Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 09/07/2011 10:49 AM, John Kemp wrote:
> Mike,
>
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>    
>> On 09/07/2011 10:17 AM, Igor Faynberg wrote:
>>      
>>> +300 (if I can do that) to indicate my strong agreement.  But if somehow it is decided to add a few sentences on saying that OAuth cannot deal with key-logging, I will insist on adding two sentences each on OAuth being unable to deal with 1) earthquakes, 2) certain contageous diseases, etc., [...]
>>>        
>> Please, enough of the hyperbole. It is not clear or obvious whether this is
>> a protocol issue or not. It brings into question whether the protocol is worth
>> deploying at all, and that is surely an issue. As far as I can tell, there is very
>> little upside to deploying OAuth in the general case over, say, Basic+TLS. In
>> fact, you guys have convinced me that OAuth gives inferior protection at
>> considerable expense for all concerned.
>>      
> I'm sorry that you haven't received an easy introduction to the OAuth WG. But that's no reason to spout nonsense. OAuth seeks to replace something that was once rather common - the need for a user to type (and/or store) his password for site A at site B, to let site B get their content from site A. Now, site B gets a token in the common case, rather than the user's password for site A. This doesn't remove the need for a user to exercise common sense in deciding where to type her password. But it does, in the common case, mitigate the password being shared among websites, or across networks multiple times.
>
> You are right that OAuth doesn't mitigate key logging or other similar attacks on the client OS/platform itself. But that doesn't make it inferior to other methods of web authorization.
>
>    

It's not nonsense:

1) App prompts me for my credentials to Facebook -- I wonder whether
     I trust the app.
2) App puts me in a Facebook login window -- I figure that it's secure and
     don't wonder whether I trust the app.

#2 sure looks worse than #1.

Mike