Skip to content

Add Issuer Trust to Security Considerations#254

Open
jeswr wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
feat/security-issuer-trust
Open

Add Issuer Trust to Security Considerations#254
jeswr wants to merge 6 commits into
mainfrom
feat/security-issuer-trust

Conversation

@jeswr

@jeswr jeswr commented Apr 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

The change is small — see the diff. Bikeshed-rendered preview is not currently available for feature branches (the CI build only publishes from main).

Summary

Adds a new non-normative subsection Issuer Trust to § Security Considerations (after § Client Trust), covering two issuer-side considerations that the current text does not surface:

  • Issuer trust is unconditional. Every assertion of the user's identity comes from the issuer. The user is fully reliant on it; a compromised, malicious, or unavailable issuer can deny access, impersonate, or rewrite identity-related claims.
  • Many agents on a single issuer is a single point of failure. Concentration risk grows with the issuer's user base.

Source

Both points were raised by @csarven on solid/specification#776. Surfacing them upstream here as the appropriate home for OIDC-specific Security and Privacy Considerations.

Test plan

  • bikeshed spec (or the project's equivalent) builds without errors.
  • # Security Considerations # {#security} shows the new ## Issuer Trust ## {#security-issuer-trust} subsection between Client Trust and Privacy Considerations.
  • Anchor #security-issuer-trust resolves.

Two non-normative bullets, both raised by @csarven on solid/specification#776
(solid/specification#776 (comment)):

- Issuer trust is unconditional: a compromised / malicious / unavailable
  issuer can deny access, impersonate, or rewrite identity-related claims.
- Many agents on a single issuer is a single point of failure: concentration
  risk grows with the issuer's user base.

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Comment thread index.bs Outdated
Comment thread index.bs
@jeswr jeswr requested a review from uvdsl June 3, 2026 14:39
Comment thread index.bs Outdated

@uvdsl uvdsl left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe something like this?

Comment thread index.bs Outdated
Comment thread index.bs Outdated
@uvdsl

uvdsl commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jeswr, just a quick ping - what do you think about the above suggestion? Do these sound good to you?

Co-authored-by: Jesse Wright <63333554+jeswr@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Christoph Braun <braun@kit.edu>
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 18, 2026 15:35

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

@jeswr jeswr requested a review from elf-pavlik June 18, 2026 15:37
@jeswr

jeswr commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Thanks for pinging @uvdsl - great suggestions, all approved.

@elf-pavlik

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Could one of you please fix the diff /conflict?

@uvdsl

uvdsl commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@elf-pavlik, fixed it :)

@uvdsl

uvdsl commented Jun 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Also pinging @acoburn - if you want to suggest additions or modifications? :)

@elf-pavlik elf-pavlik requested a review from acoburn June 18, 2026 16:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants