Re: [OAUTH-WG] Facebook, OAuth, and WRAP

Mike Malone <mjmalone@gmail.com> Wed, 25 November 2009 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mjmalone@gmail.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 4A6FE28C1E2 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:40:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 tvMS6N82GH1Y for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f203.google.com (mail-qy0-f203.google.com [209.85.221.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3844328C1E1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:40:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk41 with SMTP id 41so3777938qyk.29 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:40:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EkxD2mjXou+KtrZ8eN0wbUMwtmbetnQ4RLJkltpzlt4=; b=b+99cIN4wZzMLIQMn9nVzh+sLbmsB6F9GEN2sCE7tISq+bKhlTWMY8xn6cRs9tPTQ8 KCqVj0wuJILLvcw2IT+EodwXrqxIWDmWRcLBNORoSWg0kavzpgA4dWFawdp9x8wqvyUq zrIcj1NLhj993RHUI9iJ7icRDR8v/4FfzlwCo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=H0m/9oyxXtFZ4ZgCnP4X76LtP6dqVt4efTbF3r8873MwgJV8ZTy9qARIoJgFPaLQiJ 5d4OzuoD5TWcpsKgY5wsnxAt1+d62zWILOMJdMbmHjubrCk+hcaLLR0Twbq/mHqoiOmp tuRXYXjZMj9usWzS+aEK787n6DQq2CoaWZf+8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.115.15 with SMTP id g15mr77373qcq.14.1259131217830; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:40:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <cb5f7a380911242215x5d364b2fmc56a4aea19141dec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148C596691F29F4EA6968577BE2CDFAE06A1B9FE@SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com> <a9d9121c0911241635p4f2cc394vefe350b2ce3daa22@mail.gmail.com> <cb5f7a380911242215x5d364b2fmc56a4aea19141dec@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:40:17 -0800
Message-ID: <a9d9121c0911242240i4bab482ep4faca88ae27af2e5@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Malone <mjmalone@gmail.com>
To: John Panzer <jpanzer@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Naitik Shah <naitik@facebook.com>, Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>, Brent Goldman <brent@facebook.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Facebook, OAuth, and WRAP
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, 25 Nov 2009 06:40:27 -0000

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:15 PM, John Panzer <jpanzer@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Mike Malone <mjmalone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Recordon
>> <davidrecordon@facebook.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The largest issue in Facebook moving to OAuth 1.0 (and yes, Eran's new
>> > RFC is awesome) is the increase in the number of HTTP requests that
>> > developers will need to make in comparison to our current authentication
>> > mechanism.
>>
>> The OAuth _flow_ (in a browser) requires a couple additional requests
>> compared to Facebook Connect (in a browser). But Facebook Connect is
>> really a different beast since it relies on the Browser and Javascript
>> to magically set cookies cross domain and whatnot. I agree that it's
>> non-trivial to extend OAuth to cover this use case (we've sort of done
>> it at Six Apart and the flow is clunky and complicated). And even if
>> you figure out how to make the flow work you can't really make
>> requests purely on the client side without compromising your consumer
>> secret.
>>
>> That said, as far as I can tell, using OAuth for delegated
>> communication via an intermediary (a web app or iPhone app, for
>> example) should be doable for Facebook. The only real differences I
>> see between OAuth and WRAP for this use case are:
>>  * WRAP requires SSL instead of signing URLs
>
> Aside: If an SP specified OAuth PLAINTEXT signature mode, and used https:
> URLs for its API, would there be any effective difference between OAuth and
> WRAP for that SP?  (Best as I can tell the only difference would be a
> mandated %26 character in the OAuth blob you pass in to get access, but I
> may be missing something.)

Yea, they're more or less the same. That's one use case for PLAINTEXT
OAuth. You still have a "signature" though, it's just the base64'd
signature base string.