Skip to main content

1. Introduction

OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] public clients are susceptible to the authorization code interception attack.

In this attack, the attacker intercepts the authorization code returned from the authorization endpoint within a communication path not protected by Transport Layer Security (TLS), such as inter-application communication within the client's operating system.

Once the attacker has gained access to the authorization code, it can use it to obtain the access token.

Figure 1 shows the attack graphically. In step (1), the native application running on the end device, such as a smartphone, issues an OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request via the browser/operating system. The Redirection Endpoint URI in this case typically uses a custom URI scheme. Step (1) happens through a secure API that cannot be intercepted, though it may potentially be observed in advanced attack scenarios. The request then gets forwarded to the OAuth 2.0 authorization server in step (2). Because OAuth requires the use of TLS, this communication is protected by TLS and cannot be intercepted. The authorization server returns the authorization code in step (3). In step (4), the Authorization Code is returned to the requester via the Redirection Endpoint URI that was provided in step (1).

Note that it is possible for a malicious app to register itself as a handler for the custom scheme in addition to the legitimate OAuth 2.0 app. Once it does so, the malicious app is now able to intercept the authorization code in step (4). This allows the attacker to request and obtain an access token in steps (5) and (6), respectively.

+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| End Device (e.g., Smartphone)  |
|                                |
| +-------------+   +----------+ | (6) Access Token  +----------+
| |Legitimate   |   | Malicious|<--------------------|          |
| |OAuth 2.0 App|   | App      |-------------------->|          |
| +-------------+   +----------+ | (5) Authorization |          |
|        |    ^          ^       |        Grant      |          |
|        |     \         |       |                   |          |
|        |      \   (4)  |       |                   |          |
|    (1) |       \  Authz|       |                   |          |
|   Authz|        \ Code |       |                   |  Authz   |
| Request|         \     |       |                   |  Server  |
|        |          \    |       |                   |          |
|        |           \   |       |                   |          |
|        v            \  |       |                   |          |
| +----------------------------+ |                   |          |
| |                            | | (3) Authz Code    |          |
| |     Operating System/      |<--------------------|          |
| |         Browser            |-------------------->|          |
| |                            | | (2) Authz Request |          |
| +----------------------------+ |                   +----------+
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+

         Figure 1: Authorization Code Interception Attack

A number of pre-conditions need to hold for this attack to work:

  1. The attacker manages to register a malicious application on the client device and registers a custom URI scheme that is also used by another application. The operating systems must allow a custom URI scheme to be registered by multiple applications.

  2. The OAuth 2.0 authorization code grant is used.

  3. The attacker has access to the OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] client_id and client_secret (if provisioned). All OAuth 2.0 native app client-instances use the same client_id. Secrets provisioned in client binary applications cannot be considered confidential.

  4. Either one of the following condition is met:

    4a. The attacker (via the installed application) is able to observe only the responses from the authorization endpoint. When code_challenge_method value is plain, only this attack is mitigated.

    4b. A more sophisticated attack scenario allows the attacker to observe requests (in addition to responses) to the authorization endpoint. The attacker is, however, not able to act as a man in the middle. This was caused by leaking http log information in the OS. To mitigate this, code_challenge_method value must be set either to S256 or a value defined by a cryptographically secure code_challenge_method extension.

While this is a long list of pre-conditions, the described attack has been observed in the wild and has to be considered in OAuth 2.0 deployments. While the OAuth 2.0 threat model (Section 4.4.1 of [RFC6819]) describes mitigation techniques, they are, unfortunately, not applicable since they rely on a per-client instance secret or a per-client instance redirect URI.

To mitigate this attack, this extension utilizes a dynamically created cryptographically random key called "code verifier". A unique code verifier is created for every authorization request, and its transformed value, called "code challenge", is sent to the authorization server to obtain the authorization code. The authorization code obtained is then sent to the token endpoint with the "code verifier", and the server compares it with the previously received request code so that it can perform the proof of possession of the "code verifier" by the client. This works as the mitigation since the attacker would not know this one-time key, since it is sent over TLS and cannot be intercepted.

1.1 Protocol Flow​

                                             +-------------------+
                                             |   Authz Server    |
   +--------+                                | +---------------+ |
   |        |--(A)- Authorization Request ---->|               | |
   |        |       + t(code_verifier), t_m  | | Authorization | |
   |        |                                | |    Endpoint   | |
   |        |<-(B)---- Authorization Code -----|               | |
   |        |                                | +---------------+ |
   | Client |                                |                   |
   |        |                                | +---------------+ |
   |        |--(C)-- Access Token Request ---->|               | |
   |        |          + code_verifier       | |    Token      | |
   |        |                                | |   Endpoint    | |
   |        |<-(D)------ Access Token ---------|               | |
   +--------+                                | +---------------+ |
                                             +-------------------+

                 Figure 2: Abstract Protocol Flow

This specification adds additional parameters to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization and Access Token Requests, shown in abstract form in Figure 2.

A. The client creates and records a secret named the "code_verifier" and derives a transformed version "t(code_verifier)" (referred to as the "code_challenge"), which is sent in the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request along with the transformation method "t_m".

B. The Authorization Endpoint responds as usual but records "t(code_verifier)" and the transformation method.

C. The client then sends the authorization code in the Access Token Request as usual but includes the "code_verifier" secret generated at (A).

D. The authorization server transforms "code_verifier" and compares it to "t(code_verifier)" from (B). Access is denied if they are not equal.

An attacker who intercepts the authorization code at (B) is unable to redeem it for an access token, as they are not in possession of the "code_verifier" secret.

Last updated on