Re: [OAUTH-WG] state parameter and XSRF detection

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CEB21F8783 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 01:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.674
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.674 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0AFpEZo3Ajm for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 01:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 911D921F8782 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 01:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26084 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2011 08:37:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 7 Jul 2011 08:37:50 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 01:37:49 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:37:48 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] state parameter and XSRF detection
Thread-Index: Acw1EFhTRYyj+G+JRSaRgZ7EwfUUSgHcJHcg
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234501D49FDD3@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <4E08F494.2010807@lodderstedt.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E08F494.2010807@lodderstedt.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] state parameter and XSRF detection
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:37:52 -0000

Allowing any flexibly in the redirection URI is a bad thing and the latest draft (pre -17) clearly states that. The main fear is that by allowing the query to be changed dynamically, attackers can find open redirector loopholes to abuse. I really wanted to make registration of the absolute URI a MUST, but didn't go that far.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Torsten Lodderstedt
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:22 PM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] state parameter and XSRF detection
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> while working on a new revision of the OAuth security document, a question
> arose I would like to clarify on the list.
> 
> The "state" parameter is supposed to be used to link a certain authorization
> request and response. Therefore, the client stores a value in this parameter
> that is somehow bound to a value retained on the device (the user agent)
> originating the authorization request.
> 
> The question now is: Would it be compliant with the core spec to use any
> other URI query parameter encoded in the redirect_uri, instead of the
> "state" parameter, to achieve the same goal? Probably the client already has
> a working "legacy" implementation it does not want to change just for
> OAuth2 compliance.
> 
> According to section 2.2.1, the redirection uri could contain a dynamic
> portion:
> 
> "The authorization server SHOULD require the client to pre-register
>     their redirection URI or at least certain components such as the
>     scheme, host, port and path"
> 
> So this should be fine.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> regards,
> Torsten.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth