Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15
Daniel Fett <fett@danielfett.de> Mon, 06 April 2020 20:06 UTC
Return-Path: <fett@danielfett.de>
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 59F533A0E7D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=danielfett.de
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 q-OHmVUs1NI3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d3f.me (redstone.d3f.me [5.9.29.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEC5B3A0E79 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from authenticated-user (PRIMARY_HOSTNAME [PUBLIC_IP]) by d3f.me (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5FD9C3401; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 20:06:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielfett.de; s=dkim; t=1586203613; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lwBmDkuktw+SUTEmQ3pCLTcVsJEXkBIo+Tfu5rOtsFg=; b=d/SQSrsB6d0MPjd/+3PVvpeotysaqTLk+hVTpcDV52hvN4a5MovhIk/lJ0ijV4S7oJV+zl LA7tqBLhVkbcVkMCCyJqt75crkGixI4ZTzAbrTwwOK189hb7JecQImbJjZ/+DsGVoO6pWZ WS/fHvDAXGrcTI9Zyb0/TeRnJ+9YI6Y=
To: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
References: <CAGBSGjq2DtMfGAbzQz54-7h2vgwyQnDkab8ET0w+fvLxE6Uypg@mail.gmail.com> <91012825-2bef-297a-1d9a-89c8c9e1f7f3@danielfett.de> <CAGBSGjrZChp2CeCNUKtUtNbnBSZtuT+2CBCQYwM-xVV4Kdm-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Fett <fett@danielfett.de>
Message-ID: <24c2249b-24ce-0335-cde2-e75c9d0d2172@danielfett.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 22:06:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGBSGjrZChp2CeCNUKtUtNbnBSZtuT+2CBCQYwM-xVV4Kdm-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F9989EBF0FB6A44B7CB895BB"
Content-Language: de-DE
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielfett.de; s=dkim; t=1586203613; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lwBmDkuktw+SUTEmQ3pCLTcVsJEXkBIo+Tfu5rOtsFg=; b=I4jpN8S6bBNdM3u8B/0Q8DC4cfiTjAL/rsvy5AJOLteF45ibGkcAundr9xzBLX863LZdVq DPQIKNkkmNa/cnFVAfojeFfNX3+cPIOEt7rNuBBdrVQex4ewGs2tBRPDwD6ibWj02ivWix nQ2jMkBXOviU8WvqRREhXXbnP16dthk=
ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=danielfett.de; t=1586203613; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=u3RjAeKLU27PtY+MN4LRa9iEDMY8sMlwTDgxmD7+Lca/AIoHJh1aZPNkqphZVr2QXwbDxi yEmpGVtKKehrw3/tf+57uxV4GTFeYx9Kugd3tCHFuV02oXBsOvnPv58Oz8J9vKDNlqMfyA qB3CH3Tof9ciuMTWLFefmOhfjkITPls=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; d3f.me; auth=pass smtp.auth=fett@danielfett.de smtp.mailfrom=fett@danielfett.de
Authentication-Results: d3f.me; auth=pass smtp.auth=fett@danielfett.de smtp.mailfrom=fett@danielfett.de
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/I4b9AY8hR-JSzCEkf_ieUetjQ9U>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:06:56 -0000
Am 06.04.20 um 16:09 schrieb Aaron Parecki: > > The injected authorization code would always refer to a different > session (started with a different nonce). The client would > therefore get an ID Token with a different nonce. The assumption > is that the client would then throw away both the ID Token and the > access token. > > > This is true as long as the client actually validates the ID token it > obtained at the token endpoint, even though it may have already > obtained one from the authorization response. (e.g. > response_type=code+id_token). It feels like this should be explained > in a little more detail, since having to validate two ID tokens to > protect against this attack is not necessarily obvious. Thanks, that is an important point. I will propose some text on that. -Daniel
- [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15 Aaron Parecki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15 David Waite
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15 Daniel Fett
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15 Aaron Parecki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security BCP -15 Daniel Fett