feat(oidc,client,op): Adds support for OpenID Key Binding - #930
Draft
EthanHeilman wants to merge 4 commits into
Draft
feat(oidc,client,op): Adds support for OpenID Key Binding#930EthanHeilman wants to merge 4 commits into
EthanHeilman wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which Problems Are Solved
This PR adds support for OpenID Key Binding 1.0, a draft standard for Proof-of-Possession ID Tokens. Basically ID Tokens that have a public key enabling the user to sign under their identity.
OpenPubkey supports key binding using zitadel/oidc as the library. However because zitadel/oidc does not natively support key binding, OpenPubkey has to use a fragile rounder-tripper work around for the RP.
This PR allows key binding support for OP and RP:
Two things not done:
jticlaims, this is an optional and zitadel/oidc did not have the existing caching infrastructure to support it.Remaining tasks are:
This PR is a work-in-progress
How the Problems Are Solved
Additional Changes
No additional changes
Additional Context
Would this fit better in v3 or v4?