Re: [OAUTH-WG] The response from the Google authorization endpoint

Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com> Fri, 06 November 2020 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir@connect2id.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912D03A0B8A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:40:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.143
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6fI2T8EFgdy5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA963A0B86 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] ([95.43.118.112]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id b7askIyac5Lb5b7aukeSX7; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:40:21 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=LcD5VhTi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=5fa5a6a5 a=cEjntNAGV8NWJ0nI97Ft9A==:117 a=cEjntNAGV8NWJ0nI97Ft9A==:17 a=q0rX5H01Qin5IyBaTmIA:9 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=__SxRlIrAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=3g80flMcAAAA:8 a=VFy3eAyCrIdP2oCrexYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=gUXmQ8eWAGYA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=n-2D4-zkyGu7lSdpoK0A:9 a=3L8A9djZ4PH1a049:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=D8lnhvtxf0AONpHuB7QA:9 a=ZVk8-NSrHBgA:10 a=30ssDGKg3p0A:10 a=H5r4HjhRfVyZ-DhAOYba:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: vladimir@connect2id.com
To: Alex Kalp <alexkalps@gmail.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
References: <CA+YokQ0uT3FuJE155tNtp1OHz80wPu+e39wiJNWnx_g5jZFGZA@mail.gmail.com> <188bcca0-e2d9-2f8d-89a5-cdf653849ce9@connect2id.com> <CA+YokQ0GFdM431JM1SWor=zt1POw1PSLH_o7y2_99LJ1x18JFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>
Autocrypt: addr=vladimir@connect2id.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFQZaoEBCACnP2YMDex9fnf+niLglTHGKuoypUSVKPQeKDHHeFQVzhRke+HBEZBwmA9T kZ+kEhyrNqibDPkPYVPmo23tM8mbNcTVQqpmN7NwgMpqkqcAqNsIyBtt09DjWOQVm57A3K+y uXI7SdNErdt79p2xQseOhqSC9+LgWuyh+mZsl2oFD4glFFfKSCMp2jATXrAMeGzigTnW+Xe0 tRzrwFN9zqykKxhUq9oHg1cNvoDtfxgsc9ysVHbxM/PM8o9lgj3YTQwKMBcCFclTqohji7ML fQ08eQo+acKTwC1WRzeLt9PknGt3C4TmvdCl0c1BQTTTNiF96Hu4kbaiBIbsfxJOR8+VABEB AAG0LFZsYWRpbWlyIER6aHV2aW5vdiA8dmxhZGltaXJAY29ubmVjdDJpZC5jb20+iQE+BBMB AgAoBQJUGWqBAhsjBQkJZgGABgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRAZ0vUyOqri Ql62B/wOO0s2JC/QvO6w9iSsRhCOa/JZi+wO+l01V7eGCQ1cYf1W26Y7iKiUlY4/Kz+cr69D pMtkv3UpDTGejKEfspLUxz5Vo3T4oAKbTtNtVIZL/XxH3/JhJ719Jj4eLoe9/djKkGYTX2O5 bMk8TpO1DDjbIw4r9XKI9ZIk96zlKnZvrg7Ho7oOl0ZIf8AzcvdqZEUogDwyr8uwOU+jIyux mOTthepBzXCNjjBjnc8I1//9YppAIaGJ5nnXelVVD1/dyOszogervzFNANEIOvNvCd9G5u4e s7qkDKWKY7/Lj1tF+tMrDTrOh6JqUKbGNeTUB8DlPvIoNyqHUYfBELdpw1Nd
Organization: Connect2id Ltd.
Message-ID: <e898c544-4a37-6cca-8818-4f5c01df33ab@connect2id.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 21:40:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+YokQ0GFdM431JM1SWor=zt1POw1PSLH_o7y2_99LJ1x18JFg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070204040200040704050709"
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfM4WZip0lnfTFQtezC+v2r8TDf9OVtTTHdmhMqgb9BZsLx5htArN7HQlTMxSLD6NgM0W0oZPJPq8z/ocrCYicXv1a0ulNkU0zsSu25g6+OoSQSG58HR3 I/oU90ZQyJ4n22NKAu18MZuqhm2Rat9e6ro2R80nvpP61znVAANCVrz9tvhBTp9dl0rk/OEytpG3gDRSFV1qzrKMMiieZMyJRe48tcJXwO9L1U1GQUgexygC
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/fLMeMwu05ec8MJKYt1p3y2KAP4k>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] The response from the Google authorization endpoint
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 19:40:24 -0000

I suspect those params are to signal the client if the user was
(re)authenticated, prompted for consent and the consented scope. But
being non-std and non-documented params it would be best to ignore them.

Vladimir

On 05/11/2020 15:47, Alex Kalp wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Thanks for the reply. Would be great if you can share your insights on
> how those parameters are being used.
>
> I could not find any public docs explaining their usage, so thought
> they probably are being used by the Google applications by themselves.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:00 PM Vladimir Dzhuvinov
> <vladimir@connect2id.com <mailto:vladimir@connect2id.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Alex,
>
>     OAuth 2.0 doesn't forbid other params to be present in the
>     response. If you find such - ignore them.
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.1.2
>
>>     The client MUST ignore unrecognized response parameters.
>     I have a theory why those 3 extra params (scope, authuser, prompt)
>     are there, but I don't think it would matter in your case.
>
>     Vladimir
>
>     On 05/11/2020 02:23, Alex Kalp wrote:
>>     Hi All,
>>
>>     While trying out the OAuth 2.0 authorization code grant type with
>>     Google, I got the following response to my registered redirect_uri.
>>
>>     https://localhost:9000/app_uri?*state*=caf324471khs872&%20*code*=4/5wFzvDar86R-AJWCIE&%20*scope*=profile%20openid%20https://www.googleapis.com/auth/userinfo.profile&%20*authuser*=0&%20*prompt*=consent
>>
>>     As per the RFC6749 section 4.1.2, the authorization response from
>>     the authorization endpoint only includes code and state.
>>
>>     Appreciate if you can share any insights on why Google adds
>>     scope, authuser and prompt parameters to the response, which are
>>     not in the OAuth 2.0 RFC - and do we consider those additional
>>     parameters as a violation of the RFC6749?
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>     -Alex
>>