization server authenticates the resource
owner (e.g. username and password login, session cookies) is beyond the scope of
this specification.

The means through which the client obtains the location of the authorization endpoint
are beyond the scope of this specification, but the location is typically provided in the
service documentation.

The endpoint URI MAY include an application/x-www-form-urlencoded formatted

(W3C.REC-html401-19991224) query component (RFC3986 section 3.4), which
MUST be retained when adding additional query parameters. The endpoint URI
MUST NOT include a fragment component.

Since requests to the authorization endpoint result in user authentication and the
transmission of clear-text credentials (in the HTTP response), the authorization server
MUST require TLS as described in TLS Version when sending requests to the
authorization endpoint.

17
OAuth 2.0

The authorization server MUST support the use of the HTTP GET method RFC2616
for the authorization endpoint, and MAY support the use of the POST method as well.

Parameters sent without a value MUST be treated as if they were omitted from the
request. The authorization server MUST ignore unrecognized request parameters.
Request and response parameters MUST NOT be included more than once.

4.1.1. Response Type

The authorization endpoint is used by the authorization code grant type and implicit
grant type flows. The client informs the authorization server of the desired grant type
using the following parameter:

response_type
REQUIRED. The value MUST be one of code for requesting an authorization code
as described by Authorization Request, token for requesting an access token
(implicit grant) as described by Authorization Request, or a registered extension
value as described by Defining New Authorization Endpoint Response Types.

Extension response types MAY contain a space-delimited (%x20) list of values, where
the order of values does not matter (e.g. response type a b is the same as b a). The
meaning of such composite response types is defined by their respective
specifications.

If an authorization request is missing the response_type parameter, or if the response

type is not understood, the authorization server MUST return an error response as
described in Error Response.

4.1.2. Redirection Endpoint

After completing its interaction with the resource owner, the authorization server
directs the resource owner's user-agent back to the client. The authorization server
redirects the user-agent to the client's redirection endpoint previously established
with the authorization server during the client registration process or when making the
authorization request.

The redirection endpoint URI MUST be an absolute URI as defined by RFC3986

section 4.3. The endpoint URI MAY include an application/x-www-form-urlencoded
formatted (W3C.REC-html401-19991224) query component (RFC3986 section 3.4),
which MUST be retained when adding additional query parameters. The endpoint URI
MUST NOT include a fragment component.

18
 Chapter 4: Protocol Endpoints

Endpoint Request Confidentiality

The redirection endpoint SHOULD require the use of TLS as described in TLS Version
when the requested response type is code or token, or when the redirection request
will result in the transmission of sensitive credentials over an open network. This
specification does not mandate the use of TLS because at the time of this writing,
requiring clients to deploy TLS is a significant hurdle for many client developers. If
TLS is not available, the authorization server SHOULD warn the resource owner about
the insecure endpoint prior to redirection.

Lack of transport-layer security can have a severe impact on the security of the client
and the protected resources it is authorized to access. The use of transport-layer
security is particularly critical when the authorization process is used as a form of
delegated end-user authentication by the client (e.g. third-party sign-in service).

Registration Requirements
The authorization server MUST require the following clients to register their
redirection endpoint:

• Public clients.

• Confidential clients utilizing the implicit grant type.

The authorization server SHOULD require all clients to register their redirection
endpoint prior to utilizing the authorization endpoint

The authorization server SHOULD require the client to provide the complete
redirection URI (the client MAY use the state request parameter to achieve per-
request customization). If requiring the registration of the complete redirection URI is
not possible, the authorization server SHOULD require the registration of the URI
scheme, authority, and path (allowing the client to dynamically vary only the query
component of the redirection URI when requesting authorization).

The authorization server MAY allow the client to register multiple redirection
endpoints.

Lack of a redirection URI registration requirement can enable an attacker to use the
authorization endpoint as open redirector as described in Open Redirectors.

Dynamic Configuration
If multiple redirection URIs have been registered, if only part of the redirection URI
has been registered, or if no redirection URI has been registered, the client MUST

19
OAuth 2.0

include a redirection URI with the authorization request using the redirect_uri request
parameter.

When a redirection URI is included in an authorization request, the authorization

server MUST compare and match the value received against at least one of the
registered redirection URIs (or URI components) as defined in RFC3986 section 6, if
any redirection URIs were registered. If the client registration included the full
redirection URI, the authorization server MUST compare the two URIs using simple
string comparison as defined in RFC3986 section 6.2.1.

Invalid Endpoint
If an authorization request fails validation due to a missing, invalid, or mismatching
redirection URI, the authorization server SHOULD inform the resource owner of the
error, and MUST NOT automatically redirect the user-agent to the invalid redirection
URI.

Endpoint Content
The redirection request to the client's endpoint typically results in an HTML document
response, processed by the user-agent. If the HTML response is served directly as
the result of the redirection request, any script included in the HTML document will
execute with full access to the redirection URI and the credentials it contains.

The client SHOULD NOT include any third-party scripts (e.g. third-party analytics,
social plug-ins, ad networks) in the redirection endpoint response. Instead, it
SHOULD extract the credentials from the URI and redirect the user-agent again to
another endpoint without exposing the credentials (in the URI or elsewhere). If third-
party scripts are included, the client MUST ensure that its own scripts (used to extract
and remove the credentials from the URI) will execute first.

4.2. Token Endpoint

The token endpoint is used by the client to obtain an access token by presenting its
authorization grant or refresh token. The token endpoint is used with every
authorization grant except for the implicit grant type (since an access token is issued
directly).

The means through which the client obtains the location of the token endpoint are
beyond the scope of this specification but is typically provided in the service
documentation.

20
 Chapter 4: Protocol Endpoints

The endpoint URI MAY include an application/x-www-form-urlencoded formatted

(W3C.REC-html401-19991224) query component (RFC3986 section 3.4), which
MUST be retained when adding additional query parameters. The endpoint URI
MUST NOT include a fragment component.

Since requests to the token endpoint result in the transmission of clear-text

credentials (in the HTTP request and response), the authorization server MUST
require TLS as described in TLS Version when sending requests to the token
endpoint.

The client MUST use the HTTP POST method when making access token requests.

Parameters sent without a value MUST be treated as if they were omitted from the
request. The authorization server MUST ignore unrecognized request parameters.
Request and response parameters MUST NOT be included more than once.

4.2.1. Client Authentication

Confidential clients or other clients issued client credentials MUST authenticate with
the authorization server as described in Client Authentication when making requests
to the token endpoint. Client authentication is used for:

• Enforcing the binding of refresh tokens and authorization codes to the client they
were issued to. Client authentication is critical when an authorization code is
transmitted to the redirection endpoint over an insecure channel, or when the
redirection URI has not been registered in full.

• Recovering from a compromised client by disabling the client or changing its

credentials, thus preventing an attacker from abusing stolen refresh tokens.
Changing a single set of client credentials is significantly faster than revoking an
entire set of refresh tokens.

• Implementing authentication management best practices which require periodic

credential rotation. Rotation of an entire set of refresh tokens can be challenging,
while rotation of a single set of client credentials is significantly easier.

A public client that was not issued a client password MAY use the client_id request
parameter to identify itself when sending requests to the token endpoint (e.g. for the
purpose of providing end-user context, client usage statistics).

21
OAuth 2.0

4.3. Access Token Scope

The authorization and token endpoints allow the client to specify the scope of the
access request using the scope request parameter. In turn, the authorization server
uses the scope response parameter to inform the client of the scope of the access
token issued.

