Skip to content
All guides
Authentication and SSO4 min read

Understanding the OAuth 2.0 Client Credentials flow

The value of a standard is that two parties who have never spoken can interoperate.

The value of a standard is that two parties who have never spoken can interoperate. The cost is that neither of them can fix the other's interpretation of it.

This piece walks through how we think about it at Paycux, what we have changed our minds about, and where the sharp edges are.

What is the Client Credentials flow?

What is the Client Credentials flow? deserves its own treatment. Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

How the Client Credentials flow works

How the Client Credentials flow works deserves its own treatment. Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

  • Validate signature, issuer, audience and expiry as four separate checks
  • Normalize provider attributes into one internal shape
  • Fail loudly when a peer stops meeting a documented assumption
  • Keep a fixture per provider so regressions surface in CI

How to use the Client Credentials flow

Consider how to use the client credentials flow. Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Conclusion

Consider conclusion. Normalization is the whole job. Two providers can be perfectly compliant and still disagree about what a group membership is, whether a logout is meaningful, and which attribute carries the email address.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Version the assumption, not just the code.

Further Reading:

Further Reading: deserves its own treatment. Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

The 4 main types of access control

The 4 main types of access control is where this gets concrete. Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

What is Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC)?

That brings us to what is relationship-based access control (rebac)?. Normalization is the whole job. Two providers can be perfectly compliant and still disagree about what a group membership is, whether a logout is meaningful, and which attribute carries the email address.

Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Where this leaves us

If there is one thing worth taking away, it is that the expensive decisions are the ones made implicitly. Making them on purpose costs an afternoon.

If you are working through the same problem and want to compare notes, the docs cover the mechanics and the console shows the behaviour on your own data.

Everything here, already built

Sign-in, enterprise SSO, directory provisioning, roles and an audit trail behind one API.

Stop reading, start shipping

The quickstart takes about ten minutes and leaves you with a working sign-in.