<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.23 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-12" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" number="9729" obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.27.0 -->
  <front>
    <title>The Concealed HTTP Authentication Scheme</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9729"/>
    <author initials="D." surname="Schinazi" fullname="David Schinazi">
      <organization>Google LLC</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1600 Amphitheatre Parkway</street>
          <city>Mountain View</city>
          <region>CA</region>
          <code>94043</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D." surname="Oliver" fullname="David M. Oliver">
      <organization>Guardian Project</organization>
      <address>
        <email>david@guardianproject.info</email>
        <uri>https://guardianproject.info</uri>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="J." surname="Hoyland" fullname="Jonathan Hoyland">
      <organization>Cloudflare Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>jonathan.hoyland@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="February"/>
    <area>Web and Internet Transport</area>
    <workgroup>HTTPBIS</workgroup>
    <keyword>secure</keyword>
    <keyword>tunnels</keyword>
    <keyword>masque</keyword>
    <keyword>http-ng</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 86?>

<t>Most HTTP authentication schemes are probeable in the sense that it is possible
for an unauthenticated client to probe whether an origin serves resources that
require authentication. It is possible for an origin to hide the fact that it
requires authentication by not generating Unauthorized status codes; however,
that only works with non-cryptographic authentication schemes: cryptographic
signatures require a fresh nonce to be signed. Prior to this document, there
was no existing way for the origin to share such a nonce without exposing the
fact that it serves resources that require authentication. This document
defines a new non-probeable cryptographic authentication scheme.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 98?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>HTTP authentication schemes (see <xref section="11" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9110"/>) allow origins
to restrict access for some resources to only authenticated requests. While
these schemes commonly involve a challenge where the origin asks the client to
provide authentication information, it is possible for clients to send such
information unprompted. This is particularly useful in cases where an origin
wants to offer a service or capability only to "those who know", while all
others are given no indication the service or capability exists. Such designs
rely on an externally defined mechanism by which keys are distributed. For
example, a company might offer remote employee access to company services
directly via its website using their employee credentials or offer access to
limited special capabilities for specific employees while making discovering
(or probing for) such capabilities difficult. As another example, members of
less well-defined communities might use more ephemeral keys to acquire access
to geography- or capability-specific resources, as issued by an entity whose
user base is larger than the available resources can support (by having that
entity metering the availability of keys temporally or geographically).</t>
      <t>While digital-signature-based HTTP authentication schemes already exist (e.g.,
<xref target="RFC7486"/>), they rely on the origin explicitly sending a fresh
challenge to the client, to ensure that the signature input is fresh. That
makes the origin probeable as it sends the challenge to unauthenticated
clients. This document defines a new signature-based authentication scheme that
is not probeable.</t>
      <section anchor="conventions">
        <name>Conventions and Definitions</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
        <?line -18?>

<t>This document uses the notation from <xref section="1.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9000"/>.</t>
        <t>Various examples in this document contain long lines that may be folded,
as described in <xref target="RFC8792"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="the-concealed-http-authentication-scheme">
      <name>The Concealed HTTP Authentication Scheme</name>
      <t>This document defines the "Concealed" HTTP authentication scheme. It uses
asymmetric cryptography. Clients possess a key ID and a public/private key
pair, and origin servers maintain a mapping of authorized key IDs to associated
public keys.</t>
      <t>The client uses a TLS keying material exporter to generate data to be signed
(see <xref target="client"/>) then sends the signature using the Authorization (or
Proxy-Authorization) header field (see <xref section="11" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9110"/>). The signature
and additional information are exchanged using authentication parameters (see
<xref target="auth-params"/>). Once the server receives these, it can check whether the
signature validates against an entry in its database of known keys. The server
can then use the validation result to influence its response to the client, for
example, by restricting access to certain resources.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="client">
      <name>Client Handling</name>
      <t>When a client wishes to use the Concealed HTTP authentication scheme with a
request, it <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> compute the authentication proof using a TLS keying material
