Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

[Jim Manico <[e-mail]>]

+1 I'm with you Aaron. I am not as well versed as other members of this
standard body in OAuth but I would be happy to help build this document
if folks with more experience would help.

- Jim


On 2/17/17 8:05 AM, Aaron Parecki wrote:
> Can you describe the aspects that make a JS client library "solid"?
> This is what I think would be useful to see written up in a document
> like the Native Apps one.
>
> It's interesting to me that so many of you have independently opted to
> use the auth code flow for Javascript apps. I think that's a sign that
> it's a better recommendation than the implicit flow for JS apps.
>
> ----
> Aaron Parecki
> aaronparecki.com <http://aaronparecki.com>
> @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Dominick Baier
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Given a solid client library for JS, I think implicit flow is OK
>     to use. 
>
>     But I agree that there are many “home grown” implementation out
>     there that are not secure - and the necessary JS code to write a
>     good client is not necessarily the “pit of success”.
>
>     You should give this lib a go (it’s also a certified RP):
>
>     https://github.com/IdentityModel/oidc-client-js
>     <https://github.com/IdentityModel/oidc-client-js>
>
>     Many people argue that handling the protocol and crypto pieces in
>     JS is problematic (and I agree if no proper lib is used for that)
>     - but at then end of the day the access token will end up in the
>     browser - and a sloppy developer (e.g. not using CSP) will always
>     write bad code that might lead to leaking a token.
>
>     -------
>     Dominick Baier
>
>     On 17 February 2017 at 18:43:25, Adam Lewis
>     ([e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:
>
>>     +1000
>>
>>     We are currently going through internal turmoil over the usage of
>>     implicit grant for ua-based apps.  The webapp case is well
>>     understood and the WG has work in progress to define best
>>     practices for native apps.  Having one for ua-based apps would be
>>     HUGELY beneficial
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Jim Manico <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Thank you to those answering my question on implicit for JS
>>         clients.
>>
>>         The responses so far seem to represent what the security
>>         world is saying  about the implicit grant - keep away from it
>>         other than for a few OIDC use cases.
>>
>>         Does anyone think it would be valuable to author a brief RFC
>>         to give clear OAuth 2 recommendations for JavaScript client
>>         developers?
>>
>>         I mean - the OAuth 2 body of work just needs a few more
>>         RFC's, right? :)
>>
>>         Aloha, Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 2/17/17 6:03 AM, [e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Same for Deutsche Telekom. Our javascript clients also use
>>>         code flow with CORS processing and of course redirect_uri
>>>         validation.
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         Best regards
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         Sebastian
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         *Von:* OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]] *Im Auftrag
>>>         von* Bill Burke
>>>         *Gesendet:* Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 00:14
>>>         *An:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         *Betreff:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         For our IDP [1], our javascript library uses the auth code
>>>         flow, but requires a public client, redirect_uri validation,
>>>         and also does CORS checks and processing.  We did not like
>>>         Implicit Flow because
>>>
>>>         1) access tokens would be in the browser history
>>>
>>>         2) short lived access tokens (seconds or minutes) would
>>>         require a browser redirect
>>>
>>>         I'd be really curious to hear other's thoughts though.
>>>
>>>         [1] http://keycloak.org
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__keycloak.org&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=YExyuyZO5YNpSvS3mEUG5pjKAjRXXVT8Xvk8hIb-Efw&e=>
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         On 2/16/17 5:44 PM, Jim Manico wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hello Folks,
>>>
>>>             I noticed that Google supports the OAuth 2 Implicit flow
>>>             for third-party JavaScript applications.
>>>
>>>             https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/OAuth2UserAgent
>>>             <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__developers.google.com_identity_protocols_OAuth2UserAgent&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=_Mig-zmCt1y9dZpCece1dqby3VmcZVOu2JPcmAwzwKU&e=>
>>>
>>>             Isn't this generally discouraged from a security POV?
>>>             *Is there a better OAuth 2 flow for third party SPA
>>>             applications?*
>>>
>>>             Aloha,
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>
>>>             Jim Manico
>>>
>>>             Manicode Security
>>>
>>>             https://www.manicode.com
>>>             <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.manicode.com&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=H8pXLA4TE27vW-gz5Sbr9VOUP-KZMmd-gQ-okH4ohMU&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>             OAuth mailing list
>>>
>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>             <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_oauth&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=jAjifWdP3vqnDgWricLE62R9_d0BQReWRUitqM5S1JU&e=>
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         OAuth mailing list
>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_oauth&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=jAjifWdP3vqnDgWricLE62R9_d0BQReWRUitqM5S1JU&e=>
>>         --  
>>         Jim Manico
>>         Manicode Security
>>         https://www.manicode.com
>>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.manicode.com&d=DwMD-g&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_A&r=hS3A5qzQnW1hxYBhPrxNW10ESeDiiiRwR8H84JHIXTI&m=IfM1P0zp986kOQNk7-NwlgfRZMq5MppK0kISXhIOF_s&s=H8pXLA4TE27vW-gz5Sbr9VOUP-KZMmd-gQ-okH4ohMU&e=>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing
>>         list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> 
>>
>>     _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing
>>     list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> 
>     _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> 
>
-- 
Jim Manico
Manicode Security
https://www.manicode.com