The value of the scope parameter is expressed as a list of space-delimited, case

sensitive strings. The strings are defined by the authorization server. If the value
contains multiple space-delimited strings, their order does not matter, and each string
adds an additional access range to the requested scope.

scope = scope-token *( SP scope-token )

scope-token = 1*( %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E )

The authorization server MAY fully or partially ignore the scope requested by the
client based on the authorization server policy or the resource owner's instructions. If
the issued access token scope is different from the one requested by the client, the
authorization server MUST include the scope response parameter to inform the client
of the actual scope granted.

If the client omits the scope parameter when requesting authorization, the
authorization server MUST either process the request using a pre-defined default
value, or fail the request indicating an invalid scope. The authorization server
SHOULD document its scope requirements and default value (if defined).

22
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

5. Obtaining Authorization
To request an access token, the client obtains authorization from the resource owner.
The authorization is expressed in the form of an authorization grant which the client
uses to request the access token. OAuth defines four grant types: authorization code,
implicit, resource owner password credentials, and client credentials. It also provides
an extension mechanism for defining additional grant types.

5.1. Authorization Code Grant

The authorization code grant type is used to obtain both access tokens and refresh
tokens and is optimized for confidential clients. As a redirection-based flow, the client
must be capable of interacting with the resource owner's user-agent (typically a web
browser) and capable of receiving incoming requests (via redirection) from the
authorization server.

23
OAuth 2.0

Authorization Code Flow

+----------+
| resource |
| owner |
| |
+----------+
^
|
(B)
+----|-----+ Client Identifier +---------------+
| -+----(A)-- & Redirection URI ---->| |
| User- | | Authorization |
| Agent -+----(B)-- User authenticates --->| Server |
| | | |
| -+----(C)-- Authorization Code ---<| |
+-|----|---+ +---------------+
| | ^ v
(A) (C) | |
| | | |
^ v | |
+---------+ | |
| |>---(D)-- Authorization Code ---------' |
| Client | & Redirection URI |
| | |
| |<---(E)----- Access Token -------------------'
+---------+ (w/ Optional Refresh Token)

Note: The lines illustrating steps A, B, and C are broken into two parts as they pass
through the user-agent.

The flow illustrated in Authorization Code Flow includes the following steps:

A. The client initiates the flow by directing the resource owner's user-agent to the
authorization endpoint. The client includes its client identifier, requested scope,
local state, and a redirection URI to which the authorization server will send the
user-agent back once access is granted (or denied).

24
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

B. The authorization server authenticates the resource owner (via the user-agent)
and establishes whether the resource owner grants or denies the client's access
request.

C. Assuming the resource owner grants access, the authorization server redirects
the user-agent back to the client using the redirection URI provided earlier (in the
request or during client registration). The redirection URI includes an
authorization code and any local state provided by the client earlier.

D. The client requests an access token from the authorization server's token
endpoint by including the authorization code received in the previous step. When
making the request, the client authenticates with the authorization server. The
client includes the redirection URI used to obtain the authorization code for
verification.

E. The authorization server authenticates the client, validates the authorization code,
and ensures the redirection URI received matches the URI used to redirect the
client in step (C). If valid, the authorization server responds back with an access
token and optionally, a refresh token.

5.1.1. Authorization Request

The client constructs the request URI by adding the following parameters to the query
component of the authorization endpoint URI using the application/x-www-form-
urlencoded format as defined by W3C.REC-html401-19991224:

response_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to code.

client_id
REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Client Identifier.

redirect_uri
OPTIONAL. As described in Redirection Endpoint.

scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request as described by Access Token Scope.

state
RECOMMENDED. An opaque value used by the client to maintain state between the
request and callback. The authorization server includes this value when redirecting

25
OAuth 2.0

the user-agent back to the client. The parameter SHOULD be used for preventing
cross-site request forgery as described in Cross-Site Request Forgery.

The client directs the resource owner to the constructed URI using an HTTP
redirection response, or by other means available to it via the user-agent.

For example, the client directs the user-agent to make the following HTTP request
using TLS (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

GET /authorize?response_type=code&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=xyz
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb HTTP/
1.1
Host: server.example.com

The authorization server validates the request to ensure all required parameters are
present and valid. If the request is valid, the authorization server authenticates the
resource owner and obtains an authorization decision (by asking the resource owner
or by establishing approval via other means).

When a decision is established, the authorization server directs the user-agent to the
provided client redirection URI using an HTTP redirection response, or by other
means available to it via the user-agent.

5.1.2. Authorization Response

If the resource owner grants the access request, the authorization server issues an
authorization code and delivers it to the client by adding the following parameters to
the query component of the redirection URI using the application/x-www-form-
urlencoded format:

code
REQUIRED. The authorization code generated by the authorization server. The
authorization code MUST expire shortly after it is issued to mitigate the risk of leaks.
A maximum authorization code lifetime of 10 minutes is RECOMMENDED. The
client MUST NOT use the authorization code more than once. If an authorization
code is used more than once, the authorization server MUST deny the request and
SHOULD revoke (when possible) all tokens previously issued based on that
authorization code. The authorization code is bound to the client identifier and
redirection URI.

26
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

state
REQUIRED if the state parameter was present in the client authorization request.
The exact value received from the client.

For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by sending the
following HTTP response:

HTTP/1.1 302 Found

Location: https://client.example.com/
cb?code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&state=xyz

The client MUST ignore unrecognized response parameters. The authorization code
string size is left undefined by this specification. The client should avoid making
assumptions about code value sizes. The authorization server should document the
size of any value it issues.

Error Response
If the request fails due to a missing, invalid, or mismatching redirection URI, or if the
client identifier is missing or invalid, the authorization server SHOULD inform the
resource owner of the error, and MUST NOT automatically redirect the user-agent to
the invalid redirection URI.

If the resource owner denies the access request or if the request fails for reasons
other than a missing or invalid redirection URI, the authorization server informs the
client by adding the following parameters to the query component of the redirection
URI using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format:

error
REQUIRED. A single error code from the following:

invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value,
or is otherwise malformed.

unauthorized_client
The client is not authorized to request an authorization code using this method.

access_denied
The resource owner or authorization server denied the request.

27
OAuth 2.0

unsupported_response_type
The authorization server does not support obtaining an authorization code using
this method.

invalid_scope
The requested scope is invalid, unknown, or malformed.

server_error
The authorization server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it
from fulfilling the request.

temporarily_unavailable
The authorization server is currently unable to handle the request due to a
temporary overloading or maintenance of the server.

error_description
OPTIONAL. A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing additional information,
used to assist the client developer in understanding the error that occurred.

error_uri
OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page with information about
the error, used to provide the client developer with additional information about the
error.

state
REQUIRED if a state parameter was present in the client authorization request. The
exact value received from the client.

For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by sending the
following HTTP response:

HTTP/1.1 302 Found

Location: https://client.example.com/
cb?error=access_denied&state=xyz

5.1.3. Access Token Request

The client makes a request to the token endpoint by adding the following parameters
using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format in the HTTP request entity-
body:

28
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to authorization_code.

code
REQUIRED. The authorization code received from the authorization server.

redirect_uri
REQUIRED, if the redirect_uri parameter was included in the authorization request
as described in Authorization Request, and their values MUST be identical.

If the client type is confidential or the client was issued client credentials (or assigned
other authentication requirements), the client MUST authenticate with the
authorization server as described in Client Authentication.

For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using TLS (extra line
breaks are for display purposes only):

POST /token HTTP/1.1

Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

grant_type=authorization_code&code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb

The authorization server MUST:

• require client authentication for confidential clients or for any client that was
issued client credentials (or with other authentication requirements),

• authenticate the client if client authentication is included and ensure the

authorization code was issued to the authenticated client,

• verify that the authorization code is valid, and

• ensure that the redirect_uri parameter is present if the redirect_uri parameter was
included in the initial authorization request as described in Authorization Request,
and if included ensure their values are identical.

