Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OAuth 2.0 requests?
"Freeman, Tim" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 28 September 2010 00:40 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9415F3A6A45 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.208, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([188.8.131.52]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lVi1gzXZycAh for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com (g1t0028.austin.hp.com [184.108.40.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6B03A6BF6 for <email@example.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (g3w0630.americas.hpqcorp.net [220.127.116.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g1t0028.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD19F1C5D9; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:41:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from G3W0058.americas.hpqcorp.net (18.104.22.168) by G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (22.214.171.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 126.96.36.199; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:39:20 +0000
Received: from GVW0432EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net ([188.8.131.52]) by G3W0058.americas.hpqcorp.net ([184.108.40.206]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:39:21 +0000
From: "Freeman, Tim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <email@example.com>, Yaron Goland <firstname.lastname@example.org>, OAuth WG <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:39:19 +0000
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OAuth 2.0 requests?
References: <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C635347FF@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C8C2B015.3AD3Ffirstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_59DD1BA8FD3C0F4C90771C18F2B5B53A653936252DGVW0432EXBame_"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OAuth 2.0 requests?
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:40:50 -0000
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav >* If HTTPS is to remain optional for protected resource requests, a signature-based alternative is required. I agree. If we're going to have signatures for this reason, we should have at least one use case on Zeltsan's use case list (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zeltsan-use-cases-oauth/) where circumstances rule out https. The non-https and non-signature alternative that's in the present draft of the spec should go away. (I had to look a little while to find that alternative. It's mentioned at "the authorization server SHOULD [as opposed to MUST] require the use of a transport-layer security mechanism such as TLS when sending requests to the end-user authorization endpoint" at page 15 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-10, perhaps in addition to other places.) >Discovery as well as future use cases for OAuth will create the need for clients to authenticate using tokens against >servers that are not hard-coded into the application. When this happens, bearer tokens are simply too dangerous. >Any solution that is based on sending secrets in the clear (that is, whoever receives them on the other side can use >them, legally or not) is going to cause secrets to leak. You're probably better off converting those future use cases (including discovery) into present use cases, that is, making them specific and putting them on the use case list. Otherwise your guesses about what will be requested in the future are not being made explicit and there's no way to review whether a proposed interaction is good enough to support the guessed future use cases, whether or not the proposal uses signatures. Furthermore, if the guesses about future use cases aren't made explicit, there's no way to get agreement on whether those guesses are reasonable. >I don't need to lay out the exact exploit, only to point to the past 20 years and show that every single password-based solution has been proven broken, even when used over secure channels. I think it's better to describe the exploit. That would make it possible to verify that a proposed scheme with signatures avoids the exploit. Furthermore, the present version of the spec describes bearer tokens, so unless you're planning to eliminate that as a possibility, users of bearer tokens need to know about the exploit. Exploits are use cases. (In general, the exploit you're talking about is where the access token is disclosed but the private key that would be used for the signatures is not disclosed, right? So maybe the former are in a database and the latter is in a file, and the database password is guessable and the network is misconfigured so random people can read the database.) I agree that passwords are a chronic problem, but the examples that come to mind have happened when people were creating low-entropy passwords or typing them in while being spied upon, which is not what we're talking about here. Do you have a specific paper in mind with evidence for "every single password-based solution [used in the last 20 years] has been proven broken, even when used over secure channels"? Can you recall instances of this happening with secure channels and high-entropy passwords that humans never type? The alternatives with asymmetric cryptography aren't perfect either -- SSH was once generating weak key pairs (http://nic.phys.ethz.ch/news/1210776776/index_html), and some RSA implementations were insecure when the exponent was too low (http://www.links.org/?p=136), and then as you know there was the OAuth session fixation attack (http://hueniverse.com/2009/04/explaining-the-oauth-session-fixation-attack/). It's