Internet-Draft Additional Hashes for OAuth PoP and PKCE February 2026
Skokan Expires 30 August 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Web Authorization Protocol
Internet-Draft:
draft-skokan-oauth-additional-hashes-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
F. Skokan
Okta

Additional Hash Algorithms for OAuth 2.0 PKCE and Proof-of-Possession

Abstract

This document defines SHA-384 as an additional hash algorithm option for OAuth 2.0 Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE), Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP), and mutual-TLS certificate-bound access tokens. These mechanisms currently mandate the use of SHA-256.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-skokan-oauth-additional-hashes/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/panva/draft-oauth-additional-hashes.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 August 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Several OAuth 2.0 mechanisms exclusively mandate the use of SHA-256: Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE) [RFC7636], Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP) [RFC9449], and mutual-TLS certificate-bound access tokens [RFC8705].

Security policies, such as the US Commercial National Security Algorithm (CNSA 2.0) Suite [cnsafaq], prohibit the use of SHA-256 and mandate SHA-384 as the minimum acceptable hash algorithm. This prevents the deployment of these OAuth 2.0 mechanisms in such environments.

This document addresses this gap by defining SHA-384 alternatives for each of these mechanisms. For PKCE, a new S384 code challenge method is defined. For mutual-TLS certificate-bound access tokens, a new x5t#S384 confirmation method is defined. For DPoP, this document defines SHA-384 alternatives for the JWK Thumbprint confirmation method (jkt#S384) and the access token hash claim (ath#S384), as well as an extensible framework for DPoP authorization code binding and access token hash algorithm negotiation.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

All references to "CNSA 2.0" in this document refer to CNSA 2.0 [cnsafaq], unless stated otherwise.

3. SHA-384 PKCE Code Challenge Method

3.1. S384 Code Challenge Method

This document defines a new code challenge method for use with PKCE [RFC7636]. The client creates a code challenge derived from the code verifier by using the following transformation on the code verifier:

S384:

code_challenge = BASE64URL(SHA-384(ASCII(code_verifier)))

The server-side verification of the code verifier follows Section 4.6 of [RFC7636], using SHA-384 as the hash algorithm.

3.2. Authorization Server Metadata

An Authorization Server that supports the S384 code challenge method MUST advertise its support by including S384 in the code_challenge_methods_supported metadata parameter value, as defined in OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata [RFC8414] or OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 [OpenID.Discovery].

A Client intending to use the S384 code challenge method MUST first confirm that the Authorization Server supports it by checking the code_challenge_methods_supported metadata value. A Client MUST NOT use the S384 code challenge method if the Authorization Server does not advertise support for it.

4. DPoP Authorization Code Binding Methods

4.1. dpop_jkt_method Authorization Request Parameter

RFC 9449 [RFC9449] defines the dpop_jkt authorization request parameter as the JWK Thumbprint [RFC7638] of the DPoP public key using SHA-256.

This document defines the dpop_jkt_method authorization request parameter, sent alongside dpop_jkt, to indicate the hash algorithm used to compute the JWK Thumbprint. The following method values are defined:

S256:

JWK Thumbprint [RFC7638] using SHA-256, as originally defined in Section 10 of [RFC9449].

S384:

JWK Thumbprint [RFC7638] using SHA-384.

When dpop_jkt_method is absent from the authorization request, the Authorization Server MUST assume the value S256.

The value of dpop_jkt MUST be computed using the hash algorithm indicated by dpop_jkt_method.

4.2. DPoP Authorization Server Metadata

This document defines the dpop_jkt_methods_supported Authorization Server metadata parameter. Its value is a JSON array containing the dpop_jkt_method values that the Authorization Server supports.

An Authorization Server that supports dpop_jkt_method values beyond S256 MUST advertise its support by including the supported values in the dpop_jkt_methods_supported metadata parameter.

A Client intending to use a dpop_jkt_method value other than S256 MUST first confirm that the Authorization Server supports it by checking the dpop_jkt_methods_supported metadata value. A Client MUST NOT use a dpop_jkt_method value that the Authorization Server does not advertise support for.