29
OAuth 2.0

5.1.4. Access Token Response

If the access token request is valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an
access token and optional refresh token as described in Successful Response. If the
request client authentication failed or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Error Response.

An example successful response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache

{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}

5.2. Implicit Grant

The implicit grant type is used to obtain access tokens (it does not support the
issuance of refresh tokens) and is optimized for public clients known to operate a
particular redirection URI. These clients are typically implemented in a browser using
a scripting language such as JavaScript.

As a redirection-based flow, the client must be capable of interacting with the

resource owner's user-agent (typically a web browser) and capable of receiving
incoming requests (via redirection) from the authorization server.

Unlike the authorization code grant type in which the client makes separate requests
for authorization and access token, the client receives the access token as the result
of the authorization request.

The implicit grant type does not include client authentication, and relies on the
presence of the resource owner and the registration of the redirection URI. Because
the access token is encoded into the redirection URI, it may be exposed to the
resource owner and other applications residing on the same device.

30
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

Implicit Grant Flow

+----------+
| Resource |
| Owner |
| |
+----------+
^
|
(B)
+----|-----+ Client Identifier +---------------+
| -+----(A)-- & Redirection URI --->| |
| User- | | Authorization |
| Agent -|----(B)-- User authenticates -->| Server |
| | | |
| |<---(C)--- Redirection URI ----<| |
| | with Access Token +---------------+
| | in Fragment
| | +---------------+
| |----(D)--- Redirection URI ---->| Web-Hosted |
| | without Fragment | Client |
| | | Resource |
| (F) |<---(E)------- Script ---------<| |
| | +---------------+
+-|--------+
| |
(A) (G) Access Token
| |
^ v
+---------+
| |
| Client |
| |
+---------+

Note: The lines illustrating steps A and B are broken into two parts as they pass
through the user-agent.

31
OAuth 2.0

The flow illustrated in Implicit Grant Flow includes the following steps:

A. The client initiates the flow by directing the resource owner's user-agent to the
authorization endpoint. The client includes its client identifier, requested scope,
local state, and a redirection URI to which the authorization server will send the
user-agent back once access is granted (or denied).

B. The authorization server authenticates the resource owner (via the user-agent)
and establishes whether the resource owner grants or denies the client's access
request.

C. Assuming the resource owner grants access, the authorization server redirects
the user-agent back to the client using the redirection URI provided earlier. The
redirection URI includes the access token in the URI fragment.

D. The user-agent follows the redirection instructions by making a request to the

web-hosted client resource (which does not include the fragment per RFC2616).
The user-agent retains the fragment information locally.

E. The web-hosted client resource returns a web page (typically an HTML document
with an embedded script) capable of accessing the full redirection URI including
the fragment retained by the user-agent, and extracting the access token (and
other parameters) contained in the fragment.

F. The user-agent executes the script provided by the web-hosted client resource
locally, which extracts the access token and passes it to the client.

5.2.1. Authorization Request

The client constructs the request URI by adding the following parameters to the query
component of the authorization endpoint URI using the application/x-www-form-
urlencoded format:

response_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to token.

client_id
REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Client Identifier.

redirect_uri
OPTIONAL. As described in Redirection Endpoint.

scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request as described by Access Token Scope.

32
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

state
RECOMMENDED. An opaque value used by the client to maintain state between the
request and callback. The authorization server includes this value when redirecting
the user-agent back to the client. The parameter SHOULD be used for preventing
cross-site request forgery as described in Cross-Site Request Forgery.

The client directs the resource owner to the constructed URI using an HTTP
redirection response, or by other means available to it via the user-agent.

For example, the client directs the user-agent to make the following HTTP request
using TLS (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

GET /authorize?response_type=token&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=xyz
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb HTTP/
1.1
Host: server.example.com

The authorization server validates the request to ensure all required parameters are
present and valid. The authorization server MUST verify that the redirection URI to
which it will redirect the access token matches a redirection URI registered by the
client as described in Redirection Endpoint.

If the request is valid, the authorization server authenticates the resource owner and
obtains an authorization decision (by asking the resource owner or by establishing
approval via other means).

When a decision is established, the authorization server directs the user-agent to the
provided client redirection URI using an HTTP redirection response, or by other
means available to it via the user-agent.

5.2.2. Access Token Response

If the resource owner grants the access request, the authorization server issues an
access token and delivers it to the client by adding the following parameters to the
fragment component of the redirection URI using the application/x-www-form-
urlencoded format:

access_token
REQUIRED. The access token issued by the authorization server.

33
OAuth 2.0

token_type
REQUIRED. The type of the token issued as described in Access Token Types.
Value is case insensitive.

expires_in
RECOMMENDED. The lifetime in seconds of the access token. For example, the
value 3600 denotes that the access token will expire in one hour from the time the
response was generated. If omitted, the authorization server SHOULD provide the
expiration time via other means or document the default value.

scope
OPTIONAL, if identical to the scope requested by the client, otherwise REQUIRED.
The scope of the access token as described by Access Token Scope.

state
REQUIRED if the state parameter was present in the client authorization request.
The exact value received from the client.

The authorization server MUST NOT issue a refresh token.

For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by sending the
following HTTP response (URI extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

HTTP/1.1 302 Found

Location: http://example.com/
cb#access_token=2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA
&state=xyz&token_type=example&expires_in=3600

Developers should note that some user-agents do not support the inclusion of a
fragment component in the HTTP Location response header field. Such clients will
require using other methods for redirecting the client than a 3xx redirection response.
For example, returning an HTML page which includes a 'continue' button with an
action linked to the redirection URI.

The client MUST ignore unrecognized response parameters. The access token string
size is left undefined by this specification. The client should avoid making
assumptions about value sizes. The authorization server should document the size of
any value it issues.

34
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

Error Response
If the request fails due to a missing, invalid, or mismatching redirection URI, or if the
client identifier is missing or invalid, the authorization server SHOULD inform the
resource owner of the error, and MUST NOT automatically redirect the user-agent to
the invalid redirection URI.

If the resource owner denies the access request or if the request fails for reasons
other than a missing or invalid redirection URI, the authorization server informs the
client by adding the following parameters to the fragment component of the
redirection URI using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format:

error
REQUIRED. A single error code from the following:

invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an invalid parameter value,
or is otherwise malformed.

unauthorized_client
The client is not authorized to request an access token using this method.

access_denied
The resource owner or authorization server denied the request.

unsupported_response_type
The authorization server does not support obtaining an access token using this
method.

invalid_scope
The requested scope is invalid, unknown, or malformed.

server_error
The authorization server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it
from fulfilling the request.

temporarily_unavailable
The authorization server is currently unable to handle the request due to a
temporary overloading or maintenance of the server.

35
OAuth 2.0

error_description
OPTIONAL. A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing additional information,
used to assist the client developer in understanding the error that occurred.

error_uri
OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page with information about
the error, used to provide the client developer with additional information about the
error.

state
REQUIRED if a state parameter was present in the client authorization request. The
exact value received from the client.

For example, the authorization server redirects the user-agent by sending the
following HTTP response:

HTTP/1.1 302 Found

Location: https://client.example.com/
cb#error=access_denied&state=xyz

5.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant

The resource owner password credentials grant type is suitable in cases where the
resource owner has a trust relationship with the client, such as the device operating
system or a highly privileged application. The authorization server should take special
care when enabling this grant type, and only allow it when other flows are not viable.

The grant type is suitable for clients capable of obtaining the resource owner's
credentials (username and password, typically using an interactive form). It is also
used to migrate existing clients using direct authentication schemes such as HTTP
Basic or Digest authentication to OAuth by converting the stored credentials to an
access token.

