Re: [OAUTH-WG] Facebook, OAuth, and WRAP

[Mike Malone <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Brent Goldman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> This is a really interesting idea that I think makes a lot of sense. I don't
> see why the various WRAP profiles couldn't work almost identically in OAuth
> 2.0, with the main differences being that OAuth 2.0 would have an extra step
> to exchange a secret (or perhaps even reuse a step if it makes sense, and
> then API calls would have a signature instead of being called over SSL.

Yes.

> Good point about the tokens. One of us should make a list of all the terms
> in each spec, and then set up a mapping between the sets, to see if the
> number of concepts is really all that different.

My informal list (from a cursory read of the spec):
  OAuth / WRAP
  Consumer / Client
  Request Token / Refresh Token
  Access Token / Access Token
  Consumer Token / Client identifier & secret
  OAuth Verifier / Verification Code

There are probably others that I'm missing.

> Why does the lack of signatures mean we can't use GET params? We can still
> trust everything because it's happening over SSL.

I guess technically GET params are secure with HTTPS, it just _feels_
kinda dirty since the URL (including params) is often bandied about
without a lot of thought. It may show up in logs, web server
scoreboards (Twitter's recent Apache scoreboard snafu comes to mind),
error messages, etc. Since a request doesn't have a nonce or timestamp
they can be replayed until the access token expires. Then again, maybe
I'm just being paranoid / playing devil's advocate here.

Mike