Re: [OAUTH-WG] Cookies & headers in OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice?

[Giuseppe De Marco <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

everytime I have implemented SAML2, OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect, for
different projects and orgs, I have included secured web cookie in
the recipe.
For the implementation profile of OpenID4VP I did the same, where the
secured and httponly cookie is used an in particular as a basic security
requirement for the cross device flow [1].

Even if I got perfectly Daniel's and Aaron's editorial strategy and I
agree, I think that Dick's proposal and your confirmation on that, Neil, is
something to take into account to bring developers awareness during the
implementation phases.
A ref to living OWASP specs surrounded by a generic refs to the user agent
security, even if out of scope, I think that should be in the specs.

[1]
https://italia.github.io/eudi-wallet-it-docs/versione-corrente/en/relying-party-solution.html#remote-protocol-flow

Il giorno lun 6 nov 2023 alle ore 15:11 Neil Madden <[e-mail]>
ha scritto:

> Although I think we could add some basic advice, the list of security
> headers to use is still evolving. For example, there were several headers
> added after Spectre to limit cross-site interactions. And then there’s
> things like the “X-XSS-Protection” header, which was best practice to add
> to responses not too long ago but has now been universally removed from
> browsers as it enabled certain content disclosure attacks.
>
> Cookie security attributes are perhaps a bit more stable, but in general
> we probably just want to point people at “living” guidance like OWASP.
>
> — Neil
>
> On 5 Nov 2023, at 19:28, Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The cookie and header recommendations I am thinking of would be for the AS
> as well as the client.
>
> A number of XSS attacks can be thwarted by a modern browser and the right
> HTTP headers.
>
> My question is: Did the authors consider adding cookie and header
> recommendations, and decided it was too general?
>
> Cookie and header best security practices have been around for years --
> I'm not suggesting we make anything up -- I'm suggesting we raise
> awareness.
>
> I consider myself to be fairly security aware, and I was not aware of some
> of the HTTP headers that are best security practice.
>
> /Dick
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 11:19 AM Aaron Parecki <aaron=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's necessary to say "do the right things with cookies" in
>> the Security BCP. The Browser Apps BCP has a much deeper discussion of how
>> different browser-based architectures work with cookies so that seems like
>> a better place to actually have a real discussion about it.
>>
>> Also +1 to what Daniel said about not continuing to add little things.
>> Plus I think it's too late anyway, publication has already been requested
>> for the Security BCP.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 11:14 AM Daniel Fett <fett=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Aaron!
>>>
>>> Also we should be very careful about any additions to the Security BCP
>>> at this point. It is very easy to re-start the "one more thing" loop we've
>>> been stuck in for the last years. There may be more useful things to say,
>>> but we should put them on the list for a future second version of the BCP.
>>>
>>> -Daniel
>>> Am 05.11.23 um 20:03 schrieb Aaron Parecki:
>>>
>>> I don't think the Security BCP should incorporate cookie best practices
>>> directly in the document. If anything, it sounds like possibly a candidate
>>> for inclusion in the Browser Apps BCP.
>>>
>>> There are already some mentions of these cookie properties mentioned in
>>> the Browser Apps BCP, though only in reference to specific architectures,
>>> not as a general best practice. For example:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-15.html#pattern-bff-cookie-security
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 10:48 AM Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey
>>>>
>>>> I was reviewing security on some sites I managed and checked to see if
>>>> the recommendations were in the BCP.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anything around cookies such as httpOnly, sameSite, secure.
>>>>
>>>> I saw some HTTP security header suggestions buried in 4.16
>>>> (X-Frame-Options, CSP), but not for Strict-Transport-Security,
>>>> Permissions-Policy, or X-Content-Type-Options, and the CSP guidance is
>>>> rather vague.
>>>>
>>>> I understand these are general web security best practices, and perhaps
>>>> I missed it, but I think it would be useful to call out that best security
>>>> practices around cookies and headers should also be followed in Section 2,
>>>> and either have the best practices included, or direct the reader where to
>>>> find them.
>>>>
>>>> /Dick
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>