exporter with the following parameters:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>The label is set to "EXPORTER-HTTP-Concealed-Authentication".</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The context is set to the structure described in <xref target="context"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The exporter output length is set to 48 bytes (see <xref target="output"/>).</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Note that TLS 1.3 keying material exporters are defined in <xref section="7.5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8446"/>, while TLS 1.2 keying material exporters are defined in
<xref target="RFC5705"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="context">
        <name>Key Exporter Context</name>
        <t>The TLS key exporter context is described in <xref target="fig-context"/>, using the
notation from <xref section="1.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9000"/>:</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-context">
          <name>Key Exporter Context Format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
  Signature Algorithm (16),
  Key ID Length (i),
  Key ID (..),
  Public Key Length (i),
  Public Key (..),
  Scheme Length (i),
  Scheme (..),
  Host Length (i),
  Host (..),
  Port (16),
  Realm Length (i),
  Realm (..),
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>The key exporter context contains the following fields:</t>
        <dl>
          <dt>Signature Algorithm:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The signature scheme sent in the <tt>s</tt> Parameter (see <xref target="parameter-s"/>).</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Key ID:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The key ID sent in the <tt>k</tt> Parameter (see <xref target="parameter-k"/>).</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Public Key:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The public key used by the server to validate the signature provided by the
client. Its encoding is described in <xref target="public-key-encoding"/>.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Scheme:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The scheme for this request, encoded using the format of the scheme portion
of a URI as defined in <xref section="3.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3986"/>.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Host:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The host for this request, encoded using the format of the host portion of a
URI as defined in <xref section="3.2.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3986"/>.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Port:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The port for this request, encoded in network byte order. Note that the port
is either included in the URI or is the default port for the scheme in use;
see <xref section="3.2.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3986"/>.</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Realm:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The realm of authentication that is sent in the realm authentication
parameter (see <xref section="11.5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9110"/>). If the realm authentication parameter is
not present, this <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> be empty. This document does not define a means for the
origin to communicate a realm to the client. If a client is not configured to
use a specific realm, it <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> use an empty realm and <bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14> send the realm
authentication parameter.</t>
          </dd>
        </dl>
        <t>The Signature Algorithm and Port fields are encoded as unsigned 16-bit integers
in network byte order. The Key ID, Public Key, Scheme, Host, and Realm fields
are length-prefixed strings; they are preceded by a Length field that
represents their length in bytes. These length fields are encoded using the
variable-length integer encoding from <xref section="16" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9000"/> and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
encoded in the minimum number of bytes necessary.</t>
        <section anchor="public-key-encoding">
          <name>Public Key Encoding</name>
          <t>Both the "Public Key" field of the TLS key exporter context (see above) and the
<tt>a</tt> Parameter (see <xref target="parameter-a"/>) carry the same public key. The encoding of
the public key is determined by the signature algorithm in use as follows:</t>
          <dl>
            <dt>RSASSA-PSS algorithms:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The public key is an RSAPublicKey structure <xref target="RFC8017"/> encoded in DER
<xref target="X.690"/>. BER encodings that are not DER <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be rejected.</t>
            </dd>
            <dt>ECDSA algorithms:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The public key is an UncompressedPointRepresentation structure defined in
<xref section="4.2.8.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8446"/>, using the curve specified by the SignatureScheme.</t>
            </dd>
            <dt>EdDSA algorithms:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The public key is the byte string encoding defined in <xref target="RFC8032"/>.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
          <t>This document does not define the public key encodings for other algorithms. In
order for a SignatureScheme to be usable with the Concealed HTTP authentication
scheme, its public key encoding needs to be defined in a corresponding document.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="output">
        <name>Key Exporter Output</name>
        <t>The key exporter output is 48 bytes long. Of those, the first 32 bytes are part
