IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Thu, 10 June 2010 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 02DAB28C15E for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.640, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 6eTMqbeA2Fpj for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D312C28C15D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o5AHrWZK007666 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:32 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1276192412; bh=tfGkPth6SExZzTbjEKLgmJ8VTnc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=AQCt1Gtu352wySxLzHtSCsa4xLIiryZ7kdqkr9UOiT2aPmV43EMfdwIUexfSh5GsT GrGAgRzQp3PehNOfwiW4w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hc93UCK/DXFdrITkUHEu+CwwPH+LpN9cY7jPfctUW9vUV7xwCqpYPTReZX2jMbyt6 oSYDzfgKHCNOPTMp8dodA==
Received: from pxi8 (pxi8.prod.google.com [10.243.27.8]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o5AHrVHw031575 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:31 -0700
Received: by pxi8 with SMTP id 8so94440pxi.33 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.88.13 with SMTP id q13mr348373rvl.272.1276192410623; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.124.13 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF7328@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTilcANtf9WsFh4jJPUBkbCu5x2doTMQEr4_h_Rys@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF729E@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimz_V33JnJWsh_jgKoeGgAj1bhYhfge6-C86rJ2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin5h1gtVt3CJUjaUB56w2Ku3nJODyfo91dF9J7b@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF7328@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:53:10 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkHm9golV6SbGVj-AJOf1w_At9YWXODcP_Bbym@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:53:33 -0000

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> But in that case, all the other oauth_* parameters are missing. It's trivial.

An OAuth 1 filter will interpret this as broken OAuth 1 authentication.

Marius

>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurtescu@google.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:39 AM
>> To: Paul Lindner
>> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
>>
>> I run into the same issue. In section "4.2. URI Query Parameter", it would
>> help if the parameter name, oauth_token, was different from OAuth 1.
>>
>> Marius
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Paul Lindner <lindner@inuus.com> wrote:
>> > I am talking about the resource server. Specifically I want to be able
>> > to quickly determine if an incoming request is 1.0a vs 2.0.  And since
>> > this is a library it can't make a lot of assumptions about the
>> > specific environment it's running in.
>> > At first I thought I would check the oauth_version parameter.  It
>> > turns out the 1.0a spec says that it is optional.  The only one that
>> > is required for 1.0a is oauth_signature_method.
>> > Sadly we're long past time to change the spec to optimize for this use-case.
>> >  (It would have been better to have a parameter for oauth 2.0 that is
>> > distinct from 1.0a)  At the very least this message will live on in
>> > the mailing list archives -- at best we document the proper way to
>> > distinguish between the two versions somewhere.
>> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> > <eran@hueniverse.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The request is very different on the resource server. On the
>> >> authorization server, why would you use the same endpoint?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> EHL
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> >> Behalf Of Paul Lindner
>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:24 AM
>> >> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
>> >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As I've been working through our oauth2 implementation I've noticed
>> >> that it's not easy to disambiguate OAuth 1.0a vs 2.0 API calls based
>> >> on the request parameters alone.   Based on some investigative at the
>> >> Shindig project it appears that the only standard way to to determine
>> >> 1.0a vs 2.0 is by checking for the oauth_signature_method
>> parameter.  More info here:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1361
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone else considered this use case?  How did you solve it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >
>> >
>

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