Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 19:45 UTC
Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 6A15521F8E3D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 wNRQA-EGx8Xk for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B90E21F8E22 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p86JlE0r008841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:47:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p86JlEA3020780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:47:14 -0500
Received: from [135.244.40.187] (faynberg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.40.187]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p86JlEPY009625; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:47:14 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E6678C1.4070702@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:47:13 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <29815937-0FB9-463B-B6E4-8FCAF7B3CD8C@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:45:29 -0000
Q.E.D. Igor On 9/6/2011 2:57 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > Framing this as an OAuth issue is wrong. In your scenario: > > 1. Install bad app > 2. Do protocol X > 3. Bad things happen > > X can be anything. For example, the app can add a root cert to your os and break TLS protection. > > EHL > > On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:50, "Michael Thomas"<mike@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> William Mills wrote: >>> OAuth doesn't solve this problem, and can't. Generally the question is >>> whether the app appears to come from a reputable source, and nowadays >>> whether it's signed (in windows land) or otherwize certified by the >>> provider. >>> >>> If you manage to solve this problem in a real way I'd be interested in >>> investing in your company. >> Then what I don't see anywhere is that oauth is not applicable to embedded >> web objects, and that end users should *never* trust oauth in a, say, phone >> app. As far as I can tell, the server deploying oauth can't tell that it's >> being misused, so this is all on the shoulders of the end user. >> >> It sure looks like oauth is easily subverted in the real world. >> >> Mike >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* Michael Thomas<mike@mtcc.com> >>> *To:* Eran Hammer-Lahav<eran@hueniverse.com> >>> *Cc:* "oauth@ietf.org"<oauth@ietf.org> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:34 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement >>> >>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >>>> Don't install crap on you device or computer. OAuth is the least of >>> your concern if you install bad software. >>>> If there was a solution to this we would not need an antivirus. >>> How exactly does an end user know what is "crap" or not? Or are you just >>> dismissive of apps in >>> general? I don't think that apple and google are going to close up shop >>> because it breaks oauth's >>> trust model. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>> EHL >>>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:23, "Michael Thomas"<mike@mtcc.com >>> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote: >>>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >>>>>> I agree. If you are going to install a native app, you better trust >>> it not to do bad things. Grabbing your password is the least interesting >>> thing such an app can abuse. I don't see any need to change the v2 draft. >>>>> How, exactly, is the user supposed to protect themselves against >>> rogue apps? >>>>> It sounds like the solution is to tell them to never use oauth in an >>> app at all. >>>>> Is oauth only intended to be used on standalone trustable web >>> browsers? I don't recall >>>>> seeing that anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>>> EHL >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:10, "Igor Faynberg" >>> <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com >>> <mailto:igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> Mike, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You've got the problem statement right: allowing the user to >>> authorize resource access to another party without divulging user's >>> credentials is the objective of OAuth. You are also right in that the >>> attack you have described defies the whole purpose of OAuth. I do not >>> think though that it is related to OAuth per se. >>>>>>> To this end, the security work led by Torsten has thoroughly >>> analyzed the protocol and specified protection against multiple protocol >>> attacks. From what you described, it appears to me that the attack you >>> mention is not related to the protocol but rather to the user's >>> environment. There is no possible protection from key loggers that a >>> protocol can implement. I could be mistaken; in any case, it looks like >>> the problem rests with the implementation of WebView. >>>>>>> If I am wrong, I would appreciate a detailed description of what >>> happened. >>>>>>> Igor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/6/2011 1:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Barry suggested that I might subscribe and explain what I sent him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My basic problem is that in neither the protocol nor the threats >>> drafts, >>>>>>>> I can't seem to find what problem is actually trying to be solved >>> with >>>>>>>> oauth, and what assumptions you're making about various elements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's what I did. I've written an app, and I wanted re-integrate the >>>>>>>> ability to send tweets after they deprecated Basic. So the app has a >>>>>>>> webView (android, iphone...) which it obviously completely controls. >>>>>>>> With oauth, the webview UA will ultimately redirect off to Twitter's >>>>>>>> site to collect the user's credentials and grant my app's backend an >>>>>>>> access token (sorry if I get terminology screwed up, i'm just coming >>>>>>>> up to speed). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What occurs to me is that webview affords exactly zero protection >>> from >>>>>>>> my client (ie, the app) from getting the user's twitter >>> credentials. All >>>>>>>> I have to do is set up a keypress handler on that webview and in >>> a few >>>>>>>> minutes of hacking I have a key logger. etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what I can't tell is whether this is a "problem" or not, because I >>>>>>>> don't know what problem you're trying to solve. If the object of >>> oauth >>>>>>>> isn't to keep user/server credentials out of the hands of a third >>> party, >>>>>>>> then what is it trying to solve? Is there an expectation that the >>>>>>>> UA is trusted by the user/server? What happens when that's not >>> the case? >>>>>>>> Regardless of whether I'm misunderstanding, it would sure be nice >>> to have >>>>>>>> both the problem and your assumptions laid out, hopefully with >>> some prominence >>>>>>>> so you don't get these sort of dumb questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mike >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Jill Burrows
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement David Waite
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Phil Hunt