of the input to the signature and the next 16 bytes are sent alongside the
signature. This allows the recipient to confirm that the exporter produces the
right values. This is described in <xref target="fig-output"/>, using the notation from
<xref section="1.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9000"/>:</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-output">
          <name>Key Exporter Output Format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
  Signature Input (256),
  Verification (128),
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>The key exporter output contains the following fields:</t>
        <dl>
          <dt>Signature Input:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>This is part of the data signed using the client's chosen asymmetric private
key (see <xref target="computation"/>).</t>
          </dd>
          <dt>Verification:</dt>
          <dd>
            <t>The verification is transmitted to the server using the <tt>v</tt> Parameter (see
<xref target="parameter-v"/>).</t>
          </dd>
        </dl>
      </section>
      <section anchor="computation">
        <name>Signature Computation</name>
        <t>Once the Signature Input has been extracted from the key exporter output (see
<xref target="output"/>), it is prefixed with static data before being signed. The signature
is computed over the concatenation of:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>A string that consists of octet 32 (0x20) repeated 64 times</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The context string "HTTP Concealed Authentication"</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>A single 0 byte that serves as a separator</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The Signature Input extracted from the key exporter output (see <xref target="output"/>)</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>For example, if the Signature Input has all its 32 bytes set to 01, the content
covered by the signature (in hexadecimal format) would be:</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-sig-example">
          <name>Example Content Covered by Signature</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
2020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020
2020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020
48545450205369676E61747572652041757468656E7469636174696F6E
00
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>The purpose of this static prefix is to mitigate issues that could arise if
authentication asymmetric keys were accidentally reused across protocols (even
though this is forbidden, see <xref target="security"/>). This construction mirrors that of
the TLS 1.3 CertificateVerify message defined in <xref section="4.4.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8446"/>.</t>
        <t>The resulting signature is then transmitted to the server using the <tt>p</tt>
Parameter (see <xref target="parameter-p"/>).</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="auth-params">
      <name>Authentication Parameters</name>
      <t>This specification defines the following authentication parameters.</t>
      <t>All of the byte sequences below are encoded using base64url (see <xref section="5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC4648"/>) without quotes and without padding. In other words, the
values of these byte-sequence authentication parameters <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> include any
characters other than ASCII letters, digits, dash, and underscore.</t>
      <t>The integer below is encoded without a minus and without leading zeroes. In
other words, the value of this integer authentication parameter <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
include any characters other than digits and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> start with a zero unless
the full value is "0".</t>
      <t>Using the syntax from <xref target="RFC5234"/>:</t>
      <figure anchor="fig-param">
        <name>Authentication Parameter Value ABNF</name>
        <sourcecode type="abnf"><![CDATA[
concealed-byte-sequence-param-value = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
concealed-integer-param-value =  %x31-39 1*4( DIGIT ) / "0"
]]></sourcecode>
      </figure>
      <section anchor="parameter-k">
        <name>The k Parameter</name>
        <t>The <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> "k" (key ID) Parameter is a byte sequence that identifies which
key the client wishes to use to authenticate. This is used by the backend to
point to an entry in a server-side database of known keys (see <xref target="backend"/>).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="parameter-a">
        <name>The a Parameter</name>
        <t>The <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> "a" (public key) Parameter is a byte sequence that specifies the
public key used by the server to validate the signature provided by the client.
This avoids key confusion issues (see <xref target="SEEMS-LEGIT"/>). The encoding of the
public key is described in <xref target="public-key-encoding"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="parameter-p">
        <name>The p Parameter</name>
        <t>The <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> "p" (proof) Parameter is a byte sequence that specifies the proof
that the client provides to attest to possessing the credential that matches
its key ID.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="parameter-s">
        <name>The s Parameter</name>
        <t>The <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> "s" (signature scheme) Parameter is an integer that specifies the
signature scheme used to compute the proof transmitted in the <tt>p</tt> Parameter.
