Re: [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens

Marco De Nadai <denadai2@gmail.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <denadai2@gmail.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 C3C5521F8B02 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bt2CwGz+Ta48 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D5D21F87C5 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so7282008gyh.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=UOWaB7Ut0+SMbsEbeEg7CoZSiT9qA3ZlHRce5hbImiE=; b=JcfblJJX1QVsyzlfmtaU2M0uZuPJKafaO9lo5kYLlPqh+A2WDemE2HCE4Rv6o6LmUH kfD1SEtcgtATJoidAb6lQ7vwovYDZQv0G/wQcZwkGP44RfnWRtqetTR1StRKKCuyYhQJ /3LUDlbEHcdgF3+Xad62oFBrzdSXnxJb8/bUE=
Received: by 10.150.72.38 with SMTP id u38mr11665390yba.87.1320077069112; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.38.8 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <429493818451304B84EC9A0797B5D858250823@SEAPXCH10MBX01.amer.gettywan.com>
References: <CAHWszSa89mm1GR0Wz26kFqvNQ3U7qjmXqawkkG5KXmb8stAErg@mail.gmail.com> <429493818451304B84EC9A0797B5D858250823@SEAPXCH10MBX01.amer.gettywan.com>
From: Marco De Nadai <denadai2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:03:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHWszSZypD8c83gHueNiZJFweTTxsn9zoo8=YR2d8Ydy8Q7nnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Taflin <dan.taflin@gettyimages.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd59086c7d3c504b09a6489"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens
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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:04:37 -0000

I think it's wrong to specify in the OAuth GENERAL security consideration,
a consideration only for a specific type of token.

2011/10/31 Dan Taflin <dan.taflin@gettyimages.com>

>  To be consistent, section 10.3 should probably specify that the
> requirement of confidentiality in transit applies specifically to BEARER
> tokens.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to see this relaxed further though, as I argued last week, to
> accommodate situations where a token is scoped to a limited set of data
> that isn’t particularly sensitive. My example was image search. It seems
> too restrictive to require TLS for an operation that does nothing more than
> what anyone could do by pointing a browser at our web site. Http cookies
> can be specified as either requiring or not requiring secure transport; it
> seems reasonable to allow the same option for bearer tokens, which fulfill
> an analogous role.****
>
> ** **
>
> Dan****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Marco De Nadai [mailto:denadai2@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:44 AM
> *To:* oauth@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> i've recently noticed that in OAuth 2.0 draft 22, in the section 10.3
> there is this statment: ****
>
> ** **
>
> Access token (as well as any access token type-specific attributes) MUST
> be kept confidential in transit and storage, and only shared among the
> authorization server, the resource servers the access token is valid for,
> and the client to whom the access token is issued.****
>
> ** **
>
> BUT in OAuth 2.0 draft 22 with Authorization Code and MAC Access
> Authentication, I can request a resource with Access Token sent in clear.
> This invalidates the "Access token (as well as any access token
> type-specific attributes) MUST be kept confidential in transit and storage".
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Is it my error?****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> *Marco De Nadai*****
>
> http://www.marcodena.it/<http://www.marcodena.it/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2Bpersonali>
> ****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
*Marco De Nadai*
http://www.marcodena.it/<http://www.marcodena.it/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2Bpersonali>