hard to get fresh cryptographic protocols correct. Bearer tokens can conceivably be stolen, but https has been in use since 1994. It's not obvious to me which path is safer. Decreasing the number of alternatives increases the security of the remaining alternatives because they'll be checked more carefully, so keeping all conceivable alternatives isn't the solution either. (IMO the present spec has already gone too far in the direction of keeping all conceivable alternatives.) Do you want to support delegation of work? That is, the user logs into server A, uses OAuth to give A the right to access server B on the user's behalf, and then server A delegates to server C the work of accessing server B? That appears to need A to have portable credentials it can give to C for this specific authority. If A has a private key that it has to use in conjunction with the credentials it has, then it can't delegate work to C unless it gives C its private key, which is too much power for C. Tim Freeman Email: email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Desk in Palo Alto: (650) 857-2581 Home: (408) 774-1298 Cell: (408) 348-7536 From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:44 PM To: Yaron Goland; OAuth WG Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OAuth 2.0 requests? These are my two: 1. Remove the need to rely solely on HTTPS There are plenty of cases where people can't or don't want to use HTTPS. Clearly, the web is not all HTTPS and OAuth should be useful on the entire web. We are not going to settle the long debate over the cost or speed of using HTTPS. It doesn't matter. There are enough people who are set in their mind about it and we need to offer an alternative. >From an implementation perspective, HTTP client implementations are notoriously broken. Not the library code, but the way developers use it. For example, most developer ignore exceptions about invalid or expired certificates. This is why the major browsers had to change their UI to make it really hard for users to accept bad certificated (which people still do). We keep forgetting that while HTTPS is properly executed in most browsers, it is not the case in most client applications. I would like to see a detailed section in the specification detailing everything a developer has to check to actually ensure their HTTPS connection is secure and to the right destination. It is nice to put the burden on HTTPS and point people there, but if we know they are going to do stupid things (like they have done before), we have the responsibility to write a defensive protocol that prevents exploits when developers make predictable mistakes. Another aspect of HTTPS is that in most cases, it terminates at the entry point to the server deployment which exposes the tokens internally to anyone with access, beyond the final applications. *** If HTTPS is to remain optional for protected resource requests, a signature-based alternative is required. 2. Ensure that tokens are not open to phishing attacks Discovery as well as future use cases for OAuth will create the need for clients to authenticate using tokens against servers that are not hard-coded into the application. When this happens, bearer tokens are simply too dangerous. Any solution that is based on sending secrets in the clear (that is, whoever receives them on the other side can use them, legally or not) is going to cause secrets to leak. I don't need to lay out the exact exploit, only to point to the past 20 years and show that every single password-based solution has been proven broken, even when used over secure channels. It is sad that some of the people who criticized WRAP for this exact reason are not taking part of this discussion and gave up (some due to lack of time or interest, others due to being told to STFU by their employer). It is true that there are methods for using bearer tokens with discovery, but those I have seen all require the client to basically ask the server after each new resource they encounter if it is ok to send the token there. This is very inefficient, when a signature solves that (as offered successfully by OpenID). The other solution is to tell the client using some form of policy where it is ok to send tokens (as is done with cookies), and that's clearly an approach guaranteed to fail. EHL On 9/24/10 2:18 PM, "Yaron Goland" <email@example.com> wrote: My understanding of Eran's article (http://hueniverse.com/2010/09/oauth-2-0-without-signatures-is-bad-for-the-web/) is that Eran believes that bearer tokens are not good enough as a security mechanism because they allow for replay attacks in discovery style scenarios. He then, if I understood the article correctly, argues that the solution to the replay attack is to sign OAuth 2.0 requests. In http://www.goland.org/bearer-tokens-discovery-and-oauth-2-0/ I tried to demonstrate that in fact one can easily prevent replay attacks in discovery scenarios using OAuth 2.0 and bearer tokens. If the article is correct then it is not a requirement to introduce message signing into OAuth 2.0 in order to prevent the attacks that Eran identified. So this leaves me wondering, what's the critical scenario that can't be met unless we use sign OAuth 2.0 requests? Thanks, Yaron
- [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OAuth … Yaron Goland
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OA… PRATEEK MISHRA
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OA… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OA… Freeman, Tim
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OA… Yaron Goland
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] What's the use case for signing OA… Yaron Goland