Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 D176F21F8CF9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7BHq8-VDks3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96DC21F8C9B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p87I952q014733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:09:05 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p87I94eX011709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:09:04 -0500
Received: from [135.222.134.166] (USMUYN0L055118.mh.lucent.com [135.222.134.166]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p87I947V016142; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:09:04 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E67B340.3020508@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:09:04 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <4E665B25.6090709@mtcc.com> <F4839FCD-CA73-4450-AD12-E07D46BB7746@hueniverse.com> <4E6667D1.3080404@mtcc.com> <1315334677.26387.YahooMailNeo@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E666B65.30701@mtcc.com> <29815937-0FB9-463B-B6E4-8FCAF7B3CD8C@hueniverse.com> <4E666E73.3050502@mtcc.com> <CAMrm-MJHKTxaj1iEm_Lr=X92sOiWZcYN4F6dNqb5w5gh4OPndQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E6671FA.3090503@gmail.com> <4E667469.2040007@mtcc.com> <1315337809.3136.38.camel@ground> <4E667953.9020906@mtcc.com> <71A460EE-1E2C-4165-99A8-5A97D6E9365C@jkemp.net> <4E667E2E.7090304@mtcc.com> <80A88920-A1EF-4A1C-A97E-F99379923CFB@jkemp.net> <4E66845E.7090906@mtcc.com> <E3DEC4C8-6BB0-44EE-821A-7589F5DC6462@jkemp.net> <4E669D3C.5000900@gmail.com> <4E66B964.2060808@stpeter.im> <4E66BFF0.9020008@gmail.com> <4E66C407.9090209@stpeter.im> <4E66C521.5070804@mtcc.com> <1315358847.25169.YahooMailNeo@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E66CF9A.8000905@mtcc.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1128DF46CA4@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1128DF46CA4@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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: <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, 07 Sep 2011 18:07:17 -0000

Good eye!  Seeing this now, I agree, but I admit I never fully 
understood what "embedded uses-agents" were before.

Igor

On 9/6/2011 11:52 PM, Manger, James H wrote:
> A strange aspects of this thread is that the current draft already talks about exactly this issue:
>
> draft-ietf-oauth-v2-21 section 9 "Native Applications"
>
>    "...Native applications can invoke an external user-agent or
>    embed a user-agent within the application
>    ...
>    Embedded user-agents pose a security challenge because resource
>    owners are authenticating in an unidentified window without access
>    to the visual protections found in most external user-agents.
>    Embedded user-agents educate end-user to trust unidentified
>    requests for authentication (making phishing attacks easier to
>    execute)."
>
> The webView that Michael Thomas talks about is an "embedded user-agent".
>
> --
> James Manger
>
>
> ----------
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
>
> ...
> At this point, it would be just nice for the industry to know that the issue
> even *exists*.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth