OAuth
OAuth (Open Authorization) authorization framework
Within this page
OAuth RFCs (34)
RFC 10017: BCP 212: OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Applications
Best Current Practice- A. Parecki
- P. De Ryck
- D. Waite
- August 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification details the threats, attack consequences, security considerations, and best practices that must be taken into account when developing browser-based applications that use OAuth 2.0.
Abstract
This specification details the threats, attack consequences, security considerations, and best practices that must be taken into account when developing browser-based applications that use OAuth 2.0.
RFC 10027: BCP 247: Best Current Practice for Security of Cross-Device Flows
Best Current Practice- P. Kasselman
- D. Fett
- F. Skokan
- August 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes threats against cross-device flows along with practical mitigations, protocol selection guidance, and a summary of formal analysis results identified as relevant to the security of cross-device flows. It serves as a security guide to system designers, architects, product managers, security specialists, fraud analysts, and engineers implementing cross-device flows.
Abstract
This document describes threats against cross-device flows along with practical mitigations, protocol selection guidance, and a summary of formal analysis results identified as relevant to the security of cross-device flows. It serves as a security guide to system designers, architects, product managers, security specialists, fraud analysts, and engineers implementing cross-device flows.
RFC 9700: BCP 240: Best Current Practice for OAuth 2.0 Security
Best Current Practice- T. Lodderstedt
- J. Bradley
- A. Labunets
- D. Fett
- January 2025
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes best current security practice for OAuth 2.0. It updates and extends the threat model and security advice given in RFCs 6749, 6750, and 6819 to incorporate practical experiences gathered since OAuth 2.0 was published and covers new threats relevant due to the broader application of OAuth 2.0. Further, it deprecates some modes of operation that are deemed less secure or even insecure.
Abstract
This document describes best current security practice for OAuth 2.0. It updates and extends the threat model and security advice given in RFCs 6749, 6750, and 6819 to incorporate practical experiences gathered since OAuth 2.0 was published and covers new threats relevant due to the broader application of OAuth 2.0. Further, it deprecates some modes of operation that are deemed less secure or even insecure.
RFC 9470: OAuth 2.0 Step Up Authentication Challenge Protocol
Proposed Standard- V. Bertocci
- B. Campbell
- September 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
It is not uncommon for resource servers to require different authentication strengths or recentness according to the characteristics of a request. This document introduces a mechanism that resource servers can use to signal to a client that the authentication event associated with the access token of the current request does not meet its authentication requirements and, further, how to meet them. This document also codifies a mechanism for a client to request that an authorization server achieve a specific authentication strength or recentness when processing an authorization request.
Abstract
It is not uncommon for resource servers to require different authentication strengths or recentness according to the characteristics of a request. This document introduces a mechanism that resource servers can use to signal to a client that the authentication event associated with the access token of the current request does not meet its authentication requirements and, further, how to meet them. This document also codifies a mechanism for a client to request that an authorization server achieve a specific authentication strength or recentness when processing an authorization request.
RFC 9449: OAuth 2.0 Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP)
Proposed Standard- D. Fett
- B. Campbell
- J. Bradley
- T. Lodderstedt
- M. Jones
- D. Waite
- September 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for sender-constraining OAuth 2.0 tokens via a proof-of-possession mechanism on the application level. This mechanism allows for the detection of replay attacks with access and refresh tokens.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for sender-constraining OAuth 2.0 tokens via a proof-of-possession mechanism on the application level. This mechanism allows for the detection of replay attacks with access and refresh tokens.
RFC 9430: Extension of the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- O. Bergmann
- J. Preuß Mattsson
- G. Selander
- July 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document updates "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" (RFC 9202) by specifying that the profile applies to TLS as well as DTLS.
Abstract
This document updates "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)" (RFC 9202) by specifying that the profile applies to TLS as well as DTLS.
RFC 9396: OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests
Proposed Standard- T. Lodderstedt
- J. Richer
- B. Campbell
- May 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a new parameter authorization_details that is used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages.
Abstract
This document specifies a new parameter authorization_details that is used to carry fine-grained authorization data in OAuth messages.
