IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] why are we signing?

John Panzer <jpanzer@google.com> Tue, 01 December 2009 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jpanzer@google.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 204813A68FD for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:53:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 7jW5tFlynKQn for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.45.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1993A67B6 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zps37.corp.google.com (zps37.corp.google.com [172.25.146.37]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id nB1Gr3NG005648 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:53:03 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1259686384; bh=YHlZac/ZITWT3Sj7pRZwIPG3W+U=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=qC9/AvUKk6dhWnkKtcCpecOPCoRjay6P/XMqOWmJs92+ekG4beNllbS4b+JVLrES7 q+rRxB5Fk024DM9KxybZQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=rTHwtl2kftS47ppA2QXVVMCrHuvuOhiEH1S4UcoSRBR3q1mrNhuZUPtWwi2igeZ8H ENGpIURdS326bDXaJMK4A==
Received: from pzk11 (pzk11.prod.google.com [10.243.19.139]) by zps37.corp.google.com with ESMTP id nB1GqL21031528 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:53:00 -0800
Received: by pzk11 with SMTP id 11so3365496pzk.14 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:53:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.114.188.38 with SMTP id l38mr11422475waf.179.1259686380346; Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:53:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a9d9121c0911301432y76487b39hed670f0ed609c768@mail.gmail.com>
References: <daf5b9570911082102u215dcf22gf0aeb2f3578e5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <4A956CE47D1066408D5C7EB34368A5110551FFC1@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> <daf5b9570911111754u49f72a0aia59814b5da497a51@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343785102B49@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <cb5f7a380911120745w2f576d1ej300723581e50f03f@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343785102E58@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <cb5f7a380911130837q40d07388y1ae9b472be0ae57a@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343785102F1F@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <A4E79C63-7B5C-4FBA-9DDA-5FEB35B9584D@microsoft.com> <a9d9121c0911301432y76487b39hed670f0ed609c768@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Panzer <jpanzer@google.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:52:40 -0800
Message-ID: <cb5f7a380912010852j3251199dse8d10da469dafa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Malone <mjmalone@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e64cd7923a9d120479ad9785"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Dick Hardt <Dick.Hardt@microsoft.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] why are we signing?
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:53:13 -0000

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Mike Malone <mjmalone@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Dick Hardt <Dick.Hardt@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-11-13, at 7:21 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> >>
> >> I for one, see great value in offering some form of crypto-based
> security for cases where TLS is not suitable.
> >
> > Are these use cases enumerated somewhere?
>
> I'm not completely opposed to the TLS route, but since you asked...
> off the top of my head, here are a couple drawbacks to using TLS
> instead of signing:
>  - Bigger burden on developers who need to debug this stuff (i.e.,
> you can't sniff your own traffic to debug requests & responses).
>  - Properly setting up TLS can be complicated and expensive. For
> developers who don't have a lot of ops skills the barrier may be too
> high.
>  - You can no longer pass around signed URLs as another level of
> delegation (a use case that I use regularly for making XHR & POST
> requests from the browser). This could be a non-issue if some other
> mechanism for fourth-party delegation existed.
>
> Can you elaborate on the above?  For OAuth, signatures (bound to a
particular Consumer Secret that can't be leaked to subcontractors) is a
barrier to multi-level delegation.



> If we were coming up with a more secure replacement for browser-based
> HTTP basic auth (and looking at Aza Raskin's work with identity in
> Firefox, OAuth in the browser doesn't appear to be that far off) would
> you want to mandate that all auth'd HTTP traffic use TLS? Not sure if
> the answer is yes or no, but I'm guessing many of the
> advantages/drawbacks will be the same.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email