tl;dr:
- Native clients cannot be authenticated with
client_id and client_secret. If you need to authenticate the client, you'll have to implement an authentication scheme that doesn't entrust the shared secret to the client (or involve the end-user in the client authentication discussion). Depending on your application's security model, you might not need to authenticate the client.
- The redirection endpoint is not generally sufficient to authenticate the client (though exceptions exist).
- The "client credential" grant type may use any client authentication mechanism supported by the authorization server, including the credentials given out at client registration.
The gist, as I read it, is that you can trust a confidential client's client_id (read: "username") and client_secret (read: "password") to authenticate them with your service. There is no[1] chance that a third-party application will ever represent itself with that client's credentials, because they are reasonably assumed to be stored safely away from prying eyes.
A public client, however, can make no such guarantee – whether a browser-based application or a native desktop application, the client's id and secret are distributed to the world at large. It's quite reasonable to assume that such applications will end up in the hands of skilled developers and hackers who can dig into the client and extract the id and secret. For this reason, Section 10.1 explicitly states that:
The authorization server MUST NOT issue client passwords or other
client credentials to native application or user-agent-based
application clients for the purpose of client authentication.
Okay. So public clients cannot be authenticated by password. However…
The authorization server MAY issue a client password or other
credentials for a specific installation of a native application
client on a specific device.
This exception works because it ties the authentication of the client to a specific device, meaning that even if someone walked away with the client's secret, they couldn't reuse it. Implicit in this exception, however, is that the "specific installation … on a specific device" must be uniquely identifiable, difficult to spoof, and integral to the authentication process for that client.
Not every native application can meet those criteria, and a browser-based application certainly cannot, since there's nothing uniquely identifiable or difficult to spoof in the environment in which it runs. This leads to a couple of options – you can treat the client as unauthenticated, or you can come up with a more appropriate authentication mechanism.
The key to the authentication dance is a shared secret – something that's known only to the authorization server and the authenticating client. For public clients, nothing in the client itself is secret. Thankfully, there are options, and I'm not just talking about RFID key fobs and biometrics (though those would be completely acceptable).
As a thought experiment, let's consider a browser-based client. We can reasonably assume a few things about it: it's running in a browser, it's served from a particular domain, and that domain is controlled by the client's authors. The authentication server should already have a Client Redirection URI, so we've got something there, but as the spec calls out:
A valid redirection URI is not sufficient to verify the client's
identity when asking for resource owner authorization but can be
used to prevent delivering credentials to a counterfeit client
after obtaining resource owner authorization.
So the redirection URI is something we should check, but isn't something we can trust, in large part because the domain could be spoofed. But the server itself can't be, so we could try to ask the domain something that only the client's domain's server would know. The simplest way to do this would be for the authentication server to require a second ("private") URI, on the same domain as the client, where the client's secret will be hosted. When the client application makes an authorization request, the server then "checks in" against that second URI relative to the client's reported hostname, and looks for the shared secret (which should only ever be disclosed to the authorization server's IP address) to authenticate the client.
Of course, this is not a perfect solution. It doesn't work for every application, it's easy to get wrong, and it's potentially a lot of work to implement. Many potential authentication mechanisms (both highly specific and highly general) exist, and any one which does not entrust the client application with private data would be suitable for this problem space.
The other option we have is to implement no further authentication, and treat the client as unauthenticated. This is notably not the same thing as an unregistered client, but the difference is subtle. An unregistered client is a client whose identity is unknown. An unauthenticated client is a client whose identity is known, but untrusted. The security implication for both types of clients is the same: neither should be entrusted with private data. Whether the authorization server chooses to treat these two cases the same, however, seems to be left up to the implementer. It may make sense, for example, for an API to refuse all connections from an unregistered client, and to serve public read-only content to any registered client (even without verifying the client's identity).
Pragmatism, however, may yet win out – an unauthenticated client is fundamentally no different than the SSL "errors" you'll occasionally see when your browser cannot verify the authenticity of the site's SSL certificate. Browsers will immediately refuse to proceed any further and report exactly why, but users are allowed to accept the risk themselves by vouching for the identity of the server. A similar workflow may make sense for many OAuth2 applications.
Why is it important to verify the client's identity, anyway? Without doing so, the chain of trust is broken. Your application's users trust your application. The authorization workflow establishes that your users also trust the client, so your application should trust the client. Without validating client identity, another client can come along and assume the role of the trusted client, with all of the security rights thereof. Everything about client authentication serves to prevent that breach of trust.
Hope this helped!
[1]: Server compromises, where the source code of your application falls into malicious hands, are an exception to this, and there are other safeguards built-in for that case. Having said that, the spec also specifically calls out that a simple username/password combination isn't the safest option:
The authorization server is encouraged to consider stronger
authentication means than a client password.