RFC 9200: Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Using the OAuth 2.0 Framework (ACE-OAuth)
Proposed Standard- L. Seitz
- G. Selander
- E. Wahlstroem
- S. Erdtman
- H. Tschofenig
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines a framework for authentication and authorization in Internet of Things (IoT) environments called ACE-OAuth. The framework is based on a set of building blocks including OAuth 2.0 and the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), thus transforming a well-known and widely used authorization solution into a form suitable for IoT devices. Existing specifications are used where possible, but extensions are added and profiles are defined to better serve the IoT use cases.
Abstract
This specification defines a framework for authentication and authorization in Internet of Things (IoT) environments called ACE-OAuth. The framework is based on a set of building blocks including OAuth 2.0 and the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), thus transforming a well-known and widely used authorization solution into a form suitable for IoT devices. Existing specifications are used where possible, but extensions are added and profiles are defined to better serve the IoT use cases.
RFC 9201: Additional OAuth Parameters for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
Proposed Standard- L. Seitz
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines new parameters and encodings for the OAuth 2.0 token and introspection endpoints when used with the framework for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE). These are used to express the proof-of-possession (PoP) key the client wishes to use, the PoP key that the authorization server has selected, and the PoP key the resource server uses to authenticate to the client.
Abstract
This specification defines new parameters and encodings for the OAuth 2.0 token and introspection endpoints when used with the framework for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE). These are used to express the proof-of-possession (PoP) key the client wishes to use, the PoP key that the authorization server has selected, and the PoP key the resource server uses to authenticate to the client.
RFC 9202: Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
Proposed Standard- S. Gerdes
- O. Bergmann
- C. Bormann
- G. Selander
- L. Seitz
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines a profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework that allows constrained servers to delegate client authentication and authorization. The protocol relies on DTLS version 1.2 or later for communication security between entities in a constrained network using either raw public keys or pre-shared keys. A resource-constrained server can use this protocol to delegate management of authorization information to a trusted host with less-severe limitations regarding processing power and memory.
Abstract
This specification defines a profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework that allows constrained servers to delegate client authentication and authorization. The protocol relies on DTLS version 1.2 or later for communication security between entities in a constrained network using either raw public keys or pre-shared keys. A resource-constrained server can use this protocol to delegate management of authorization information to a trusted host with less-severe limitations regarding processing power and memory.
RFC 9203: The Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) Profile of the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework
Proposed Standard- F. Palombini
- L. Seitz
- G. Selander
- M. Gunnarsson
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework. It utilizes Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) to provide communication security and proof-of-possession for a key owned by the client and bound to an OAuth 2.0 access token.
Abstract
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework. It utilizes Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) to provide communication security and proof-of-possession for a key owned by the client and bound to an OAuth 2.0 access token.
RFC 9237: An Authorization Information Format (AIF) for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
Proposed Standard- C. Bormann
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Information about which entities are authorized to perform what operations on which constituents of other entities is a crucial component of producing an overall system that is secure. Conveying precise authorization information is especially critical in highly automated systems with large numbers of entities, such as the Internet of Things.
This specification provides a generic information model and format for representing such authorization information, as well as two variants of a specific instantiation of that format for use with Representational State Transfer (REST) resources identified by URI path.
Abstract
Information about which entities are authorized to perform what operations on which constituents of other entities is a crucial component of producing an overall system that is secure. Conveying precise authorization information is especially critical in highly automated systems with large numbers of entities, such as the Internet of Things.
This specification provides a generic information model and format for representing such authorization information, as well as two variants of a specific instantiation of that format for use with Representational State Transfer (REST) resources identified by URI path.
RFC 9278: JWK Thumbprint URI
Proposed Standard- M. Jones
- K. Yasuda
- August 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification registers a kind of URI that represents a JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint value. JWK Thumbprints are defined in RFC 7638. This enables JWK Thumbprints to be used, for instance, as key identifiers in contexts requiring URIs.
Abstract
This specification registers a kind of URI that represents a JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint value. JWK Thumbprints are defined in RFC 7638. This enables JWK Thumbprints to be used, for instance, as key identifiers in contexts requiring URIs.
RFC 9207: OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Issuer Identification
Proposed Standard- K. Meyer zu Selhausen
- D. Fett
- March 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a new parameter called iss. This parameter is used to explicitly include the issuer identifier of the authorization server in the authorization response of an OAuth authorization flow. The iss parameter serves as an effective countermeasure to "mix-up attacks".