36
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

Resource Owner Password Credentials Flow

+----------+
| Resource |
| Owner |
| |
+----------+
v
| Resource Owner
(A) Password Credentials
|
v
+---------+ +---------------+
| |>--(B)---- Resource Owner ------->| |
| | Password Credentials | Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<--(C)---- Access Token ---------<| |
| | (w/ Optional Refresh Token) | |
+---------+ +---------------+

The flow illustrated in Resource Owner Password Credentials Flow includes the
following steps:

A. The resource owner provides the client with its username and password.

B. The client requests an access token from the authorization server's token
endpoint by including the credentials received from the resource owner. When
making the request, the client authenticates with the authorization server.

C. The authorization server authenticates the client and validates the resource
owner credentials, and if valid issues an access token.

5.3.1. Authorization Request and Response

The method through which the client obtains the resource owner credentials is
beyond the scope of this specification. The client MUST discard the credentials once
an access token has been obtained.

37
OAuth 2.0

5.3.2. Access Token Request

The client makes a request to the token endpoint by adding the following parameters
using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format in the HTTP request entity-
body:

grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to password.

username
REQUIRED. The resource owner username, encoded as UTF-8.

password
REQUIRED. The resource owner password, encoded as UTF-8.

scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request as described by Access Token Scope.

If the client type is confidential or the client was issued client credentials (or assigned
other authentication requirements), the client MUST authenticate with the
authorization server as described in Client Authentication.

For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using transport-layer
security (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

POST /token HTTP/1.1

Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

grant_type=password&username=johndoe&password=A3ddj3w

The authorization server MUST:

• require client authentication for confidential clients or for any client that was
issued client credentials (or with other authentication requirements),

• authenticate the client if client authentication is included, and

• validate the resource owner password credentials.

38
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

Since this access token request utilizes the resource owner's password, the
authorization server MUST protect the endpoint against brute force attacks (e.g.
using rate-limitation or generating alerts).

5.3.3. Access Token Response

If the access token request is valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an
access token and optional refresh token as described in Successful Response. If the
request failed client authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Error Response.

An example successful response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache

{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}

5.4. Client Credentials Grant

The client can request an access token using only its client credentials (or other
supported means of authentication) when the client is requesting access to the
protected resources under its control, or those of another resource owner which has
been previously arranged with the authorization server (the method of which is
beyond the scope of this specification).

The client credentials grant type MUST only be used by confidential clients.

39
OAuth 2.0

Client Credentials Flow

+---------+ +---------------+
| | | |
| |>--(A)- Client Authentication --->| Authorization |
| Client | | Server |
| |<--(B)---- Access Token ---------<| |
| | | |
+---------+ +---------------+

The flow illustrated in Client Credentials Flow includes the following steps:

A. The client authenticates with the authorization server and requests an access
token from the token endpoint.

B. The authorization server authenticates the client, and if valid issues an access
token.

5.4.1. Authorization Request and Response

Since the client authentication is used as the authorization grant, no additional
authorization request is needed.

5.4.2. Access Token Request

The client makes a request to the token endpoint by adding the following parameters
using the application/x-www-form-urlencoded format in the HTTP request entity-
body:

grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to client_credentials.

scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request as described by Access Token Scope.

The client MUST authenticate with the authorization server as described in Client
Authentication.

40
 Chapter 5: Obtaining Authorization

For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using transport-layer
security (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

POST /token HTTP/1.1

Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

grant_type=client_credentials

The authorization server MUST authenticate the client.

5.4.3. Access Token Response

If the access token request is valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an
access token as described in Successful Response. A refresh token SHOULD NOT
be included. If the request failed client authentication or is invalid, the authorization
server returns an error response as described in Error Response.

An example successful response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache

{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}

5.5. Extension Grants

The client uses an extension grant type by specifying the grant type using an absolute
URI (defined by the authorization server) as the value of the grant_type parameter of
the token endpoint, and by adding any additional parameters necessary.

41
OAuth 2.0

For example, to request an access token using a SAML 2.0 assertion grant type as
defined by I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer, the client makes the following HTTP request
using TLS (line breaks are for display purposes only):

POST /token HTTP/1.1

Host: server.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Asaml2-
bearer&assertion=PEFzc2VydGlvbiBJc3N1ZUluc3RhbnQ9IjIwMTEtMDU
[...omitted for brevity...]aG5TdGF0ZW1lbnQ-PC9Bc3NlcnRpb24-

If the access token request is valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an
access token and optional refresh token as described in Successful Response. If the
request failed client authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Error Response.

42
 Chapter 6: Issuing an Access Token

6. Issuing an Access Token

If the access token request is valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an
access token and optional refresh token as described in Successful Response. If the
request failed client authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an
error response as described in Error Response.

6.1. Successful Response

The authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh token, and
constructs the response by adding the following parameters to the entity body of the
HTTP response with a 200 (OK) status code:

access_token
REQUIRED. The access token issued by the authorization server.

token_type
REQUIRED. The type of the token issued as described in Access Token Types.
Value is case insensitive.

expires_in
RECOMMENDED. The lifetime in seconds of the access token. For example, the
value 3600 denotes that the access token will expire in one hour from the time the
response was generated. If omitted, the authorization server SHOULD provide the
expiration time via other means or document the default value.

refresh_token
OPTIONAL. The refresh token which can be used to obtain new access tokens
using the same authorization grant as described in Refreshing an Access Token.

scope
OPTIONAL, if identical to the scope requested by the client, otherwise REQUIRED.
The scope of the access token as described by Access Token Scope.

The parameters are included in the entity body of the HTTP response using the
application/json media type as defined by RFC4627. The parameters are serialized
into a JSON structure by adding each parameter at the highest structure level.
Parameter names and string values are included as JSON strings. Numerical values

43
OAuth 2.0

are included as JSON numbers. The order of parameters does not matter and can
vary.

The authorization server MUST include the HTTP Cache-Control response header
field RFC2616 with a value of no-store in any response containing tokens,
credentials, or other sensitive information, as well as the Pragma response header
field RFC2616 with a value of no-cache.

For example:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache

{
"access_token":"2YotnFZFEjr1zCsicMWpAA",
"token_type":"example",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA",
"example_parameter":"example_value"
}

The client MUST ignore unrecognized value names in the response. The sizes of
tokens and other values received from the authorization server are left undefined. The
client should avoid making assumptions about value sizes. The authorization server
should document the size of any value it issues.

6.2. Error Response

The authorization server responds with an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) status code and
includes the following parameters with the response:

error
REQUIRED. A single error code from the following:

invalid_request
The request is missing a required parameter, includes an unsupported parameter
value (other than grant type), repeats a parameter, includes multiple credentials,
utilizes more than one mechanism for authenticating the client, or is otherwise
malformed.

44
 Chapter 6: Issuing an Access Token

invalid_client
Client authentication failed (e.g. unknown client, no client authentication included,
or unsupported authentication method). The authorization server MAY return an
HTTP 401 (Unauthorized) status code to indicate which HTTP authentication
schemes are supported. If the client attempted to authenticate via the
Authorization request header field, the authorization server MUST respond with an
HTTP 401 (Unauthorized) status code, and include the WWW-Authenticate
response header field matching the authentication scheme used by the client.

invalid_grant
The provided authorization grant (e.g. authorization code, resource owner
credentials) or refresh token is invalid, expired, revoked, does not match the
redirection URI used in the authorization request, or was issued to another client.

unauthorized_client
The authenticated client is not authorized to use this authorization grant type.

unsupported_grant_type
The authorization grant type is not supported by the authorization server.

invalid_scope
The requested scope is invalid, unknown, malformed, or exceeds the scope
granted by the resource owner.

error_description
OPTIONAL. A human-readable UTF-8 encoded text providing additional information,
used to assist the client developer in understanding the error that occurred.

error_uri
OPTIONAL. A URI identifying a human-readable web page with information about
the error, used to provide the client developer with additional information about the
error.

