Re: [OAUTH-WG] Native Application Text

This assumes we support the authorization code  grant type without client
authentication. See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg06816.html and many
other contributions on the same topic

Regards
Mark

oauth-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 29/06/2011 02:15:10:

> From:
>
> Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
>
> To:
>
> "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
>
> Date:
>
> 29/06/2011 02:15
>
> Subject:
>
> [OAUTH-WG] Native Application Text
>
> Sent by:
>
> oauth-bounces@ietf.org
>
> 9. Native Applications
>
> A native application is a client which is installed and executes on
> the end-user's device (i.e. desktop application, native mobile
> application, etc.).  Native applications may require special
> consideration related to security, platform capabilities, and
> overall end-user experience.  The following are examples of how
> native applications may utilize OAuth:
>
>    o  Initiate an Authorization Request using an external user-
> agent: The native application can capture the response from the
> authorization server using a variety of techniques such as the use
> of the various methods for redirection including a URI identifying a
> custom URI scheme (registered with the operating system to invoke
> the native application as handler), manual copy-and-paste, running a
> local webserver, browser plug-ins, or by providing a redirection URI
> identifying a server-hosted resource under the native application's
> control, which in turn makes the response available to the native
application.
>    o  Initiate an Authorization Request using an embedded user-
> agent:  The native application obtains the response by directly
> communicating with the embedded user-agent.  Techniques include
> monitoring state changes emitted during URL loading, monitoring http
> headers, accessing the user-agent's cookie jar, etc.
>
> When choosing between launching an external user-agent and an
> embedded user-agent, native application developers should consider
> the following:
>
>    o  External user-agents may improve completion rate as the end-
> user may already have an active session with the authorization
> server removing the need to re-authenticate, and provide a familiar
> user-agent user experience and functionality.  The end-user may also
> rely on extensions or add-ons to assist with authentication (e.g.
> password managers or 2-factor device reader).
>    o  Embedded user-agents may offer an improved end-user flow, as
> they remove the need to switch context and open new windows.
>    o  Embedded user-agents pose a security challenge because end-
> users are authenticating in an unidentified window without access to
> the visual protections found on by many of the external user-agents.
> Embedded user-agents educate end-user to trust unidentified requests
> for authentication (making phishing attacks easier to execute).
>
> When choosing between implicit and authorization code grant types,
> the following should be considered:
>
>    o  Native applications that use the authorization code grant type
> flow SHOULD do so without using client password credentials, due to
> the native application’s inability to keep those credentials secure.
>    o  When using the implicit grant type flow a refresh token is
notreturned
>  _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth