[banger180]

> “The sub claim changes in about 0.04% of logins from Log in with Google. For us, that's hundreds of users last week”.

What I don't understand is why the `sub` claim is not consistent for those users at Google. To my understanding of the OIDC protocol the `sub` should be unique for a specific user.

Additionally as far as I understand if you take over a defunct domain and create a new google workspace with new users those new user account should get assigned a new `sub`.

[caleblloyd]

I agree, in my limited experience the sub remains consistent even when changing the Google Workspace domain. So the email changes but sub remains the same. The issue seems to be clients matching on email/hd claim instead.

I wonder what action is causing the sub to change like the author suggests is happening.

[loginatnine]

At my current company, if an employee leave and come back, they'll keep the same OID in Entra but they'll get a new `sub` in Google workspace. We had to put in place a process to be able to use an internal tool that used the login with Google.

That's most likely dependant on how the IT department handled the deprovisioning/provisioning of users in our Google Workspace, I unfortunately don't have the details for that.

[banger180]

> I wonder what action is causing the sub to change like the author suggests is happening.

Indeed this would be very interesting.

This issue is also very similar to CVE-2024-25618.

What we did to mitigate this is the following: - Federated login with OIDC - Look for a user based on the sub claim - If they are found: authenticate that user and optionally update their profile (email, name, ...) based on then new id claims. - Else look for a user matching on the `email` claim and link the `sub` to that user - If no user is found create a new one

[saguntum]

That sub identifier changing without the underlying user changing may be the core of the bug. It's not fully clear from the post IMO. I posted a little breakdown here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42701030

I don't think the article clearly states one way or another whether those 0.04% of sub claims changing are legitimate end user changes or not. If those sub changes are legitimately the Google Account changing, I don't think that's a bug on Google's part, but rather is a problem on the clients' side for not validating the sub claim.

If the sub is changing without the Google Account user actually changing, maybe something internally at Google is swapping out those IDs when it shouldn't be. It doesn't look like a UUID from the example I saw, so maybe there's some code somewhere to just change the user's ID if there's a collision or something?

Interestingly, I don't think Google claims that Sign in with Google is fully OIDC-compliant. At least in the overview I linked in my comment, they compare the implementation to OAuth+OIDC, but I'm not sure they claim to be 100% spec compliant.

[efrowning]

How would the clients tell if the account has a valid sub change or not if the only piece of information provided is that the sub claim changes? For this particular attack, without having some kind of Google Workspace account identifier for the domain, the sub claim doesn't sound sufficient to validate that it's the same Google account from the client's side. I'm guessing the engineer at the major tech company didn't provide that stat without checking if those users were valid, active accounts.