The parameters are included in the entity body of the HTTP response using the
application/json media type as defined by RFC4627. The parameters are serialized
into a JSON structure by adding each parameter at the highest structure level.
Parameter names and string values are included as JSON strings. Numerical values
are included as JSON numbers. The order of parameters does not matter and can
vary.

45
OAuth 2.0

For example:

HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request

Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
Cache-Control: no-store
Pragma: no-cache

{
"error":"invalid_request"
}

46
 Chapter 7: Refreshing an Access Token

7. Refreshing an Access Token

If the authorization server issued a refresh token to the client, the client makes a
refresh request to the token endpoint by adding the following parameters using the
application/x-www-form-urlencoded format in the HTTP request entity-body:

grant_type
REQUIRED. Value MUST be set to refresh_token.

refresh_token
REQUIRED. The refresh token issued to the client.

scope
OPTIONAL. The scope of the access request as described by Access Token Scope.
The requested scope MUST NOT include any scope not originally granted by the
resource owner, and if omitted is treated as equal to the scope originally granted by
the resource owner.

Because refresh tokens are typically long-lasting credentials used to request

additional access tokens, the refresh token is bound to the client which it was issued.
If the client type is confidential or the client was issued client credentials (or assigned
other authentication requirements), the client MUST authenticate with the
authorization server as described in Client Authentication.

For example, the client makes the following HTTP request using transport-layer
security (extra line breaks are for display purposes only):

POST /token HTTP/1.1

Host: server.example.com
Authorization: Basic czZCaGRSa3F0MzpnWDFmQmF0M2JW
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=UTF-8

grant_type=refresh_token&refresh_token=tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA

The authorization server MUST:

• require client authentication for confidential clients or for any client that was
issued client credentials (or with other authentication requirements),

47
OAuth 2.0

• authenticate the client if client authentication is included and ensure the refresh
token was issued to the authenticated client, and

• validate the refresh token.

If valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an access token as described
in Successful Response. If the request failed verification or is invalid, the authorization
server returns an error response as described in Error Response.

The authorization server MAY issue a new refresh token, in which case the client
MUST discard the old refresh token and replace it with the new refresh token. The
authorization server MAY revoke the old refresh token after issuing a new refresh
token to the client. If a new refresh token is issued, the refresh token scope MUST be
identical to that of the refresh token included by the client in the request.

48
 Chapter 8: Accessing Protected Resources

8. Accessing Protected Resources

The client accesses protected resources by presenting the access token to the
resource server. The resource server MUST validate the access token and ensure it
has not expired and that its scope covers the requested resource. The methods used
by the resource server to validate the access token (as well as any error responses)
are beyond the scope of this specification, but generally involve an interaction or
coordination between the resource server and the authorization server.

The method in which the client utilized the access token to authenticate with the
resource server depends on the type of access token issued by the authorization
server. Typically, it involves using the HTTP Authorization request header field
RFC2617 with an authentication scheme defined by the access token type
specification.

8.1. Access Token Types

The access token type provides the client with the information required to
successfully utilize the access token to make a protected resource request (along
with type-specific attributes). The client MUST NOT use an access token if it does not
understand the token type.

For example, the bearer token type defined in I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-bearer is utilized by

simply including the access token string in the request:

GET /resource/1 HTTP/1.1

Host: example.com
Authorization: Bearer 7Fjfp0ZBr1KtDRbnfVdmIw

49
OAuth 2.0

while the mac token type defined in I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac is utilized by issuing a

MAC key together with the access token which is used to sign certain components of
the HTTP requests:

GET /resource/1 HTTP/1.1

Host: example.com
Authorization: MAC id="h480djs93hd8",
nonce="274312:dj83hs9s",
mac="kDZvddkndxvhGRXZhvuDjEWhGeE="

The above examples are provided for illustration purposes only. Developers are
advised to consult the I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-bearer and I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-http-mac
specifications before use.

Each access token type definition specifies the additional attributes (if any) sent to the
client together with the access_token response parameter. It also defines the HTTP
authentication method used to include the access token when making a protected
resource request.

50
 Chapter 9: Extensibility

9. Extensibility
9.1. Defining Access Token Types
Access token types can be defined in one of two ways: registered in the access token
type registry (following the procedures in The OAuth Access Token Type Registry), or
by using a unique absolute URI as its name.

Types utilizing a URI name SHOULD be limited to vendor-specific implementations

that are not commonly applicable, and are specific to the implementation details of
the resource server where they are used.

All other types MUST be registered. Type names MUST conform to the type-name
ABNF. If the type definition includes a new HTTP authentication scheme, the type
name SHOULD be identical to the HTTP authentication scheme name (as defined by
RFC2617). The token type example is reserved for use in examples.

type-name = 1*name-char
name-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA

9.2. Defining New Endpoint Parameters

New request or response parameters for use with the authorization endpoint or the
token endpoint are defined and registered in the parameters registry following the
procedure in The OAuth Parameters Registry.

Parameter names MUST conform to the param-name ABNF and parameter values
syntax MUST be well-defined (e.g., using ABNF, or a reference to the syntax of an
existing parameter).

param-name = 1*name-char
name-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA

Unregistered vendor-specific parameter extensions that are not commonly

applicable, and are specific to the implementation details of the authorization server
where they are used SHOULD utilize a vendor-specific prefix that is not likely to
conflict with other registered values (e.g. begin with 'companyname_').

51
OAuth 2.0

9.3. Defining New Authorization Grant Types

New authorization grant types can be defined by assigning them a unique absolute
URI for use with the grant_type parameter. If the extension grant type requires
additional token endpoint parameters, they MUST be registered in the OAuth
parameters registry as described by The OAuth Parameters Registry.

9.4. Defining New Authorization Endpoint Response Types

New response types for use with the authorization endpoint are defined and
registered in the authorization endpoint response type registry following the
procedure in The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type Registry. Response
type names MUST conform to the response-type ABNF.

response-type = response-name *( SP response-name )

response-name = 1*response-char
response-char = "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA

If a response type contains one or more space characters (%x20), it is compared as a

space-delimited list of values in which the order of values does not matter. Only one
order of values can be registered, which covers all other arrangements of the same
set of values.

For example, the response type token code is left undefined by this specification.
However, an extension can define and register the token code response type. Once
registered, the same combination cannot be registered as code token, but both
values can be used to denote the same response type.

9.5. Defining Additional Error Codes

In cases where protocol extensions (i.e. access token types, extension parameters, or
extension grant types) require additional error codes to be used with the authorization
code grant error response (Error Response), the implicit grant error response (Error
Response), or the token error response (Error Response), such error codes MAY be
defined.

Extension error codes MUST be registered (following the procedures in The OAuth
Extensions Error Registry) if the extension they are used in conjunction with is a
registered access token type, a registered endpoint parameter, or an extension grant
type. Error codes used with unregistered extensions MAY be registered.

52
 Chapter 9: Extensibility

Error codes MUST conform to the error-code ABNF, and SHOULD be prefixed by an
identifying name when possible. For example, an error identifying an invalid value set
to the extension parameter example should be named example_invalid.

error-code = ALPHA *error-char

error-char = "-" / "." / "_" / DIGIT / ALPHA

53
OAuth 2.0

10. Native Applications

Native applications are clients installed and executed on the device used by the
resource owner (i.e. desktop application, native mobile application). Native
applications require special consideration related to security, platform capabilities,
and overall end-user experience.