Its value is an integer between 0 and 65535 inclusive from the IANA "TLS
SignatureScheme" registry maintained at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters" brackets="angle"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="parameter-v">
        <name>The v Parameter</name>
        <t>The <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> "v" (verification) Parameter is a byte sequence that specifies the
verification that the client provides to attest to possessing the key exporter
output (see <xref target="output"/> for details). This avoids issues with signature schemes
where certain keys can generate signatures that are valid for multiple inputs
(see <xref target="SEEMS-LEGIT"/>).</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="example">
      <name>Example</name>
      <t>For example, a client using the key ID "basement" and the signature algorithm
Ed25519 <xref target="RFC8410"/> could produce the following header field:</t>
      <figure anchor="fig-hdr-example">
        <name>Example Header Field</name>
        <sourcecode type="http-message"><![CDATA[
NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792

Authorization: Concealed \
  k=YmFzZW1lbnQ, \
  a=VGhpcyBpcyBh-HB1YmxpYyBrZXkgaW4gdXNl_GhlcmU, \
  s=2055, \
  v=dmVyaWZpY2F0aW9u_zE2Qg, \
  p=QzpcV2luZG93c_xTeXN0ZW0zMlxkcml2ZXJz-ENyb3dkU\
    3RyaWtlXEMtMDAwMDAwMDAyOTEtMD-wMC0w_DAwLnN5cw
]]></sourcecode>
      </figure>
    </section>
    <section anchor="server-handling">
      <name>Server Handling</name>
      <t>In this section, we subdivide the server role in two:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>The "frontend" runs in the HTTP server that terminates the TLS or QUIC
connection created by the client.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The "backend" runs in the HTTP server that has access to the database of
accepted key identifiers and public keys.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>In most deployments, we expect both the frontend and backend roles to be
implemented in a single HTTP origin server (as defined in <xref section="3.6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9110"/>). However, these roles can be split such that the frontend is an HTTP
gateway (as defined in <xref section="3.7" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9110"/>) and the backend is an HTTP
origin server.</t>
      <section anchor="frontend-handling">
        <name>Frontend Handling</name>
        <t>If a frontend is configured to check the Concealed HTTP authentication scheme, it
will parse the Authorization (or Proxy-Authorization) header field. If the
authentication scheme is set to "Concealed", the frontend <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> validate that
all the required authentication parameters are present and can be parsed
correctly as defined in <xref target="auth-params"/>. If any parameter is missing or fails
to parse, the frontend <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore the entire Authorization (or
Proxy-Authorization) header field.</t>
        <t>The frontend then uses the data from these authentication parameters to compute
the key exporter output, as defined in <xref target="output"/>. The frontend then shares the
header field and the key exporter output with the backend.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="communication-between-frontend-and-backend">
        <name>Communication Between Frontend and Backend</name>
        <t>If the frontend and backend roles are implemented in the same machine, this can
be handled by a simple function call.</t>
        <t>If the roles are split between two separate HTTP servers, then the backend
won't be able to directly access the TLS keying material exporter from the TLS
connection between the client and frontend, so the frontend needs to explicitly
send it. This document defines the "Concealed-Auth-Export" request header field
for this purpose. The Concealed-Auth-Export header field's value is a
Structured Field Byte Sequence (see <xref section="3.3.5" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9651"/>) that contains the 48-byte key exporter output
(see <xref target="output"/>), without any parameters. Note that Structured Field Byte
Sequences are encoded using the non-URL-safe variant of base64. For example:</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-int-hdr-example">
          <name>Example Concealed-Auth-Export Header Field</name>
          <sourcecode type="http-message"><![CDATA[
NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792

Concealed-Auth-Export: :VGhpc+BleGFtcGxlIFRMU/BleHBvcn\
  Rlc+BvdXRwdXQ/aXMgNDggYnl0ZXMgI/+h:
]]></sourcecode>
        </figure>
        <t>The frontend <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> forward the HTTP request to the backend, including the
original unmodified Authorization (or Proxy-Authorization) header field and the
newly added Concealed-Auth-Export header field.</t>
        <t>Note that, since the security of this mechanism requires the key exporter
output to be correct, backends need to trust frontends to send it truthfully.
