It’s done.

Release notes here.

Nuget here.

Docs here.

I am off to holidays.

See you next year.

Posted in .NET Security, ASP.NET, OAuth, OpenID Connect, WebAPI | 3 Comments

IdentityServer4 is now OpenID Certified

As of today – IdentityServer4 is official certified by the OpenID Foundation. Release of 1.0 will be this Friday!

More details here.


Posted in .NET Security, OAuth, WebAPI | 2 Comments

Identity vs Permissions

We often see people misusing IdentityServer as an authorization/permission management system. This is troublesome – here’s why.

IdentityServer (hence the name) is really good at providing a stable identity for your users across all applications in your system. And with identity I mean immutable identity (at least for the lifetime of the session) – typical examples would be a user id (aka the subject id), a name, department, email address, customer id etc…

IdentityServer is not so well suited for for letting clients or APIs know what this user is allowed to do – e.g. create a customer record, delete a table, read a certain document etc…

And this is not inherently a weakness of IdentityServer – but IdentityServer is a token service, and it’s a fact that claims and especially tokens are not a particularly good medium for transporting such information. Here are a couple of reasons:

  • Claims are supposed to model the identity of a user, not permissions
  • Claims are typically simple strings – you often want something more sophisticated to model authorization information or permissions
  • Permissions of a user are often different depending which client or API it is using – putting them all into a single identity or access token is confusing and leads to problems. The same permission might even have a different meaning depending on who is consuming it
  • Permissions can change over the life time of a session, but the only way to get a new token is to make a roundtrip to the token service. This often requires some UI interaction which is not preferable
  • Permissions and business logic often overlap – where do you want to draw the line?
  • The only party that knows exactly about the authorization requirements of the current operation is the actual code where it happens – the token service can only provide coarse grained information
  • You want to keep your tokens small. Browser URL length restrictions and bandwidth are often limiting factors
  • And last but not least – it is easy to add a claim to a token. It is very hard to remove one. You never know if somebody already took a hard dependency on it. Every single claim you add to a token should be scrutinized.

In other words – keep permissions and authorization data out of your tokens. Add the authorization information to your context once you get closer to the resource that actually needs the information. And even then, it is tempting to model permissions using claims (the Microsoft services and frameworks kind of push you into that direction) – keep in mind that a simple string is a very limiting data structure. Modern programming languages have much better constructs than that.

What about roles?
That’s a very common question. Roles are a bit of a grey area between identity and authorization. My rule of thumb is that if a role is a fundamental part of the user identity that is of interest to every part of your system – and role membership does not or not frequently change – it is a candidate for a claim in a token. Examples could be Customer vs Employee – or Patient vs Doctor vs Nurse.

Every other usage of roles – especially if the role membership would be different based on the client or API being used, it’s pure authorization data and should be avoided. If you realize that the number of roles of a user is high – or growing – avoid putting them into the token.

Design for a clean separation of identity and permissions (which is just a re-iteration of authentication vs authorization). Acquire authorization data as close as possible to the code that needs it – only there you can make an informed decision what you really need.

I also often get the question if we have a similar flexible solution to authorization as we have with IdentityServer for authentication – and the answer is – right now – no. But I have the feeling that 2017 will be our year to finally tackle the authorization problem. Stay tuned!

Posted in .NET Security, IdentityServer, OAuth, OpenID Connect, WebAPI | 23 Comments

Optimizing Identity Tokens for size

Generally speaking, you want to keep your (identity) tokens small. They often need to be transferred via length constrained transport mechanisms – especially the browser URL which might have limitations (e.g. 2 KB in IE). You also need to somehow store the identity token for the length of a session if you want to use the post logout redirect feature at logout time.

Therefore the OpenID Connect specification suggests the following (in section 5.4):

The Claims requested by the profile, email, address, and phone scope values are returned from the UserInfo Endpoint, as described in Section 5.3.2, when a response_type value is used that results in an Access Token being issued. However, when no Access Token is issued (which is the case for the response_type value id_token), the resulting Claims are returned in the ID Token.

IOW – if only an identity token is requested, put all claims into the token. If however an access token is requested as well (e.g. via id_token token or code id_token), it is OK to remove the claims from the identity token and rather let the client use the userinfo endpoint to retrieve them.

That’s how we always handled identity token generation in IdentityServer by default. You could then override our default behaviour by setting the AlwaysIncludeInIdToken flag on the ScopeClaim class.

When we did the configuration re-design in IdentityServer4, we asked ourselves if this override feature is still required. Times have changed a bit and the popular client libraries out there (e.g. the ASP.NET Core OpenID Connect middleware or Brock’s JS client) automatically use the userinfo endpoint anyways as part of the authentication process.

So we removed it.

Shortly after that, several people brought to our attention that they were actually relying on that feature and are now missing their claims in the identity token without a way to change configuration. Sorry about that.

Post RC5, we brought this feature back – it is now a client setting, and not a claims setting anymore. It will be included in RTM next week and documented in our docs.

I hope this post explains our motivation, and some background, why this behaviour existed in the first place.

Posted in .NET Security, IdentityServer, OpenID Connect, WebAPI | Leave a comment

IdentityServer4 and ASP.NET Core 1.1

aka RC5 – last RC – promised!

The update from ASP.NET Core 1.0 (aka LTS – long term support) to ASP.NET Core 1.1 (aka Current) didn’t go so well (at least IMHO).

There were a couple of breaking changes both on the APIs as well as in behaviour. Especially around challenge/response based authentication middleware and EF Core.

