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

Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 00:24 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 6EF1B3A6A6F for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:24:02 -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 0Ur5HEiAVRPW for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:24:02 -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 BB08B3A686B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so4822607wwj.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.133.69 with SMTP id e5mr9434766wbt.51.1287015918659; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.27.196 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FFDFD7371D517847AD71FBB08F9A3156254C4A752A@SP2-EX07VS06.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
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>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:25:18 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=wXFR6uqkg8YPCJnV1_Q30e6UCw6EoQknFSoVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com>
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f77656a6e9a3049288be1b
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 00:24:02 -0000

>
> This rather implies that we're specifying running a full server on port 80
> as a "stupid detector".  We should tread carefully here.
>

Right, I suppose you're better off not responding on port 80 if possible.
But I imagine this could be phrased in Section 5.0 roughly, "if the resource
server is available over an insecure channel, but does not honor insecure
requests to protected resources, it SHOULD/MUST respond to insecure requests
by invalidating the token and returning an invalid_request error."


>
> > +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?
>