This trust relationship is common because the frontend already needs access to
the TLS certificate private key in order to respond to requests. HTTP servers
that parse the Concealed-Auth-Export header field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore it unless they
have already established that they trust the sender. Similarly, frontends that
send the Concealed-Auth-Export header field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ensure that they do not
forward any Concealed-Auth-Export header field received from the client.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="backend">
        <name>Backend Handling</name>
        <t>Once the backend receives the Authorization (or Proxy-Authorization) header
field and the key exporter output, it looks up the key ID in its database of
public keys. The backend <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> then perform the following checks:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>validate that all the required authentication parameters are present and can
be parsed correctly as defined in <xref target="auth-params"/></t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>ensure the key ID is present in the backend's database and maps to a
corresponding public key</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>validate that the public key from the database is equal to the one in the
Authorization (or Proxy-Authorization) header field</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>validate that the verification field from the Authorization (or
Proxy-Authorization) header field matches the one extracted from the key
exporter output</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>verify the cryptographic signature as defined in <xref target="computation"/></t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>If all of these checks succeed, the backend can consider the request to be
properly authenticated and can reply accordingly (the backend can also forward
the request to another HTTP server).</t>
        <t>If any of the above checks fail, the backend <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat it as if the
Authorization (or Proxy-Authorization) header field was missing.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="non-probeable-server-handling">
        <name>Non-Probeable Server Handling</name>
        <t>Servers that wish to introduce resources whose existence cannot be probed need
to ensure that they do not reveal any information about those resources to
unauthenticated clients. In particular, such servers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond to
authentication failures with the exact same response that they would have used
for nonexistent resources. For example, this can mean using HTTP status code
404 (Not Found) instead of 401 (Unauthorized).</t>
        <t>The authentication checks described above can take time to compute, and an
attacker could detect use of this mechanism if that time is observable by
comparing the timing of a request for a known nonexistent resource to the
timing of a request for a potentially authenticated resource. Servers can
mitigate this observability by slightly delaying responses to some nonexistent
resources such that the timing of the authentication verification is not
observable. This delay needs to be carefully considered to avoid having the
delay itself leak the fact that this origin uses this mechanism at all.</t>
        <t>Non-probeable resources also need to be non-discoverable for unauthenticated
users. For example, if a server operator wishes to hide an authenticated
resource by pretending it does not exist to unauthenticated users, then the
server operator needs to ensure there are no unauthenticated pages with links
to that resource and no other out-of-band ways for unauthenticated users to
discover this resource.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="requirements-on-tls-usage">
      <name>Requirements on TLS Usage</name>
      <t>This authentication scheme is only defined for uses of HTTP with TLS
<xref target="RFC8446"/>. This includes any use of HTTP over TLS as typically used for
HTTP/2 <xref target="RFC9113"/>, or HTTP/3 <xref target="RFC9114"/> where the transport protocol uses TLS as its
authentication and key exchange mechanism <xref target="RFC9001"/>.</t>
      <t>Because the TLS keying material exporter is only secure for authentication when
it is uniquely bound to the TLS session <xref target="RFC7627"/>, the Concealed
authentication scheme requires either one of the following properties:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>The TLS version in use is greater than or equal to 1.3 <xref target="RFC8446"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The TLS version in use is 1.2, and the extended master secret extension
<xref target="RFC7627"/> has been negotiated.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Clients <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> use the Concealed HTTP authentication scheme on connections that do
not meet one of the two properties above. If a server receives a request that
uses this authentication scheme on a connection that meets neither of the above
properties, the server <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat the request as if the authentication were not
present.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The Concealed HTTP authentication scheme allows a client to authenticate to an
origin server while guaranteeing freshness and without the need for the server
to transmit a nonce to the client. This allows the server to accept
authenticated clients without revealing that it supports or expects
authentication for some resources. It also allows authentication without the
client leaking the presence of authentication to observers due to cleartext
TLS Client Hello extensions.</t>
      <t>Since the freshness described above is provided by a TLS key exporter, it can
be as old as the underlying TLS connection. Servers can require better
freshness by forcing clients to create new connections using mechanisms such as
the GOAWAY frame (see <xref section="5.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9114"/>).</t>
      <t>The authentication proofs described in this document are not bound to
individual HTTP requests; if the key is used for authentication proofs on
multiple requests on the same connection, they will all be identical. This
allows for better compression when sending over the wire, but it implies that
client implementations that multiplex different security contexts over a single
HTTP connection need to ensure that those contexts cannot read each other's
header fields. Otherwise, one context would be able to replay the Authorization
header field of another. This constraint is met by modern web browsers. If an
attacker were to compromise the browser such that it could access another
context's memory, the attacker might also be able to access the corresponding
key, so binding authentication to requests would not provide much benefit in
practice.</t>
      <t>Authentication asymmetric keys used for the Concealed HTTP authentication
scheme <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be reused in other protocols. Even though we attempt to
mitigate these issues by adding a static prefix to the signed data (see
<xref target="computation"/>), reusing keys could undermine the security guarantees of the
authentication.</t>
      <t>Origins offering this scheme can link requests that use the same key.
