Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution-01 and Open Issues

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 05 March 2015 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D821B2B62 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 01:28:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0kLDnxxjqegd for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 01:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FEE61B2B5B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 01:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wevl61 with SMTP id l61so14721075wev.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 01:27:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=ZBgaIqe/Ljui6SXMYC/RfqAl5G+lBwjFv1s8oTMiVyE=; b=DEeWuh6dZP7c2nI3oDtnYLgSo+iJ8uB5xj9AbNbjaEfzksohr7aoF7H7fmgOtASe5M yqCyitztvdnOoyl0ThHlt/+MqW/3tdaBytEftv9M7LYULaVRV85os43TG92dY4xHGMYa +Sf0+kwV5C/X81n2o+ML9TJTPjXAqpahMQHwWymCLFZeOwH1U2FOOh934dpV3YEBbvJt WvGDLM5f7P4EEvvJcnh8URCpBVg1D+U7GGwAfY7/PqThcpqcnMLloGGoG5eAvT/kcHg6 MphQOMPE0dE+GYhYqljX+dneUeRFrjs2OKfqHNWL5AO/uzCpHtU2xJrD2KqtwAb7I6Ec PZOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9icr7A18JXrfongwJXoPCEF0GYp+jKjw/5bHuL0grGFwx7RIhp/sCxYpHDOiGo8ELLJ08
X-Received: by 10.194.186.236 with SMTP id fn12mr16753200wjc.51.1425547678281; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 01:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.6.0.209] ([95.211.146.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hj10sm9611642wjc.48.2015.03.05.01.27.47 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 01:27:57 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7810368-0259-45BC-BD95-818B0CED197F"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F81ADA.3000203@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:27:33 +0100
Message-Id: <0B09DB9C-CB26-448D-AE4B-F50E37C2560A@ve7jtb.com>
References: <54F81ADA.3000203@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Fk50YB1v976x8BebEWnyv8gfRcI>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution-01 and Open Issues
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:28:01 -0000

inline
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I refreshed the PoP key distribution document. No changes to the
> content of the document.
> 
> The document contains two questions, namely
> 
> QUESTION: A benefit of asymmetric cryptography is to allow clients to
>   request a PoP token for use with multiple resource servers.  The
>   downside of that approach is linkability since different resource
>   servers will be able to link individual requests to the same client.
>   (The same is true if the a single public key is linked with PoP
>   tokens used with different resource servers.)  Nevertheless, to
>   support the functionality the audience parameter could carry an array
>   of values.  Is this desirable?
> 
> 
> Hannes: My view is that we do not want to introduce likability into
> OAuth via the use of these keys. As such, different keys for different
> origins.
> 
> 
John:  Having an array increases complexity and decreases privacy by allowing RS to link.

Audiance should be a single value.  That requires separate keys for symmetric, or asymmetric keys provisioned by the AS.

For asymmetric keys provisioned by the client it would be up to the client to decide if using the same key for multiple RS makes sense.  

It might be that there is a single key provisioned by a MSM in the tpm that they want to use for all the connections as that is the most secure, and are not concerned with correlation as all the RS are internal to a single enterprise.



> QUESTION: Should we register the token_type and alg parameters for use
> with the dynamic client registration protocol?
> 
> Hannes: I believe we should register these two parameters into the
> dynamic client registration protocol since that allows us to configure
> the values for the client rather than exchanging them with every message.
> 
John:  Yes I had assumed that that was a no brainer.
The other question on registering is if we should allow the client to preregister a public key as well.
In some situations the client may want to always use the same key and making them push it each time is a waste of bandwidth.

John B.
> Feedback appreciated before the submission deadline.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth