Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

Can you describe the aspects that make a JS client library "solid"? This is
what I think would be useful to see written up in a document like the
Native Apps one.

It's interesting to me that so many of you have independently opted to use
the auth code flow for Javascript apps. I think that's a sign that it's a
better recommendation than the implicit flow for JS apps.

----
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
@aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Dominick Baier <dbaier@leastprivilege.com>
wrote:

> Given a solid client library for JS, I think implicit flow is OK to use.
>
> But I agree that there are many “home grown” implementation out there that
> are not secure - and the necessary JS code to write a good client is not
> necessarily the “pit of success”.
>
> You should give this lib a go (it’s also a certified RP):
>
> https://github.com/IdentityModel/oidc-client-js
>
> Many people argue that handling the protocol and crypto pieces in JS is
> problematic (and I agree if no proper lib is used for that) - but at then
> end of the day the access token will end up in the browser - and a sloppy
> developer (e.g. not using CSP) will always write bad code that might lead
> to leaking a token.
>
> -------
> Dominick Baier
>
> On 17 February 2017 at 18:43:25, Adam Lewis (adam.lewis@motorolasolutions.
> com) wrote:
>
> +1000
>
> We are currently going through internal turmoil over the usage of implicit
> grant for ua-based apps.  The webapp case is well understood and the WG has
> work in progress to define best practices for native apps.  Having one for
> ua-based apps would be HUGELY beneficial
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Jim Manico <jim@manicode.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you to those answering my question on implicit for JS clients.
>>
>> The responses so far seem to represent what the security world is saying
>> about the implicit grant - keep away from it other than for a few OIDC use
>> cases.
>>
>> Does anyone think it would be valuable to author a brief RFC to give
>> clear OAuth 2 recommendations for JavaScript client developers?
>>
>> I mean - the OAuth 2 body of work just needs a few more RFC's, right? :)
>>
>> Aloha, Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/17/17 6:03 AM, Sebastian.Ebling@telekom.de wrote:
>>
>> Same for Deutsche Telekom. Our javascript clients also use code flow
>> with CORS processing and of course redirect_uri validation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>> * Von:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org <oauth-bounces@ietf.org>] *Im
>> Auftrag von* Bill Burke
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 00:14
>> *An:* oauth@ietf.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow
>>
>>
>>
>> For our IDP [1], our javascript library uses the auth code flow, but
>> requires a public client, redirect_uri validation, and also does CORS
>> checks and processing.  We did not like Implicit Flow because
>>
>> 1) access tokens would be in the browser history
>>
>> 2) short lived access tokens (seconds or minutes) would require a browser
>> redirect
>>
>> I'd be really curious to hear other's thoughts though.
>>
>> [1] http://keycloak.org
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__keycloak.org&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=YExyuyZO5YNpSvS3mEUG5pjKAjRXXVT8Xvk8hIb-Efw&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/17 5:44 PM, Jim Manico wrote:
>>
>> Hello Folks,
>>
>> I noticed that Google supports the OAuth 2 Implicit flow for third-party
>> JavaScript applications.
>>
>> https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/OAuth2UserAgent
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__developers.google.com_identity_protocols_OAuth2UserAgent&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=_Mig-zmCt1y9dZpCece1dqby3VmcZVOu2JPcmAwzwKU&e=>
>>
>> Isn't this generally discouraged from a security POV? *Is there a better
>> OAuth 2 flow for third party SPA applications?*
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jim Manico
>>
>> Manicode Security
>>
>> https://www.manicode.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.manicode.com&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=H8pXLA4TE27vW-gz5Sbr9VOUP-KZMmd-gQ-okH4ohMU&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> OAuth mailing list
>>
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_oauth&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=jAjifWdP3vqnDgWricLE62R9_d0BQReWRUitqM5S1JU&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_oauth&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=jAjifWdP3vqnDgWricLE62R9_d0BQReWRUitqM5S1JU&e=>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> Manicode Securityhttps://www.manicode.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.manicode.com&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=H8pXLA4TE27vW-gz5Sbr9VOUP-KZMmd-gQ-okH4ohMU&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>