Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens security enhancement

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Sun, 09 May 2010 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F363A6A9F for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id noXjRUVL4Dym for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 30E9E3A6A9E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11499 invoked from network); 9 May 2010 21:59:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 9 May 2010 21:59:10 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:59:10 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 14:59:10 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens security enhancement
Thread-Index: AcrvwoO4wAdU/ja1RbSitzIR5hs85wAAEptw
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3AB46E23@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <C8044E24.2DAD6%atom@yahoo-inc.com> <4BE06831.60105@lodderstedt.net> <AANLkTinfr0-DlgB5rTZYnBhslolxfniVGvhoPY_N6y4Y@mail.gmail.com> <4BE1C6D0.6010600@lodderstedt.net> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3AB46E0F@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <4BE72F91.9090705@lodderstedt.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BE72F91.9090705@lodderstedt.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "OAuth WG \(oauth@ietf.org\)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens security enhancement
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 09 May 2010 21:59:23 -0000

The text is in -04. -02 made the refresh token available in token refresh.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 2:57 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens security enhancement
> 
> Hi Eran,
> 
> I cannot find this text in -02 or -03. Would you please refer my to the
> respective page/section?
> 
> regads,
> Torsten.
> 
> Am 09.05.2010 19:56, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav:
> > Draft -02 made this possible already.
> >
> > I added the following text:
> >
> >          The authorization server MAY issue a new refresh token in which case
> the client MUST NOT
> >          use the previous refresh token and replace it with the newly issued
> refresh token.
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Torsten Lodderstedt
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 12:28 PM
> >> To: Marius Scurtescu
> >> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens security enhancement
> >>
> >> Am 04.05.2010 21:44, schrieb Marius Scurtescu:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
> >>> <torsten@lodderstedt.net>   wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Am 03.05.2010 18:55, schrieb Allen Tom:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Invalidating the Refresh Token (and presumably also invalidating
> >>>>> any outstanding Access Tokens) would make sense as an option for
> >>>>> applications that require a high level of security. However, I do
> >>>>> not think that invalidating the Refresh Token on every Refresh
> >>>>> request should be required in the spec - it should be an
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>>
> >> specific detail.
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> It could be an optional feature of the spec (as many other features).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Torsten, can you please have a look a the "explicit request for
> >>> refresh token" thread?
> >>>
> >>> Would a "refresh_token_type=single" parameter solve the above?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Marius
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hi Marius,
> >>
> >> I expected the authorization server to decide which kind of token to use.
> >> Your proposal makes sense as well.
> >> So the client can act according to its security requirements. If the
> >> authorization server would like to enforce its own policy, it can
> >> detect any mismatch during token issuance.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, support for the optional "refresh_token" response
> >> parameter of the "refresh" request is the prerequisite.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Torsten.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>