The authorization endpoint requires interaction between the client and the resource
owner's user-agent. Native applications can invoke an external user-agent or embed
a user-agent within the application. For example:

• External user-agent - the native application can capture the response from the
authorization server using a redirection URI with a scheme registered with the
operating system to invoke the client as the handler, manual copy-and-paste of
the credentials, running a local web server, installing a user-agent extension, or
by providing a redirection URI identifying a server-hosted resource under the
client's control, which in turn makes the response available to the native
application.

• Embedded user-agent - the native application obtains the response by directly

communicating with the embedded user-agent by monitoring state changes
emitted during the resource load, or accessing the user-agent's cookies storage.

When choosing between an external or embedded user-agent, developers should

consider:

• An External user-agent may improve completion rate as the resource owner may
already have an active session with the authorization server removing the need to
re-authenticate. It provides a familiar end-user experience and functionality. The
resource owner may also rely on user-agent features or extensions to assist with
authentication (e.g. password manager, 2-factor device reader).

• An embedded user-agent may offer improved usability, as it removes the need to

switch context and open new windows.

• An embedded user-agent poses a security challenge because resource owners

are authenticating in an unidentified window without access to the visual
protections found in most external user-agents. An embedded user-agent
educates end-users to trust unidentified requests for authentication (making
phishing attacks easier to execute).

54
 Chapter 10: Native Applications

When choosing between the implicit grant type and the authorization code grant type,
the following should be considered:

• Native applications that use the authorization code grant type SHOULD do so
without using client credentials, due to the native application's inability to keep
client credentials confidential.

• When using the implicit grant type flow a refresh token is not returned which
requires repeating the authorization process once the access token expires.

55
OAuth 2.0

11. Security Considerations

As a flexible and extensible framework, OAuth's security considerations depend on
many factors. The following sections provide implementers with security guidelines
focused on the three client profiles described in Client Types: web application, user-
agent-based application, and native application.

A comprehensive OAuth security model and analysis, as well as background for the
protocol design is provided by I-D.ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel.

11.1. Client Authentication

The authorization server establishes client credentials with web application clients for
the purpose of client authentication. The authorization server is encouraged to
consider stronger client authentication means than a client password. Web
application clients MUST ensure confidentiality of client passwords and other client
credentials.

The authorization server MUST NOT issue client passwords or other client credentials
to native application or user-agent-based application clients for the purpose of client
authentication. The authorization server MAY issue a client password or other
credentials for a specific installation of a native application client on a specific device.

When client authentication is not possible, the authorization server SHOULD employ
other means to validate the client's identity. For example, by requiring the registration
of the client redirection URI or enlisting the resource owner to confirm identity. A valid
redirection URI is not sufficient to verify the client's identity when asking for resource
owner authorization, but can be used to prevent delivering credentials to a counterfeit
client after obtaining resource owner authorization.

The authorization server must consider the security implications of interacting with
unauthenticated clients and take measures to limit the potential exposure of other
credentials (e.g. refresh tokens) issued to such clients.

11.2. Client Impersonation

A malicious client can impersonate another client and obtain access to protected
resources, if the impersonated client fails to, or is unable to, keep its client credentials
confidential.

56
 Chapter 11: Security Considerations

The authorization server MUST authenticate the client whenever possible. If the
authorization server cannot authenticate the client due to the client's nature, the
authorization server MUST require the registration of any redirection URI used for
receiving authorization responses, and SHOULD utilize other means to protect
resource owners from such potentially malicious clients. For example, the
authorization server can engage the resource owner to assist in identifying the client
and its origin.

The authorization server SHOULD enforce explicit resource owner authentication and
provide the resource owner with information about the client and the requested
authorization scope and lifetime. It is up to the resource owner to review the
information in the context of the current client, and authorize or deny the request.

The authorization server SHOULD NOT process repeated authorization requests

automatically (without active resource owner interaction) without authenticating the
client or relying on other measures to ensure the repeated request comes from the
original client and not an impersonator.

11.3. Access Tokens

Access token credentials (as well as any confidential access token attributes) MUST
be kept confidential in transit and storage, and only shared among the authorization
server, the resource servers the access token is valid for, and the client to whom the
access token is issued. Access token credentials MUST only be transmitted using
TLS as described in TLS Version with server authentication as defined by RFC2818.

When using the implicit grant type, the access token is transmitted in the URI
fragment, which can expose it to unauthorized parties.

The authorization server MUST ensure that access tokens cannot be generated,
modified, or guessed to produce valid access tokens by unauthorized parties.

The client SHOULD request access tokens with the minimal scope necessary. The
authorization server SHOULD take the client identity into account when choosing how
to honor the requested scope, and MAY issue an access token with a less rights than
requested.

11.4. Refresh Tokens

Authorization servers MAY issue refresh tokens to web application clients and native
application clients.

57
OAuth 2.0

Refresh tokens MUST be kept confidential in transit and storage, and shared only
among the authorization server and the client to whom the refresh tokens were
issued. The authorization server MUST maintain the binding between a refresh token
and the client to whom it was issued. Refresh tokens MUST only be transmitted using
TLS as described in TLS Version with server authentication as defined by RFC2818.

The authorization server MUST verify the binding between the refresh token and client
identity whenever the client identity can be authenticated. When client authentication
is not possible, the authorization server SHOULD deploy other means to detect
refresh token abuse.

For example, the authorization server could employ refresh token rotation in which a
new refresh token is issued with every access token refresh response. The previous
refresh token is invalidated but retained by the authorization server. If a refresh token
is compromised and subsequently used by both the attacker and the legitimate client,
one of them will present an invalidated refresh token which will inform the
authorization server of the breach.

The authorization server MUST ensure that refresh tokens cannot be generated,
modified, or guessed to produce valid refresh tokens by unauthorized parties.

11.5. Authorization Codes

The transmission of authorization codes SHOULD be made over a secure channel,
and the client SHOULD implement TLS for use with its redirection URI if the URI
identifies a network resource. Since authorization codes are transmitted via user-
agent redirections, they could potentially be disclosed through user-agent history and
HTTP referrer headers.

Authorization codes operate as plaintext bearer credentials, used to verify that the
resource owner who granted authorization at the authorization server is the same
resource owner returning to the client to complete the process. Therefore, if the client
relies on the authorization code for its own resource owner authentication, the client
redirection endpoint MUST require TLS.

Authorization codes MUST be short lived and single use. If the authorization server
observes multiple attempts to exchange an authorization code for an access token,
the authorization server SHOULD attempt to revoke all access tokens already granted
based on the compromised authorization code.

58
 Chapter 11: Security Considerations

If the client can be authenticated, the authorization servers MUST authenticate the
client and ensure that the authorization code was issued to the same client.

11.6. Authorization Code Redirection URI Manipulation

When requesting authorization using the authorization code grant type, the client can
specify a redirection URI via the redirect_uri parameter. If an attacker can manipulate
the value of the redirection URI, it can cause the authorization server to redirect the
resource owner user-agent to a URI under the control of the attacker with the
authorization code.

An attacker can create an account at a legitimate client and initiate the authorization
flow. When the attacker's user-agent is sent to the authorization server to grant
access, the attacker grabs the authorization URI provided by the legitimate client, and
replaces the client's redirection URI with a URI under the control of the attacker. The
attacker then tricks the victim into following the manipulated link to authorize access
to the legitimate client.

Once at the authorization server, the victim is prompted with a normal, valid request
on behalf of a legitimate and trusted client, and authorizes the request. The victim is
then redirected to an endpoint under the control of the attacker with the authorization
code. The attacker completes the authorization flow by sending the authorization
code to the client using the original redirection URI provided by the client. The client
exchanges the authorization code with an access token and links it to the attacker's
client account which can now gain access to the protected resources authorized by
the victim (via the client).

