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

Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com> Wed, 13 October 2010 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <progrium@twilio.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 8FFE13A6A75 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 D03ztbhVkyOO for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CFE3A6A6A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so4788587wwj.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.145.208 with SMTP id e16mr8907112wbv.164.1287011551901; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.27.196 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FAAB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTikO0oqudUchUnpW0vSsXe0k6QKkJpxjFUU+b413@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FAAB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:12:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimS-iMB3Bym968imAWicpSa6D_MSdJNW+NytD_Z@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367f9a0e5f7a43049287badd
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: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:11:19 -0000

>
> 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?



>
> EHL
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Breno
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:31 AM
> > To: oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
> >
> > Suppose server A documents that their endpoint X is at
> > https://server.example.com/x; there's no service at the corresponding
> http
> > location for security reasons.
> >
> > Client developer fatfingers URL as http://server.example.com/x
> >
> > What is the correct response? I understand that this is out of scope for
> the
> > spec, but maybe there's agreement on some guidance?
> >
> > One thing one shouldn't do is serve a 302 here; it would allow defective
> > clients to remain unpatched.
> >
> > My preference is to simply return a bare 403 or 404 here -- after all the
> > endpoint does not exist (404) or if one uses the convention that
> resources at
> > http/https are usually identical, then http is a non-authorized method to
> > access the resource (403).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Breno de Medeiros
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>