Abstract
This document specifies a new parameter called iss. This parameter is used to explicitly include the issuer identifier of the authorization server in the authorization response of an OAuth authorization flow. The iss parameter serves as an effective countermeasure to "mix-up attacks".
RFC 9126: OAuth 2.0 Pushed Authorization Requests
Proposed Standard- T. Lodderstedt
- B. Campbell
- N. Sakimura
- D. Tonge
- F. Skokan
- September 2021
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines the pushed authorization request (PAR) endpoint, which allows clients to push the payload of an OAuth 2.0 authorization request to the authorization server via a direct request and provides them with a request URI that is used as reference to the data in a subsequent call to the authorization endpoint.
Abstract
This document defines the pushed authorization request (PAR) endpoint, which allows clients to push the payload of an OAuth 2.0 authorization request to the authorization server via a direct request and provides them with a request URI that is used as reference to the data in a subsequent call to the authorization endpoint.
RFC 8898: Third-Party Token-Based Authentication and Authorization for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Proposed Standard- R. Shekh-Yusef
- C. Holmberg
- V. Pascual
- September 2020
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document defines the "Bearer" authentication scheme for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and a mechanism by which user authentication and SIP registration authorization is delegated to a third party, using the OAuth 2.0 framework and OpenID Connect Core 1.0. This document updates RFC 3261 to provide guidance on how a SIP User Agent Client (UAC) responds to a SIP 401/407 response that contains multiple WWW-Authenticate/Proxy-Authenticate header fields.
Abstract
This document defines the "Bearer" authentication scheme for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and a mechanism by which user authentication and SIP registration authorization is delegated to a third party, using the OAuth 2.0 framework and OpenID Connect Core 1.0. This document updates RFC 3261 to provide guidance on how a SIP User Agent Client (UAC) responds to a SIP 401/407 response that contains multiple WWW-Authenticate/Proxy-Authenticate header fields.
RFC 8707: Resource Indicators for OAuth 2.0
Proposed Standard- B. Campbell
- J. Bradley
- H. Tschofenig
- February 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies an extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization server about the identity of the protected resource(s) to which it is requesting access.
Abstract
This document specifies an extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization server about the identity of the protected resource(s) to which it is requesting access.
RFC 8628: OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant
Proposed Standard- W. Denniss
- J. Bradley
- M. Jones
- H. Tschofenig
- August 2019
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 device authorization grant is designed for Internet- connected devices that either lack a browser to perform a user-agent- based authorization or are input constrained to the extent that requiring the user to input text in order to authenticate during the authorization flow is impractical. It enables OAuth clients on such devices (like smart TVs, media consoles, digital picture frames, and printers) to obtain user authorization to access protected resources by using a user agent on a separate device.
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 device authorization grant is designed for Internet- connected devices that either lack a browser to perform a user-agent- based authorization or are input constrained to the extent that requiring the user to input text in order to authenticate during the authorization flow is impractical. It enables OAuth clients on such devices (like smart TVs, media consoles, digital picture frames, and printers) to obtain user authorization to access protected resources by using a user agent on a separate device.
RFC 8473: Token Binding over HTTP
Proposed Standard- A. Popov
- M. Nystroem
- D. Balfanz
- N. Harper
- J. Hodges
- October 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind security tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to TLS connections.
We describe both first-party and federated scenarios. In a first- party scenario, an HTTP server is able to cryptographically bind the security tokens that it issues to a client -- and that the client subsequently returns to the server -- to the TLS connection between the client and the server. Such bound security tokens are protected from misuse, since the server can generally detect if they are replayed inappropriately, e.g., over other TLS connections.
Federated Token Bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS connection that the client has with a different server than the one issuing the token.
This document is a companion document to "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0" (RFC 8471).
Abstract
This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind security tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to TLS connections.
We describe both first-party and federated scenarios. In a first- party scenario, an HTTP server is able to cryptographically bind the security tokens that it issues to a client -- and that the client subsequently returns to the server -- to the TLS connection between the client and the server. Such bound security tokens are protected from misuse, since the server can generally detect if they are replayed inappropriately, e.g., over other TLS connections.