In order to prevent such an attack, the authorization server MUST ensure that the
redirection URI used to obtain the authorization code is identical to the redirection
URI provided when exchanging the authorization code for an access token. The
authorization server MUST require public clients and SHOULD require confidential
clients to register their redirection URIs. If a redirection URI is provided in the request,
the authorization server MUST validate it against the registered value.

11.7. Resource Owner Password Credentials

The resource owner password credentials grant type is often used for legacy or
migration reasons. It reduces the overall risk of storing username and password by
the client, but does not eliminate the need to expose highly privileged credentials to
the client.

59
OAuth 2.0

This grant type carries a higher risk than other grant types because it maintains the
password anti-pattern this protocol seeks to avoid. The client could abuse the
password or the password could unintentionally be disclosed to an attacker (e.g. via
log files or other records kept by the client).

Additionally, because the resource owner does not have control over the
authorization process (the resource owner involvement ends when it hands over its
credentials to the client), the client can obtain access tokens with a broader scope
than desired by the resource owner. The authorization server should consider the
scope and lifetime of access tokens issued via this grant type.

The authorization server and client SHOULD minimize use of this grant type and
utilize other grant types whenever possible.

11.8. Request Confidentiality

Access tokens, refresh tokens, resource owner passwords, and client credentials
MUST NOT be transmitted in the clear. Authorization codes SHOULD NOT be
transmitted in the clear.

The state and scope parameters SHOULD NOT include sensitive client or resource
owner information in plain text as they can be transmitted over insecure channels or
stored insecurely.

11.9. Endpoints Authenticity

In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, the authorization server MUST
implement and require TLS with server authentication as defined by RFC2818 for any
request sent to the authorization and token endpoints. The client MUST validate the
authorization server's TLS certificate as defined by RFC6125, and in accordance with
its requirements for server identity authentication.

11.10. Credentials Guessing Attacks

The authorization server MUST prevent attackers from guessing access tokens,
authorization codes, refresh tokens, resource owner passwords, and client
credentials.

The probability of an attacker guessing generated tokens (and other credentials not
intended for handling by end-users) MUST be less than or equal to 2^(-128) and
SHOULD be less than or equal to 2^(-160).

60
 Chapter 11: Security Considerations

The authorization server MUST utilize other means to protect credentials intended for
end-user usage.

11.11. Phishing Attacks

Wide deployment of this and similar protocols may cause end-users to become
inured to the practice of being redirected to websites where they are asked to enter
their passwords. If end-users are not careful to verify the authenticity of these
websites before entering their credentials, it will be possible for attackers to exploit
this practice to steal resource owners' passwords.

Service providers should attempt to educate end-users about the risks phishing
attacks pose, and should provide mechanisms that make it easy for end-users to
confirm the authenticity of their sites. Client developers should consider the security
implications of how they interact with the user-agent (e.g., external, embedded), and
the ability of the end-user to verify the authenticity of the authorization server.

To reduce the risk of phishing attacks, the authorization servers MUST utilize TLS on
every endpoint used for end-user interaction.

11.12. Cross-Site Request Forgery

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) is an exploit in which an attacker causes the user-
agent of a victim end-user to follow a malicious URI (e.g. provided to the user-agent
as a misleading link, image, or redirection) to a trusting server (usually established via
the presence of a valid session cookie).

A CSRF attack against the client's redirection URI allows an attacker to inject their
own authorization code or access token, which can result in the client using an
access token associated with the attacker's protected resources rather than the
victim's (e.g. save the victim's bank account information to a protected resource
controlled by the attacker).

The client MUST implement CSRF protection for its redirection URI. This is typically
accomplished by requiring any request sent to the redirection URI endpoint to include
a value that binds the request to the user-agent's authenticated state (e.g. a hash of
the session cookie used to authenticate the user-agent). The client SHOULD utilize
the state request parameter to deliver this value to the authorization server when
making an authorization request.

Once authorization has been obtained from the end-user, the authorization server
redirects the end-user's user-agent back to the client with the required binding value

61
OAuth 2.0

contained in the state parameter. The binding value enables the client to verify the
validity of the request by matching the binding value to the user-agent's
authenticated state. The binding value used for CSRF protection MUST contain a
non-guessable value (as described in Credentials Guessing Attacks), and the user-
agent's authenticated state (e.g. session cookie, HTML5 local storage) MUST be kept
in a location accessible only to the client and the user-agent (i.e., protected by same-
origin policy).

A CSRF attack against the authorization server's authorization endpoint can result in
an attacker obtaining end-user authorization for a malicious client without involving or
alerting the end-user.

The authorization server MUST implement CSRF protection for its authorization
endpoint, and ensure that a malicious client cannot obtain authorization without the
awareness and explicit consent of the resource owner.

11.13. Clickjacking
In a clickjacking attack, an attacker registers a legitimate client and then constructs a
malicious site in which it loads the authorization server's authorization endpoint web
page in a transparent iframe overlaid on top of a set of dummy buttons which are
carefully constructed to be placed directly under important buttons on the
authorization page. When an end-user clicks a misleading visible button, the end-user
is actually clicking an invisible button on the authorization page (such as an
"Authorize" button). This allows an attacker to trick a resource owner into granting its
client access without their knowledge.

To prevent this form of attack, native applications SHOULD use external browsers
instead of embedding browsers within the application when requesting end-user
authorization. For most newer browsers, avoidance of iframes can be enforced by the
authorization server using the (non-standard) x-frame-options header. This header
can have two values, deny and sameorigin, which will block any framing, or framing
by sites with a different origin, respectively. For older browsers, javascript
framebusting techniques can be used but may not be effective in all browsers.

11.14. Code Injection and Input Validation

A code injection attack occurs when an input or otherwise external variable is used by
an application unsanitized and causes modification to the application logic. This may
allow an attacker to gain access to the application device or its data, cause denial of
service, or a wide range of malicious side-effects.

62
 Chapter 11: Security Considerations

The Authorization server and client MUST sanitize (and validate when possible) any
value received, in particular, the value of the state and redirect_uri parameters.

11.15. Open Redirectors

The authorization server authorization endpoint and the client redirection endpoint
can be improperly configured and operate as open redirectors. An open redirector is
an endpoint using a parameter to automatically redirect a user-agent to the location
specified by the parameter value without any validation.

Open redirectors can be used in phishing attacks, or by an attacker to get end-users

to visit malicious sites by making the URI's authority look like a familiar and trusted
destination. In addition, if the authorization server allows the client to register only
part of the redirection URI, an attacker can use an open redirector operated by the
client to construct a redirection URI that will pass the authorization server validation
but will send the authorization code or access token to an endpoint under the control
of the attacker.

63
OAuth 2.0

12. IANA Considerations

12.1. The OAuth Access Token Type Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth access token type registry.

Access token types are registered on the advice of one or more Designated Experts
(appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a Specification Required (using
terminology from RFC5226). However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to
publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
that such a specification will be published.

Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list for review and
comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for access token type:
example"). [[ Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of the mailing list should be determined
in consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]

Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will either approve or
deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the review list and
IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how
to make the request successful.

Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert(s) can be first appealed to
Security Area Directors (contactable using [email protected] email address or
directly by looking up their email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if
the appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using the
[email protected] mailing list).

IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s), and should
direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list.

12.1.1. Registration Template

Type name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").

Additional Token Endpoint Response Parameters:

Additional response parameters returned together with the access_token parameter.
New parameters MUST be separately registered in the OAuth parameters registry as
described by The OAuth Parameters Registry.

64
 Chapter 12: IANA Considerations

HTTP Authentication Scheme(s):

The HTTP authentication scheme name(s), if any, used to authenticate protected
resources requests using access tokens of this type.

Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name of the
responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page
URI) may also be included.

Specification document(s):
Reference to the document that specifies the parameter, preferably including a URI
that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant
sections may also be included, but is not required.

