Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel

Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 5DA4721F8589 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 lx25MjnZGbHI for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [184.168.131.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4519321F8584 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P3PWEX2HT002.ex2.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.10]) by p3plex2out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id 1sLm1j0050Dcg9U01sLmjX; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:20:46 -0700
Received: from P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net ([169.254.8.115]) by P3PWEX2HT002.ex2.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.10]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:20:46 -0700
From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <oauth-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel
Thread-Index: AQHNIfK7r7KmwuXA4kSoc9MS46QExJaqbLCAgAAaSoD//6DfUA==
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:20:46 +0000
Message-ID: <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FFC41C@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net>
References: <CALaySJLy6jpuPqxQXfKfpx0TpcK1gav1NtcTOoh+NOr11JSCbw@mail.gmail.com> <4F8DE789.4030704@mtcc.com> <CALaySJK1ej_HkP5Jz26XT-KjULirD2iFfVOpRkHgPZp-CbJCrg@mail.gmail.com> <4F957EA7.3060004@mtcc.com> <OF3ECF645E.478720A4-ON802579EA.002D0B13-802579EA.002D8D07@ie.ibm.com> <4F96A99F.7010303@mtcc.com> <85556C53-99DD-47A2-A0D5-2F86DD2B668F@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <85556C53-99DD-47A2-A0D5-2F86DD2B668F@oracle.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [64.74.213.174]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:20:48 -0000

We've been kicking this can of silliness for months now because one person refuses to move on even in the face of otherwise unanimous consensus from the group.

Chairs - Please take this ridiculous and never ending thread off list and resolve it once and for all.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Phil Hunt
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:59 AM
> To: Michael Thomas
> Cc: Barry Leiba; oauth@ietf.org; oauth-bounces@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-
> threatmodel
> 
> Are we at this stage re-opening the entire document? I thought we were
> responding only to specific shepherd text edits.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 2012-04-24, at 6:24, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 04/24/2012 01:17 AM, Mark Mcgloin wrote:
> >> Hi Thomas
> >>
> >> Your additional text is already covered in a countermeasure for
> >> section 4.1.4.  In addition, section 4.1.4.4 states the assumption
> >> that the auth server can't protect against a user installing a
> >> malicious client
> >>
> >
> > The more I read this draft, the more borked I think its base
> > assumptions are. The client *is* one of the main threats. Full stop. A
> > threat document should not be asking the adversary to play nice. Yet,
> > 4.1.4 bullets 1 and
> > 3 are doing exactly that again. If those are countermeasures, then so
> > is visualizing world peace.
> >
> > As for bullet two, it doesn't mention revocation, and I prefer Barry's
> > section generally. I can't find a section 4.1.4.4
> >
> > 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