Federated Token Bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS connection that the client has with a different server than the one issuing the token.
This document is a companion document to "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0" (RFC 8471).
RFC 8252: BCP 212: OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps
Best Current Practice- W. Denniss
- J. Bradley
- October 2017
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
OAuth 2.0 authorization requests from native apps should only be made through external user-agents, primarily the user's browser. This specification details the security and usability reasons why this is the case and how native apps and authorization servers can implement this best practice.
Abstract
OAuth 2.0 authorization requests from native apps should only be made through external user-agents, primarily the user's browser. This specification details the security and usability reasons why this is the case and how native apps and authorization servers can implement this best practice.
RFC 8176: Authentication Method Reference Values
Proposed Standard- M. Jones
- P. Hunt
- A. Nadalin
- June 2017
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and registered in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry, but no standard Authentication Method Reference values are currently defined. This specification establishes a registry for Authentication Method Reference values and defines an initial set of Authentication Method Reference values.
Abstract
The "amr" (Authentication Methods References) claim is defined and registered in the IANA "JSON Web Token Claims" registry, but no standard Authentication Method Reference values are currently defined. This specification establishes a registry for Authentication Method Reference values and defines an initial set of Authentication Method Reference values.
RFC 7662: OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection
Proposed Standard- J. Richer
- October 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines a method for a protected resource to query an OAuth 2.0 authorization server to determine the active state of an OAuth 2.0 token and to determine meta-information about this token. OAuth 2.0 deployments can use this method to convey information about the authorization context of the token from the authorization server to the protected resource.
Abstract
This specification defines a method for a protected resource to query an OAuth 2.0 authorization server to determine the active state of an OAuth 2.0 token and to determine meta-information about this token. OAuth 2.0 deployments can use this method to convey information about the authorization context of the token from the authorization server to the protected resource.
RFC 7636: Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients
Proposed Standard- N. Sakimura
- J. Bradley
- N. Agarwal
- September 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
OAuth 2.0 public clients utilizing the Authorization Code Grant are susceptible to the authorization code interception attack. This specification describes the attack as well as a technique to mitigate against the threat through the use of Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE, pronounced "pixy").
Abstract
OAuth 2.0 public clients utilizing the Authorization Code Grant are susceptible to the authorization code interception attack. This specification describes the attack as well as a technique to mitigate against the threat through the use of Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE, pronounced "pixy").
RFC 7628: A Set of Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanisms for OAuth
Proposed Standard- W. Mills
- T. Showalter
- H. Tschofenig
- August 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
OAuth enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to a protected resource, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.
This document defines how an application client uses credentials obtained via OAuth over the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) to access a protected resource at a resource server. Thereby, it enables schemes defined within the OAuth framework for non-HTTP-based application protocols.
Clients typically store the user's long-term credential. This does, however, lead to significant security vulnerabilities, for example, when such a credential leaks. A significant benefit of OAuth for usage in those clients is that the password is replaced by a shared secret with higher entropy, i.e., the token. Tokens typically provide limited access rights and can be managed and revoked separately from the user's long-term password.
Abstract
OAuth enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to a protected resource, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.
This document defines how an application client uses credentials obtained via OAuth over the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) to access a protected resource at a resource server. Thereby, it enables schemes defined within the OAuth framework for non-HTTP-based application protocols.
Clients typically store the user's long-term credential. This does, however, lead to significant security vulnerabilities, for example, when such a credential leaks. A significant benefit of OAuth for usage in those clients is that the password is replaced by a shared secret with higher entropy, i.e., the token. Tokens typically provide limited access rights and can be managed and revoked separately from the user's long-term password.
RFC 7635: Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Extension for Third-Party Authorization
Proposed Standard- T. Reddy
- P. Patil
- R. Ravindranath
- J. Uberti
- August 2015
- IETF publication
- Transport Area
Abstract
This document proposes the use of OAuth 2.0 to obtain and validate ephemeral tokens that can be used for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) authentication. The usage of ephemeral tokens ensures that access to a STUN server can be controlled even if the tokens are compromised.
Abstract
This document proposes the use of OAuth 2.0 to obtain and validate ephemeral tokens that can be used for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) authentication. The usage of ephemeral tokens ensures that access to a STUN server can be controlled even if the tokens are compromised.