5. SHA-384 DPoP Hash Algorithms

5.1. jkt#S384 Confirmation Method

RFC 9449 [RFC9449] defines the jkt confirmation method member for binding access tokens to a DPoP public key using a SHA-256 JWK Thumbprint [RFC7638].

This document defines an analogous confirmation method member jkt#S384 that uses SHA-384 as the hash algorithm:

jkt#S384:

The value is the base64url encoding of the JWK Thumbprint [RFC7638] computed using SHA-384 of the DPoP public key (in JWK format) to which the access token is bound.

When using jkt#S384, the Authorization Server computes the SHA-384 JWK Thumbprint of the DPoP public key and includes the result as the jkt#S384 member of the cnf claim in the access token (for JWT access tokens) or associates it with the token for later retrieval via token introspection.

The Resource Server MUST compute the SHA-384 JWK Thumbprint of the DPoP public key and compare it with the jkt#S384 value in the cnf claim. If the values do not match, the Resource Server MUST reject the request.

The choice of jkt#S384 over jkt is a deployment decision based on the Resource Server configuration at the Authorization Server.

5.2. ath#S384 Access Token Hash

RFC 9449 [RFC9449] defines the ath claim in the DPoP proof JWT as the base64url-encoded SHA-256 hash of the ASCII encoding of the access token value.

This document defines an analogous claim ath#S384 that uses SHA-384 as the hash algorithm:

ath#S384:

The value is the base64url encoding of the SHA-384 hash of the ASCII encoding of the associated access token's value.

When used, ath#S384 is included in the DPoP proof JWT in place of ath.

A Client that used a dpop_jkt_method value of S384 during the authorization request MUST use ath#S384 in DPoP proofs sent to Resource Servers.

A Resource Server MAY signal the required access token hash method by including the ath_method parameter in the WWW-Authenticate: DPoP challenge. The value of ath_method is the name of the claim the Client MUST use: ath for SHA-256 or ath#S384 for SHA-384. When ath_method is absent, the Client MUST use ath.

5.3. Resource Server Metadata

This document defines the dpop_ath_methods_supported Resource Server metadata parameter [RFC9728]. Its value is a JSON array containing the access token hash claim names that the Resource Server supports. Defined values are ath and ath#S384.

When this metadata parameter is absent, the Client MUST assume that the Resource Server supports only ath.

6. SHA-384 Mutual-TLS Certificate Hash

6.1. x5t#S384 Confirmation Method

RFC 8705 [RFC8705] defines the x5t#S256 confirmation method member for binding access tokens to a client certificate using a SHA-256 hash of the DER-encoded X.509 certificate.

This document defines an analogous confirmation method member x5t#S384 that uses SHA-384 as the hash algorithm:

x5t#S384:

The value is a base64url-encoded SHA-384 hash of the DER encoding of the X.509 certificate.

When using x5t#S384, the Authorization Server computes the SHA-384 hash of the client certificate presented during mutual-TLS and includes the result as the x5t#S384 member of the cnf claim in the access token (for JWT access tokens) or associates it with the token for later retrieval via token introspection.

The Resource Server MUST compute the SHA-384 hash of the client certificate presented during mutual-TLS and compare it with the x5t#S384 value in the cnf claim. If the values do not match, the Resource Server MUST reject the request.

The choice of x5t#S384 over x5t#S256 is a deployment decision based on the Resource Server configuration at the Authorization Server.

7. Security Considerations

The S384 code challenge method provides the same structural security properties as S256. It is a one-way transformation of the code verifier that prevents an attacker who intercepts the authorization code from computing the code verifier needed to exchange it for tokens.

The jkt#S384 confirmation method, dpop_jkt_method parameter, and ath#S384 claim provide the same structural security properties as their SHA-256 counterparts defined in DPoP [RFC9449]. The authorization code binding via dpop_jkt and the access token binding via ath remain intact regardless of the hash algorithm used.

SHA-384 provides a 192-bit collision resistance and 384-bit preimage resistance, exceeding the 128-bit and 256-bit levels provided by SHA-256. The use of SHA-384 is suitable for deployments with elevated security requirements.