12.2. The OAuth Parameters Registry

This specification establishes the OAuth parameters registry.

Additional parameters for inclusion in the authorization endpoint request, the

authorization endpoint response, the token endpoint request, or the token endpoint
response are registered on the advice of one or more Designated Experts (appointed
by the IESG or their delegate), with a Specification Required (using terminology from
RFC5226). However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied that such a
specification will be published.

Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list for review and
comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for parameter: example"). [[
Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of the mailing list should be determined in
consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]

Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will either approve or
deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the review list and
IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how
to make the request successful.

Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert(s) can be first appealed to
Security Area Directors (contactable using [email protected] email address or
directly by looking up their email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if
the appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using the
[email protected] mailing list).

65
OAuth 2.0

IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s), and should
direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list.

12.2.1. Registration Template

Parameter name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").

Parameter usage location:

The location(s) where parameter can be used. The possible locations are:
authorization request, authorization response, token request, or token response.

Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name of the
responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page
URI) may also be included.

Specification document(s):
Reference to the document that specifies the parameter, preferably including a URI
that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant
sections may also be included, but is not required.

12.2.2. Initial Registry Contents

The OAuth Parameters Registry's initial contents are:

• Parameter name: client_id

• Parameter usage location: authorization request, token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: client_secret

• Parameter usage location: token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: response_type

• Parameter usage location: authorization request

• Change controller: IETF

66
 Chapter 12: IANA Considerations

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: redirect_uri

• Parameter usage location: authorization request, token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: scope

• Parameter usage location: authorization request, authorization response, token

request, token response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: state

• Parameter usage location: authorization request, authorization response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: code

• Parameter usage location: authorization response, token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: error_description

• Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: error_uri

• Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response

• Change controller: IETF

67
OAuth 2.0

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: grant_type

• Parameter usage location: token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: access_token

• Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: token_type

• Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: expires_in

• Parameter usage location: authorization response, token response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: username

• Parameter usage location: token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Parameter name: password

• Parameter usage location: token request

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

68
 Chapter 12: IANA Considerations

• Parameter name: refresh_token

• Parameter usage location: token request, token response

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

12.3. The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type

Registry
This specification establishes the OAuth authorization endpoint response type
registry.

Additional response type for use with the authorization endpoint are registered on the
advice of one or more Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate),
with a Specification Required (using terminology from RFC5226). However, to allow
for the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve
registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will be published.

Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list for review and
comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for response type: example"). [[
Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of the mailing list should be determined in
consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]

Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will either approve or
deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the review list and
IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how
to make the request successful.

Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert(s) can be first appealed to
Security Area Directors (contactable using [email protected] email address or
directly by looking up their email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if
the appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using the
[email protected] mailing list).

IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s), and should
direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list.

12.3.1. Registration Template

Response type name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").

69
OAuth 2.0

Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name of the
responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page
URI) may also be included.

Specification document(s):
Reference to the document that specifies the type, preferably including a URI that
can be used to retrieve a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant
sections may also be included, but is not required.

12.3.2. Initial Registry Contents

The OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Type Registry's initial contents are:

• Response type name: code

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

• Response type name: token

• Change controller: IETF

• Specification document(s): [[ this document ]]

12.4. The OAuth Extensions Error Registry

This specification establishes the OAuth extensions error registry.

Additional error codes used together with other protocol extensions (i.e. extension
grant types, access token types, or extension parameters) are registered on the
advice of one or more Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate),
with a Specification Required (using terminology from RFC5226). However, to allow
for the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve
registration once they are satisfied that such a specification will be published.

Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list for review and
comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for error code: example"). [[
Note to RFC-EDITOR: The name of the mailing list should be determined in
consultation with the IESG and IANA. Suggested name: oauth-ext-review. ]]

Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will either approve or
deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the review list and

70
 Chapter 12: IANA Considerations

IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how

to make the request successful.

Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated Expert(s) can be first appealed to
Security Area Directors (contactable using [email protected] email address or
directly by looking up their email addresses on http://www.iesg.org/ website) and, if
the appellant is not satisfied with the response, to the full IESG (using the
[email protected] mailing list).

IANA should only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s), and should
direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list.

12.4.1. Registration Template

Error name:
The name requested (e.g., "example").

Error usage location:

The location(s) where the error can be used. The possible locations are:
authorization code grant error response (Error Response), implicit grant error
response (Error Response), or token error response (Error Response).

Related protocol extension:

The name of the extension grant type, access token type, or extension parameter,
the error code is used in conjunction with.

Change controller:
For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF". For others, give the name of the
responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page
URI) may also be included.

Specification document(s):
Reference to the document that specifies the error code, preferably including a URI
that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document. An indication of the relevant
sections may also be included, but is not required.

71
OAuth 2.0

13. Acknowledgements
The initial OAuth 2.0 protocol specification was edited by David Recordon, based on
two previous publications: the OAuth 1.0 community specification RFC5849, and
OAuth WRAP (OAuth Web Resource Authorization Profiles) OAuth Web Resource
Authorization Profiles. The Security Considerations section was drafted by Torsten
Lodderstedt, Mark McGloin, Phil Hunt, and Anthony Nadalin.

The OAuth 1.0 community specification was edited by Eran Hammer and authored by
Mark Atwood, Dirk Balfanz, Darren Bounds, Richard M. Conlan, Blaine Cook, Leah
Culver, Breno de Medeiros, Brian Eaton, Kellan Elliott-McCrea, Larry Halff, Eran
Hammer, Ben Laurie, Chris Messina, John Panzer, Sam Quigley, David Recordon,
Eran Sandler, Jonathan Sergent, Todd Sieling, Brian Slesinsky, and Andy Smith.

The OAuth WRAP specification was edited by Dick Hardt and authored by Brian
Eaton, Yaron Goland, Dick Hardt, and Allen Tom.

This specification is the work of the OAuth Working Group which includes dozens of
active and dedicated participants. In particular, the following individuals contributed
ideas, feedback, and wording which shaped and formed the final specification:

Michael Adams, Amanda Anganes, Andrew Arnott, Dirk Balfanz, Aiden Bell, Brian
Campbell, Scott Cantor, Marcos Caceres, Blaine Cook, Roger Crew, Brian Eaton,
Leah Culver, Bill de hOra, Andre DeMarre, Brian Eaton, Wolter Eldering, Brian Ellin,
Igor Faynberg, George Fletcher, Tim Freeman, Evan Gilbert, Yaron Goland, Brent
Goldman, Kristoffer Gronowski, Justin Hart, Dick Hardt, Craig Heath, Phil Hunt,
Michael B. Jones, Terry Jones, John Kemp, Mark Kent, Raffi Krikorian, Chasen Le
Hara, Rasmus Lerdorf, Torsten Lodderstedt, Hui-Lan Lu, Casey Lucas, Paul Madsen,
Alastair Mair, Eve Maler, James Manger, Mark McGloin, Laurence Miao, William Mills,
Chuck Mortimore, Anthony Nadalin, Julian Reschke, Justin Richer, Peter Saint-Andre,
Nat Sakimura, Rob Sayre, Marius Scurtescu, Naitik Shah, Luke Shepard, Vlad
Skvortsov, Justin Smith, Haibin Song, Niv Steingarten, Christian Stubner, Jeremy
Suriel, Paul Tarjan, Christopher Thomas, Henry S. Thompson, Allen Tom, Franklin
Tse, Nick Walker, Shane Weeden, and Skylar Woodward.

This document was produced under the chairmanship of Blaine Cook, Peter Saint-
Andre, Hannes Tschofenig, and Barry Leiba. The area directors included Lisa
Dusseault, Peter Saint-Andre, and Stephen Farrell.

72
 Chapter 14: References

14. References
1. OAuth Web Resource Authorization Profiles , January 2010

73