IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 CE4A321F8DEC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 BYakbZu6dAXP for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AC021F8DEE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from takifugu.mtcc.com (takifugu.mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p87094x3020496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:09:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4E66B620.9020604@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:09:04 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
References: <4E665B25.6090709@mtcc.com> <4E6661FA.7050804@alcatel-lucent.com> <CD0B1909-8298-4CC3-B273-7B26E71EAB31@hueniverse.com> <4E666512.7010701@mtcc.com> <F4839FCD-CA73-4450-AD12-E07D46BB7746@hueniverse.com> <4E6667D1.3080404@mtcc.com> <1315334677.26387.YahooMailNeo@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E666B65.30701@mtcc.com> <29815937-0FB9-463B-B6E4-8FCAF7B3CD8C@hueniverse.com> <4E666E73.3050502@mtcc.com> <CAMrm-MJHKTxaj1iEm_Lr=X92sOiWZcYN4F6dNqb5w5gh4OPndQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E6671FA.3090503@gmail.com> <4E667469.2040007@mtcc.com> <1315337809.3136.38.camel@ground> <4E667953.9020906@mtcc.com> <71A460EE-1E2C-4165-99A8-5A97D6E9365C@jkemp.net> <4E667E2E.7090304@mtcc.com> <80A88920-A1EF-4A1C-A97E-F99379923CFB@jkemp.net> <4E66845E.7090906@mtcc.com> <E3DEC4C8-6BB0-44EE-821A-7589F5DC6462@jkemp.net>
In-Reply-To: <E3DEC4C8-6BB0-44EE-821A-7589F5DC6462@jkemp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1068; t=1315354146; x=1316218146; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OAUTH-WG]=20problem=20statement |Sender:=20 |To:=20John=20Kemp=20<john@jkemp.net> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3Dwindows-1252=3B= 20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=208bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=Wa13IINnf8wyFiAxYkSMmiN815w3DjwIA3hTpAIoXRk=; b=Khhyqi0J75N2MpNZZRFaFyWd7QKlBwEKxa9bhmiwkkxsrFbYiR4l3zjv3p PKwDmI/21VXBGIQKNqeqoQv1EfjIeSV9s/ZHMFZSkIOU9rL44nr6/LQcEFt8 BzsMls1f7/uca/UV1QDYOJF/4ocxXjgdD0l+5gwJXS5FZGJiB1bUo=;
Authentication-Results: ; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.com
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
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: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:07:18 -0000

On 09/06/2011 01:59 PM, John Kemp wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> […]
>
>    
>> But even if you did it once, how did you know that you didn't reveal your credentials
>> to a bad guy?
>>
>> And I'm being told that this isn't even worthy of any mention anywhere? I came
>> here hoping to hear that the attack wasn't possible, or could be mitigated.
>>      
> The attack can be mitigated, but it cannot be prevented through protocols like OAuth (or any other protocol that I know of) alone.
>    

Even mitigation would be a big improvement, especially mitigation
on the server side which has access to better resources to find and
toss out bad guys.  If you know of some, I for one would be interested
in hearing about it.

Mike

> The point is that you have a point.
>
> But OAuth alone cannot address your point - it provides a different -- and still useful, mitigation for attacks on user credentials sent over a network. It's not a superhero though.
>
> - John
>
>    
>> Zoicks.
>>
>> Mike
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email