MSC4363: OAuth step up authentication #4363
Open
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
Johennes
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
Johennes
force-pushed
the
johannes/oauth-step-up-authentication
branch
from
5769520 to
fd17d14
Compare
4 tasks
turt2live
added
proposal
turt2live
reviewed
Sep 30, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Implementation requirements:
- Client (ideally multiple)
- Server
zecakeh
reviewed
Oct 1, 2025
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
zecakeh
reviewed
Oct 1, 2025
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
zecakeh
reviewed
Oct 2, 2025
Co-authored-by: Kévin Commaille <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kévin Commaille <[email protected]>
hughns
reviewed
Oct 31, 2025
Co-authored-by: Hugh Nimmo-Smith <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
Johennes
commented
Oct 31, 2025
Comment on lines
+72
to
+76
| ### Cross-signing key reset | ||
|
|
||
| Implementations MAY use this proposal to replace UIA when the client has obtained its access token | ||
| via the OAuth APIs. The only endpoint currently using UIA for which this is relevant is | ||
| [/_matrix/client/v3/keys/device_signing/upload]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could consider introducing a dedicated scope to support this. Though I think it is not strictly needed. The only advantage I can think of is that clients could request the scope ahead of hitting the endpoint.
hughns
reviewed
Nov 3, 2025
|
|
||
| ### Cross-signing key reset | ||
|
|
||
| Implementations MAY use this proposal to replace UIA when the client has obtained its access token |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Problem: when the homeserver receives a request to POST /_matrix/client/v3/keys/device_signing/upload, how does it know whether it should respond with the m.oauth flow stage from MSC4312, or the new M_INSUFFICIENT_USER_AUTHENTICATION errcode?
We would want the server to be backwards compatible with older clients, so I think the server needs to know what the client supports.
So, basically some kind of versioning:
- query param?
- body param?
/_matrix/client/v3/keys/device_signing/upload->/_matrix/client/v4/keys/device_signing/upload?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
Rendered