RFC 7591: OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol
Proposed Standard- J. Richer
- M. Jones
- J. Bradley
- M. Machulak
- P. Hunt
- July 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering OAuth 2.0 clients with authorization servers. Registration requests send a set of desired client metadata values to the authorization server. The resulting registration responses return a client identifier to use at the authorization server and the client metadata values registered for the client. The client can then use this registration information to communicate with the authorization server using the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This specification also defines a set of common client metadata fields and values for clients to use during registration.
Abstract
This specification defines mechanisms for dynamically registering OAuth 2.0 clients with authorization servers. Registration requests send a set of desired client metadata values to the authorization server. The resulting registration responses return a client identifier to use at the authorization server and the client metadata values registered for the client. The client can then use this registration information to communicate with the authorization server using the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This specification also defines a set of common client metadata fields and values for clients to use during registration.
RFC 7592: OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Management Protocol
Experimental- J. Richer
- M. Jones
- J. Bradley
- M. Machulak
- July 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines methods for management of OAuth 2.0 dynamic client registrations for use cases in which the properties of a registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of the client. Not all authorization servers supporting dynamic client registration will support these management methods.
Abstract
This specification defines methods for management of OAuth 2.0 dynamic client registrations for use cases in which the properties of a registered client may need to be changed during the lifetime of the client. Not all authorization servers supporting dynamic client registration will support these management methods.
RFC 7522: Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
Proposed Standard- B. Campbell
- C. Mortimore
- M. Jones
- May 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification defines the use of a Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Bearer Assertion as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for client authentication.
Abstract
This specification defines the use of a Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Bearer Assertion as a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for client authentication.
RFC 7009: OAuth 2.0 Token Revocation
Proposed Standard- T. Lodderstedt
- S. Dronia
- M. Scurtescu
- August 2013
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document proposes an additional endpoint for OAuth authorization servers, which allows clients to notify the authorization server that a previously obtained refresh or access token is no longer needed. This allows the authorization server to clean up security credentials. A revocation request will invalidate the actual token and, if applicable, other tokens based on the same authorization grant.
Abstract
This document proposes an additional endpoint for OAuth authorization servers, which allows clients to notify the authorization server that a previously obtained refresh or access token is no longer needed. This allows the authorization server to clean up security credentials. A revocation request will invalidate the actual token and, if applicable, other tokens based on the same authorization grant.
RFC 6819: OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations
Informational- T. Lodderstedt
- M. McGloin
- P. Hunt
- January 2013
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document gives additional security considerations for OAuth, beyond those in the OAuth 2.0 specification, based on a comprehensive threat model for the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document gives additional security considerations for OAuth, beyond those in the OAuth 2.0 specification, based on a comprehensive threat model for the OAuth 2.0 protocol. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6749: The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
Proposed Standard- D. Hardt
- October 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework 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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework 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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6750: The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage
Proposed Standard- M. Jones
- D. Hardt
- October 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification describes how to use bearer tokens in HTTP requests to access OAuth 2.0 protected resources. Any party in possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") can use it to get access to the associated resources (without demonstrating possession of a cryptographic key). To prevent misuse, bearer tokens need to be protected from disclosure in storage and in transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This specification describes how to use bearer tokens in HTTP requests to access OAuth 2.0 protected resources. Any party in possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") can use it to get access to the associated resources (without demonstrating possession of a cryptographic key). To prevent misuse, bearer tokens need to be protected from disclosure in storage and in transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6755: An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth
Informational- B. Campbell
- H. Tschofenig
- October 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with OAuth-related specifications. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with OAuth-related specifications. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5849: The OAuth 1.0 Protocol
Informational- E. Hammer-Lahav
- April 2010
- IETF publication
Abstract
OAuth provides a method for clients to access server resources on behalf of a resource owner (such as a different client or an end-user). It also provides a process for end-users to authorize third-party access to their server resources without sharing their credentials (typically, a username and password pair), using user-agent redirections. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Obsoleted by RFC 6749
Abstract
OAuth provides a method for clients to access server resources on behalf of a resource owner (such as a different client or an end-user). It also provides a process for end-users to authorize third-party access to their server resources without sharing their credentials (typically, a username and password pair), using user-agent redirections. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Subscribe to OAuth
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.