...
Table of Content Zone | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. IntroductionThe Open Finance UAE Financial-grade API, a secure OAuth profile, is designed to offer detailed implementation guidelines for enhancing security and interoperability in UAE's Open Finance APIs. This Profile, a profile of the FAPI 2.0 Security Profile, aims to streamline optionality within the framework. Additionally, it incorporates specific features to address the Consent and Authorization Requirements pertinent to Open Finance UAE use cases 2. Security Profile2.1 Authorisation Server Considerations ( Open ID Provider )The Authorization Server shall support the provisions specified in the 5.3.1 clause of the FAPI 2.0 Security Profile. In addition, the Authorization Server :
2.2 Client Considerations (Relying Party)The Authorization Server shall support the provisions specified in the 5.3.2 clause of the FAPI 2.0 Security Profile.
2.3 Algorithm ConsiderationsFor JWS, both Client Applications and Authorization Servers shall use the PS256 algorithm. For TLS, all of the Data Provider’s Authorization Server endpoints and Resource Server endpoints shall support mTLS connections with the algorithms specified in the 5.2 section of the FAPI 2.0 Security Profile. 2.4 Consent and Authorization Mechanism ConsiderationsThe Open Finance UAE leverages Rich Text Authorization Requests (RAR) to enable the granularity level required for the Open Finance Consents and Use Cases. The Consent and Authorization Mechanism and lifecycle details are specified in the “Authentication and Authorization Document”. The schema for the
All of the documents defined above should be used in conjunction with this specification to ensure that all the parties can create and manage consents to resources in a standardized and secure way.\ 3. Consent Authorization Sequence DiagramThe diagram below provides a high-level visualization of the redirect journey, also known as authorization_code flow expected to be executed by Data Receivers ( Relying Parties) with Data Transmitters (Open ID Providers) when obtaining an authorization grant from a customer that is willing to share data across institutions : 4. Design Considerations4.1 SecurityThe CBUAE security profile has been based on the FAPI 2.0 Security Profile which is an API security profile based on the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework [RFC6749], that aims to reach the security goals laid out in the Attacker Model [Attacker Model]. The FAPI 2.0 Security Profile has been assessed by University of Stuttgart using formal analysis methods which is available for public review. By baselining the CBUAE Security Profile on FAPI 2.0 the ecosystem is leveraging the very latest in API Security Design. 4.2 Ecosystem InteroperabilityA primary goal in reducing the available optionality is to increase and simplify interoperability across the Ecosystem. By narrowing the range of options in the Security Profile, it aims to decrease the number of allowed variations in the implementations of the FAPI 2.0 Security Profile. While a high degree of optionality may offer Data Providers more flexibility in their Authorization Server implementation, it poses significant and material challenges for Data Receivers. Data Receivers (TPPs) must develop implementations capable of connecting to all Data Providers implementations, resulting in increased onboarding challenges and higher non-productive connectivity maintenance costs which otherwise can be spent on the delivery of value added propositions. This move towards optionality reduction has been seen in modern Open Banking ecosystems including Open Finance Brazil and ConnectID in Australia where the FAPI 1.0 Advanced Profile was first used. Initially, in 2021, the ecosystem's profile supported two token authentication methods – However, from 2021 to 2023, the focus shifted from initial go-live to prioritising interoperability and participant onboarding simplicity. This change in focus has resulted in the Ecosystem eliminating wherever possible any areas in the specification where optionality was given providers implementations. In March 2024, Open Finance Brazil mandated the introduction of Pushed Authorization Requests (PAR) and adopted the use of Given the above design considerations, the following recommendations are made to further profile the ‘FAPI 2.0 Security Profile’ to ensure a more interoperability domestic ecosystem:
Whilst not strictly a security consideration, to facilitate wider potential aspirations of the CBUAE ecosystem it is recommended that the ecosystem retain the use of Signed Request Objects as defined in OpenID Connect Core Section 6 and the OpenID FAPI Message Signing Profile. The use of signed request objects has two main benefits:
4.3 Clarification around OFP and LFI IntegrationsAll documentation relating to the integrations and security layers between the Open Finance Platform (OFP) and the LFI will be provided as part of the OFP Documentation and are not part of the Ecosystem Security Profile, which should be used only for communications that happen directly between the Open ID Providers (Servers) and Open ID Relying Parties (Client) Communications between the Open Finance Platform and the chosen LFIs will take place using certificates issued by the Trust Framework. |