IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] State Leakage Attack

Daniel Fett <fett@uni-trier.de> Mon, 25 April 2016 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=916d5348b=fett@uni-trier.de>
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 0DC1E12D5D2 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GcOqhbgNSHmI for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.uni-trier.de (mx2.uni-trier.de [136.199.224.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E6DE12D5D0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,532,1454972400"; d="scan'208";a="18819360"
Received: from rzmail.uni-trier.de ([136.199.8.220]) by mx2i.uni-trier.de with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2016 15:15:32 +0200
Received: from [136.199.52.39] (infsec39.uni-trier.de [136.199.52.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rzmail.uni-trier.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B133A4028D; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:15:32 +0200 (CEST)
To: Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
References: <571A3339.706@uni-trier.de> <13C0AA5B-FF2C-4BC7-9406-58F3063EA085@ve7jtb.com> <571E1541.2030904@uni-trier.de> <1204C592-E4C2-454D-A1C2-0CE30C634795@adobe.com>
From: Daniel Fett <fett@uni-trier.de>
Message-ID: <571E1874.9030706@uni-trier.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:15:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1204C592-E4C2-454D-A1C2-0CE30C634795@adobe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Xs3Nc-0YDN12IPUqdiJuFuWSlC8>
Cc: Guido Schmitz <gschmitz@informatik.uni-trier.de>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, Ralf Kuesters <kuesters@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] State Leakage Attack
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 25 Apr 2016 13:15:38 -0000

Am 25.04.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Antonio Sanso:
>>> Checking referrer is a weak protection at best, as that is easily faked in many circumstances.
>>
>> Note that we do not propose checking the referrer as a mitigation; we
>> propose using the referrer policy (at the client) to suppress the
>> referrer (just as in the open redirector draft where it is used at the
>> AS). So the recommendation here is to use the referrer policy also at
>> the client.
> 
> and just as a corollary Internet Explorer doesn’t seem to support the referrer policy. Maybe Edge…

Edge does, yes :)

(And this is why having the referrer policy in place is just one part of
our mitigation.)


-- 
Informationssicherheit und Kryptografie
Universität Trier - Tel. 0651 201 2847 - H436

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status