IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] why are we signing?

<BeckW@telekom.de> Thu, 12 November 2009 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <BeckW@telekom.de>
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 235853A6929 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:49:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 2u2Lx0VmRyjo for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7F33A67A6 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2009 02:49:57 +0100
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.14]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:49:56 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:49:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4A956CE47D1066408D5C7EB34368A5110551FFC1@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <daf5b9570911092158k682aff63l959c423c399b2277@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] why are we signing?
Thread-Index: AcphytkKO9GTkYlISUa3LP0WhfcPVwBbmYMA
References: <daf5b9570911082102u215dcf22gf0aeb2f3578e5ea0@mail.gmail.com><35D50F5C-3982-4298-A9E0-86A528F5C5D3@jkemp.net> <daf5b9570911092158k682aff63l959c423c399b2277@mail.gmail.com>
From: BeckW@telekom.de
To: beaton@google.com, john@jkemp.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2009 01:49:56.0776 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FC2A280:01CA633A]
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] why are we signing?
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, 12 Nov 2009 01:49:34 -0000

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 6:28 AM, John Kemp <john@jkemp.net> wrote:
> If we are only interested in i) [authenticating the entity] then
signing any piece of the message might
> be sufficient. If we are interested in ii) [binding the signature to
the message] (or some other security property)
> then we will need to identify which pieces of the message we want to
provide
> that, or other, security properties for.

> Brian Eaton wrote:
> OK, let me try to summarize what I've heard on this thread about the
> different use-cases for message signing:
> 
> - sign the HTTP request
>   Used to prevent MITM from replaying token to a different URL.  Also
> limits the replay attack window to minutes instead of hours.
> 
> - sign various other parts of the message
>   DKIM: signs various message headers
>   SIP: unspecified, just says "relevant parts of SIP request"
Hannes Tschofenig suggested handle SIP messages the way described in RfC
4474 (SIP identity). It lists the parts of a SIP messsage that need to
be protected.

Wolfgang

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email