[OAUTH-WG] Feedback on OAuth for browser-based Apps

Dominick Baier <dbaier@leastprivilege.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dbaier@leastprivilege.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 8059012013F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=leastprivilege-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 5OuVbX2otUzh for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (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 8279812013C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id t8so27776139qkt.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leastprivilege-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cookQ3nQI17uH2eyNeW09E1Dh48DqAomDRYwZzuVBBw=; b=uo0ObeCyfjXHeYYv7zl2oDrPIRAGTth8/dOnOxJxk6PsWvHkY6TGy0kS2yndhjZ8w1 xyQHRLqdKJe7XmvxPxx/3SDQp2vxlVCpasqw+DU2ATjE6U3d67sryjl9ysEnH/oxOkDy DPbLautl9diLalSK8wwqxZy2r1vVCCHMFY5i9UNylT1Afs9/mcnx3+eAHCbq3eYy5/xa jTWXNu08hf0V1n2/3DE68mkI28xQK6YIwY8oWCV5aYm8CAgucMtX8uWq3stBzZkLCa2I WGXBdAGtaRVUnfQdTfbZNHdOkhUit9zbSXNLiFnJMdHgfF+3IZZQe2SYzx9wM8ha0Ypl WhrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cookQ3nQI17uH2eyNeW09E1Dh48DqAomDRYwZzuVBBw=; b=KqN8/jdxShGv74mlphQvm/3xtCHwH8phxhlzxjO5ytadufhvZaK648dcHMgghkVlEK B8vNhuIa0NciP9vkPuO6QEZKi45L32sSEi5gDBJ/G06VMwU7rLSZxC/2TC5b2TDJ8v3Y lYa3SnrrAe4D2j4ho8ZEYEjgUZhwOewl+Hcsh9CJz3nSGcgOzvYatU7howWqh2AELmO5 UySHOQ2xwwdd4xNNCxBP3zauP0286qOMIw1oP65/XCmI8uvxjC7OblA0SYmIv1wr2blJ DCzJM/V2AcHTJP76a/gl7/HlbeduVAiukvgDvADedweGTkpqVB7ir6D2KJA/6lG/Jauq 2myQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW+4jcJG5sh+rgB+4tJ/t95jP5XeaYPqsnDpLGLUNH+wf/lMkTy nl1imHx0hsAh0XXx4Lsugvmhx3UR71KDl4W8LIf3M8c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz60+kyqLXOIr/+GYp94X196y5+hZ1kIKjoNNu++/OICRdsGWlJKpNfkdd5zejsgeQ+hZIwKdOyMVi45e+ysYc=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a6cf:: with SMTP id p198mr44143894qke.259.1563776074150; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:33 -0700
From: Dominick Baier <dbaier@leastprivilege.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 23:14:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO7Ng+tyHaKQgJ4PcrcEpMcteqvdH2PE1CQP5j+5DqKJWuKPoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000688ac5058e3efd63"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/NOjNaTzcM48tS_RufpBfqseYAyI>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Feedback on OAuth for browser-based Apps
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, 22 Jul 2019 06:14:40 -0000

Hey,

Just read the spec - good to see the progress. Some feedback:

I am yet undecided if I like the categorisation of the “Application
Architecture Patterns”. I definitely want to distinguish between
applications only accessing same-site back-end services and “others”. Not
sure if “dynamic application server" and “static application server” should
be handled differently - they are deployment details and should not decide
on the application security architecture. Also not sure how realistic it is
to deploy a typical applications solely from e.g. a CDN. But I don’t have
the right answer wrt to categories right now.

6.1.  Apps Served from a Common Domain as the Resource Server

> OAuth and OpenID Connect provide very little benefit in this
   deployment scenario, so it is recommended to reconsider whether you
   need OAuth or OpenID Connect at all in this case.

I think you are mixing authentication and API access here. Depending on
application scenario it makes a lot of sense to use OIDC - but rely on the
resulting session to control API access.
Unless you want to dive into the details here, I suggest you remove the
mention of OIDC because it is misleading.


6.2.  Apps Served from a Dynamic Application Server

I have a .NET sample for that

https://github.com/leastprivilege/AspNetCoreSecuritySamples/tree/aspnetcore21/BFF
And a blog post
https://leastprivilege.com/2019/01/18/an-alternative-way-to-secure-spas-with-asp-net-core-openid-connect-oauth-2-0-and-proxykit/

9.7 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-02#section-9.7>.
Content-Security Policy

   A browser-based application that wishes to use either long-lived
   refresh tokens or privileged scopes SHOULD restrict its JavaScript
   execution to a set of statically hosted scripts via a Content
   Security Policy ([CSP2
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-02#ref-CSP2>])
or similar mechanism.



I would rather say that ANY JS app should use CSP to lock down the browser
features to a minimal attack surface. In addition, if refresh or access
tokens are involved - further settings like disabling inline scripting
(unsafe inline) and eval should be disabled.

Thanks for doing this work!

———
Dominick