Re: [OAUTH-WG] More Criticism of JOSE

It would be great to talk to you at the OAuth security worship, Antonio.

Cheers,

-- Mike

From: Antonio Sanso<mailto:asanso@adobe.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 1:31 AM
To: Mike Jones<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sergey Beryozkin<mailto:sberyozkin@gmail.com>; oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] More Criticism of JOSE

hi Mike

On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:06 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Will you be in Chicago, Antonio?  If so, maybe you can sit down with us and work on advice to implementers.

Unluckily not. FWIW I will be at https://zisc.ethz.ch/oauth-security-workshop-2017-cfp/. And I’d be glad to sit down with you and try to help if you are around….

regards

antonio

>
>                                Cheers,
>                                -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio Sanso [mailto:asanso@adobe.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:40 PM
> To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] More Criticism of JOSE
>
> hi Mike,
>
> while I am the original author of one of the mentioned article in the blog post (http://blog.intothesymmetry.com/2017/03/critical-vulnerability-in-json-web.html) I do not share entirely the criticism.
> Said that, I must really admit that some of the cryptographic choices made specially in JWE are really questionable.
>
> regards
>
> antonio
>
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> The bulk of this seems to be about applications that don't verify that the crypto algorithms that were used in a JWT are acceptable in the application context.  While I know that some people would like crypto to be magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on an application to get crypto goodness, it will never be that simple.  Crypto algorithms that are thought to be good today will be deprecated later.  Apps that keep allowing them to be used will be vulnerable.  The JOSE specs requiring that applications be aware of the algorithms used is a good and necessary thing for long-term security - not a problem with the specs.
>>
>> That said, of course some implementers will get things wrong.  To the extent that we can help them understand what they actually need to do to use the specifications securely, we obviously should.  Perhaps we should write an article for oauth.net talking about some of these issues?  Maybe a few of us can get together in Chicago and work on that.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to seeing many of you in 1.5 weeks!
>>
>>                               -- Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sergey
>> Beryozkin
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 8:46 AM
>> To: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] More Criticism of JOSE
>>
>> and everyone should now start using the most secure alternative
>> proposed in that very light in analysis article :-)
>>
>> Sergey
>> On 15/03/17 15:43, Mike Schwartz wrote:
>>> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but here's a negative review of JOSE:
>>>
>>> JOSE (Javascript Object Signing and Encryption) is a Bad Standard
>>> That Everyone Should Avoid
>>>
>>> https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/03/jwt-json-web-tokens-is-bad-standar
>>> d
>>> -that-everyone-should-avoid
>>>
>>>
>>> - Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>