Long story short – it was not possible for us to make IdentityServer support both versions. That’s why we decided to move to 1.1, which includes a bunch of bug fixes, and will also most probably be the version that ships with the new Visual Studio.

To be more specific – we build against ASP.NET Core 1.1 and the 1.0.0-preview2-003131 SDK.

Here’s a guide that describes how to update your host to 1.1. Our docs and samples have been updated.

Posted in ASP.NET, OAuth, OpenID Connect, WebAPI | 3 Comments

New in IdentityServer4: Resource-based Configuration

For RC4 we decided to re-design our configuration object model for resources (formerly known as scopes).

I know, I know – we are not supposed to make fundamental breaking changes once reaching the RC status – but hey – we kind of had our “DNX” moment, and realized that we either change this now – or never.

Why did we do that?
We spent the last couple of years explaining OpenID Connect and OAuth 2.0 based architectures to hundreds of students in training classes, attendees at conferences, fellow developers, and customers from all types of industries.

While most concepts are pretty clear and make total sense – scopes were the most confusing part for most people. The abstract nature of a scope as well as the fact that the term scope has a somewhat different meaning in OpenID Connect and OAuth 2.0, made this concept really hard to grasp.

Maybe it’s also partly our fault, that we stayed very close to the spec-speak with our object model and abstraction level, that we forced that concept onto every user of IdentityServer.

Long story short – every time I needed to explain scope, I said something like “A scope is a resource a client wants to access.”..and “there are two types of scopes: identity related and APIs…”.

This got us thinking if it would make more sense to introduce the notion of resources in IdentityServer, and get rid of scopes.

What did we do?
Before RC4 – our configuration object model had three main parts: users, client, and scopes (and there were two types of scopes – identity and resource – and some overlapping settings between them).

Starting with RC4 – the configuration model does not have scope anymore as a top-level concept, but rather identity resources and API resources.


We think this is a more natural way (and language) to model a typical token-based system.

From our new docs:

A user is a human that is using a registered client to access resources.

A client is a piece of software that requests tokens from IdentityServer – either for authenticating a user (requesting an identity token)
or for accessing a resource (requesting an access token). A client must be first registered with IdentityServer before it can request tokens.

Resources are something you want to protect with IdentityServer – either identity data of your users (like user id, name, email..), or APIs.

Enough talk, show me the code!
Pre-RC4, you would have used a scope store to return a flat list of scopes. Now the new resource store deals with two different resource types: IdentityResource and ApiResource.

Let’s start with identity – standard scopes used to be defined like this:

public static IEnumerable<Scope> GetScopes()
    return new List<Scope>

..and now:

public static IEnumerable<IdentityResource> GetIdentityResources()
    return new List<IdentityResource>
        new IdentityResources.OpenId(),
        new IdentityResources.Profile()

Not very different. Now let’s define a custom identity resource with associated claims:

var customerProfile = new IdentityResource(
    name:        "profile.customer",
    displayName: "Customer profile",
    claimTypes:  new[] { "name""status""location" });

This is all that’s needed for 90% of all identity resources you will ever define. If you need to tweak details, you can set various properties on the IdentityResource class.

Let’s have a look at the API resources. You used to define a resource-scope like this:

public static IEnumerable<Scope> GetScopes()
    return new List<Scope>
        new Scope
            Name = "api1",
            DisplayName = "My API #1",
            Type = ScopeType.Resource

..and the new way:

public static IEnumerable<ApiResource> GetApis()
    return new[]
        new ApiResource("api1""My API #1")

Again – for the simple case there is not a huge difference. The ApiResource object model starts to become more powerful when you have advanced requirements like APIs with multiple scopes (and maybe different claims based on the scope) and support for introspection, e.g.:

public static IEnumerable<ApiResource> GetApis()
    return new[]
        new ApiResource
            Name = "calendar",
            // secret for introspection endpoint
            ApiSecrets =
                new Secret("secret".Sha256())
            // claims to include in access token
            UserClaims =
            // API has multiple scopes
            Scopes =
                new Scope
                    Name = "calendar.read_only",
                    DisplayName = "Read only access to the calendar"
                new Scope
                    Name = "calendar.full_access",
                    DisplayName = "Full access to the calendar",
                    Emphasize = true,
                    // include additional claim for that scope
                    UserClaims =

IOW – We reversed the configuration approach, and you now model APIs (which might have scopes) – and not scopes (that happen to represent an API).

We like the new model much better as it reflects how you architect a token-based system much better. We hope you like it too – and sorry for moving the cheese ;)

As always – give us feedback on the issue tracker. RTM is very close.

Posted in .NET Security, ASP.NET, OAuth, Uncategorized, WebAPI | 21 Comments

New in IdentityServer4: Multiple allowed Grant Types

In OAuth 2 some grant type combinations are insecure, that’s why we decided for IdentityServer3 that we’ll be defensive and allow only a single grant type per client.

During the last two years of implementing OAuth 2, it turned out that certain combinations of grant types actually do make sense and we adjusted IdentityServer3 to accommodate a couple of those scenarios. But there were still some common cases that either required you to create multiple client configurations for the same logical client – or configuration became a bit messy.

We fixed that in IdentityServer4 – we now allow almost all combinations of grant types for a single client – including the standard ones and extension grants that you add yourself.

We still check that the combination you choose will not result in a security problem – so we haven’t compromised security. Just made the configuration more flexible and easier to use.

See all the details here.

Posted in ASP.NET, IdentityServer, OAuth, OpenID Connect, WebAPI | Leave a comment