However, requests are not linkable across origins if the keys used are specific
to the individual origins using this scheme.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="iana-schemes">
        <name>HTTP Authentication Schemes Registry</name>
        <t>IANA has registered the following entry in
the "HTTP Authentication Schemes" registry maintained at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes" brackets="angle"/>:</t>
        <dl spacing="compact">
          <dt>Authentication Scheme Name:</dt>
          <dd>Concealed</dd>
          <dt>Reference:</dt>
          <dd>RFC 9729</dd>
          <dt>Notes:</dt>
          <dd>None</dd>
        </dl>
      </section>
      <section anchor="iana-exporter-label">
        <name>TLS Keying Material Exporter Labels</name>
        <t>IANA has registered the following entry in
the "TLS Exporter Labels" registry maintained at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters" brackets="angle"/>:</t>
        <dl spacing="compact">
          <dt>Value:</dt>
          <dd>EXPORTER-HTTP-Concealed-Authentication</dd>
          <dt>DTLS-OK:</dt>
          <dd>N</dd>
          <dt>Recommended:</dt>
          <dd>Y</dd>
          <dt>Reference:</dt>
          <dd>RFC 9729</dd>
        </dl>
      </section>
      <section anchor="http-field-name">
        <name>HTTP Field Name</name>
        <t>IANA has registered the following entry in
the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Field Name Registry" maintained at
<eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-fields" brackets="angle"/>:</t>
        <dl spacing="compact">
          <dt>Field Name:</dt>
          <dd>Concealed-Auth-Export</dd>
          <dt>Status:</dt>
          <dd>permanent</dd>
          <dt>Structured Type:</dt>
          <dd>Item</dd>
          <dt>Reference:</dt>
          <dd>RFC 9729</dd>
          <dt>Comments:</dt>
          <dd>None</dd>
        </dl>
      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <displayreference target="I-D.schinazi-masque" to="MASQUE-ORIGINAL"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC3986" to="URI"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC4648" to="BASE64"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC5234" to="ABNF"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC5705" to="KEY-EXPORT"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC7486" to="HOBA"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC8017" to="PKCS1"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC8032" to="EdDSA"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC8410" to="ED25519"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC8446" to="TLS"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC9000" to="QUIC"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC9001" to="QUIC-TLS"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC9110" to="HTTP"/>    
    <displayreference target="RFC9113" to="HTTP/2"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC9114" to="HTTP/3"/>
    <displayreference target="RFC9651" to="STRUCTURED-FIELDS"/>    
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8792.xml"/>
        <reference anchor="X.690" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690">
          <front>
            <title>Information technology - ASN.1 encoding Rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2021" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation X690"/>
          <seriesInfo name="ISO/IEC" value="8825-1:2021"/>
        </reference>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9110.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9000.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5705.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8017.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8032.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4648.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5234.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9651.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8446.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7627.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9113.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9114.xml"/>
        <reference anchor="SEEMS-LEGIT">
          <front>
            <title>Seems Legit: Automated Analysis of Subtle Attacks on Protocols That Use Signatures</title>
            <author initials="D." surname="Jackson" fullname="Dennis Jackson">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Cremers" fullname="Cas Cremers">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="K." surname="Cohn-Gordon" fullname="Katriel Cohn-Gordon">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="R." surname="Sasse" fullname="Ralf Sasse">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2019" month="November"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1145/3319535.3339813"/>
          <refcontent>CCS '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security</refcontent>
          <refcontent>pp. 2165-2180</refcontent>
        </reference>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7486.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8410.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9001.xml"/>
	
<reference anchor="I-D.schinazi-masque" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schinazi-masque-00">
<front>
<title>The MASQUE Protocol</title>
<author initials="D." surname="Schinazi" fullname="David Schinazi">
<organization>Google LLC</organization>
</author>
<date month="February" day="28" year="2019"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-schinazi-masque-00"/>
</reference>
	
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 662?>

<section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>The authors would like to thank many members of the IETF community, as this
document is the fruit of many hallway conversations. In particular, the authors
would like to thank <contact fullname="David Benjamin"/>, <contact fullname="Reese Enghardt"/>, <contact fullname="Nick Harper"/>, <contact fullname="Dennis Jackson"/>, <contact fullname="Ilari Liusvaara"/>, <contact fullname="François Michel"/>,
<contact fullname="Lucas Pardue"/>, <contact fullname="Justin Richer"/>, <contact fullname="Ben Schwartz"/>, <contact fullname="Martin Thomson"/>, and <contact fullname="Chris A. Wood"/> for their reviews and contributions. The
mechanism described in this document was originally part of the first iteration
of MASQUE <xref target="I-D.schinazi-masque"/>.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
