Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`

Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com> Wed, 13 October 2010 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <breno.demedeiros@gmail.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 22E7F3A6A95 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, 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 44SLR874yE1v for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0E33A6A75 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so8580424iwn.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=X0I0tEEITV3/+RMvShclQRBhOVjU+OeNAU9biL7QSo8=; b=jirv1wue9PL4kq024O4iVnP6RPFVm/UwEcW7rli/lmIFZrNSk15ybBonNI+DgRnukR rsKhlbFhH6Q/ZEL/CcI6Y+juS2VzQL7lhp8beJRovIxKQ8RoNw9E5jcbOx+Y6UFtyGuE 2K1lTGvX80itSNqXwFlperV8TlbFcvUS6ExR4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=HVc7WMu7F+PPZO7R2eaQ0xXSuBBZ9KcGG3TR8sltM8KpHi+vU+w5JBdVW9dpaHHZ+J DXx0qJ1wf63dfr+wrOo8fTJOPeZjR1pCdpkuWMovJPE5qOkyfTJ/TAxLZsPQZ90MGU2v kYeG/gUn8mcshmHPLsDu1v1MDmP85vaU/+bqM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.142.198 with SMTP id t6mr1083202icu.293.1287013721565; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.154.213 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimS-iMB3Bym968imAWicpSa6D_MSdJNW+NytD_Z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikO0oqudUchUnpW0vSsXe0k6QKkJpxjFUU+b413@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FAAB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimS-iMB3Bym968imAWicpSa6D_MSdJNW+NytD_Z@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:48:41 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimY3aOcb-SWRD6woj7Zfe4Zd3v_QWb+oE-Wx4v8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
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: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:47:25 -0000

+1 for language in the spec describing how to handle this case

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com> wrote:
>> Hopefully you also invalidate the token (if bearer) since it was send over
>> an insecure channel.
>
> Excuse my naivety, but perhaps that's worth putting in the spec?
>
>>
>> EHL
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> > Of Breno
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:31 AM
>> > To: oauth@ietf.org
>> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
>> >
>> > Suppose server A documents that their endpoint X is at
>> > https://server.example.com/x; there's no service at the corresponding
>> > http
>> > location for security reasons.
>> >
>> > Client developer fatfingers URL as http://server.example.com/x
>> >
>> > What is the correct response? I understand that this is out of scope for
>> > the
>> > spec, but maybe there's agreement on some guidance?
>> >
>> > One thing one shouldn't do is serve a 302 here; it would allow defective
>> > clients to remain unpatched.
>> >
>> > My preference is to simply return a bare 403 or 404 here -- after all
>> > the
>> > endpoint does not exist (404) or if one uses the convention that
>> > resources at
>> > http/https are usually identical, then http is a non-authorized method
>> > to
>> > access the resource (403).
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Breno de Medeiros
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>



-- 
Breno de Medeiros