Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`

Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF783A68A9 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-NGRyux2Dvv for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C323A6863 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so8881006iwn.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bVFi0ArLoGf3RZZAY85siL//z9HPkQYfERMKddY8AMc=; b=A1NJBP21Sh4a7pxdAQDGYd6sMEF5/LA75vjj2LXpwpUCPFbyR4OYgLFnPCSPoNxwQS VnbCwnswTYKOtEGdEV6QLwig1jSxHeFUY9R40MSwM2MjbYN4Axu99W1nn8MRKuEYSFFB Ib+RBEHFfMYV8Th0f2O+b4dzYAgC2/48Ba3CY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=u4L4ee5I20vS+10pd6scunc3u8JBOu+38UeuJG7Ec1tHWQgQPZ+VDNG+e83xHSPmD9 U1lPu3Tjc3XCBAVSG2/OHQMZb7/bUKHA1ih+vRyxm6wfD4KHB+Ug1YzTSQiXSn07pz4y n0J+yeAWdYOIpuER2Pjxu5HQE7cyct1ugLOZI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.33.129 with SMTP id h1mr7104512ibd.140.1287027772627; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.154.213 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FADB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTikO0oqudUchUnpW0vSsXe0k6QKkJpxjFUU+b413@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FAAB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimS-iMB3Bym968imAWicpSa6D_MSdJNW+NytD_Z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimY3aOcb-SWRD6woj7Zfe4Zd3v_QWb+oE-Wx4v8@mail.gmail.com> <FFDFD7371D517847AD71FBB08F9A3156254C4A752A@SP2-EX07VS06.ds.corp.yahoo.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FADB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:42:52 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1wzU6ARvhf3XVP-ZK+rmRF5LAH-YzAYULg82m@mail.gmail.com>
From: Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 14 Oct 2010 03:41:37 -0000

Or a connection to evil will happen.

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> I don't think so. If you are not running a server on port 80, the connection will never happen and nothing bad will be send on the wire.
>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of William Mills
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:05 PM
>> To: Breno; Jeff Lindsay
>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
>>
>> This rather implies that we're specifying running a full server on port 80 as a
>> "stupid detector".  We should tread carefully here.
>>
>> > +1 for language in the spec describing how to handle this case
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> Hopefully you also invalidate the token (if bearer) since it was
>> > send over
>> > >> an insecure channel.
>> > >
>> > > Excuse my naivety, but perhaps that's worth putting in the spec?
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>



-- 
Breno de Medeiros