Deployments that do not have specific requirements mandating SHA-384 do not need to migrate away from the established SHA-256 based mechanisms.

8. IANA Considerations

8.1. PKCE Code Challenge Method Registration

This document requests registration of the following value in the "PKCE Code Challenge Methods" registry established by Section 6.2 of [RFC7636]:

Code Challenge Method Parameter Name:

S384

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 3.1 of this document

8.2. DPoP Authorization Code Binding Methods Registry

This document establishes the "DPoP Authorization Code Binding Methods" registry for dpop_jkt_method values.

New entries are registered using the Specification Required policy [RFC5226].

The initial contents of the registry are:

Method Name:

S256

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 10 of [RFC9449]

Method Name:

S384

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 4.1 of this document

8.3. OAuth Parameters Registrations

This document requests registration of the following value in the "OAuth Parameters" registry established by [RFC6749]:

Parameter Name:

dpop_jkt_method

Parameter Usage Location:

authorization request

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 4.1 of this document

8.4. OAuth Authorization Server Metadata Registration

This document requests registration of the following value in the "OAuth Authorization Server Metadata" registry established by [RFC8414]:

Metadata Name:

dpop_jkt_methods_supported

Metadata Description:

JSON array containing a list of the dpop_jkt_method values supported by the Authorization Server

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 4.2 of this document

8.5. JWT Claims Registration

This document requests registration of the following value in the "JSON Web Token Claims" registry established by [RFC7519]:

Claim Name:

ath#S384

Claim Description:

The base64url-encoded SHA-384 hash of the ASCII encoding of the associated access token's value

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 5.2 of this document

8.6. OAuth Protected Resource Metadata Registration

This document requests registration of the following value in the "OAuth Protected Resource Metadata" registry established by [RFC9728]:

Metadata Name:

dpop_ath_methods_supported

Metadata Description:

JSON array containing a list of the access token hash claim names supported by the Resource Server

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 5.3 of this document

8.7. JWT Confirmation Methods Registrations

This document requests registration of the following values in the "JWT Confirmation Methods" registry established by [RFC7800]:

Confirmation Method Value:

x5t#S384

Confirmation Method Description:

X.509 Certificate SHA-384 Thumbprint

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 6.1 of this document

Confirmation Method Value:

jkt#S384

Confirmation Method Description:

JWK SHA-384 Thumbprint

Change Controller:

IETF

Specification Document(s):

Section 5.1 of this document

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[OpenID.Discovery]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., and E. Jay, "OpenID Connect Discovery 1.0 incorporating errata set 2", , <https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0-errata2.html>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5226>.
[RFC6749]
Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework", RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749>.
[RFC7519]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519>.
[RFC7636]
Sakimura, N., Ed., Bradley, J., and N. Agarwal, "Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients", RFC 7636, DOI 10.17487/RFC7636, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636>.
[RFC7638]
Jones, M. and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint", RFC 7638, DOI 10.17487/RFC7638, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7638>.
[RFC7800]
Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)", RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7800>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8414]
Jones, M., Sakimura, N., and J. Bradley, "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata", RFC 8414, DOI 10.17487/RFC8414, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8414>.
[RFC8705]
Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Sakimura, N., and T. Lodderstedt, "OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens", RFC 8705, DOI 10.17487/RFC8705, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8705>.
[RFC9449]
Fett, D., Campbell, B., Bradley, J., Lodderstedt, T., Jones, M., and D. Waite, "OAuth 2.0 Demonstrating Proof of Possession (DPoP)", RFC 9449, DOI 10.17487/RFC9449, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9449>.
[RFC9728]
Jones, M.B., Hunt, P., and A. Parecki, "OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata", RFC 9728, DOI 10.17487/RFC9728, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9728>.

9.2. Informative References

[cnsafaq]
National Security Agency, "The Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0 and Quantum Computing FAQ", , <https://media.defense.gov/2022/Sep/07/2003071836/-1/-1/0/CSI_CNSA_2.0_FAQ_.PDF>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

Filip Skokan
Okta