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

Mike Malone <> Mon, 30 November 2009 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6383A699C for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:44:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Spmzz0YaE8R for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB303A6998 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so216272qyk.31 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:44:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZLfmY+oY9SDutkSzUrr4PMWJh/ot5I6HFN9VJMDVS2k=; b=bYcxfPyrEpRzVlrip6FoksEiNvv+BFV0iTvvsrEqWeGOXUgSZxZg7gHKx2sIbRgSAP 6/UGkQ0DgSJlzL7QQSNSVzuV9w59fBUNn6AzvQjydmPkOV+2y+i/6To1SSJqwJzH+r3T aFJR1vcKjFRTnouYS6SbsU7n24XBqgThyBW8w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=fJx4eKPNTebYl8vS/OxqShoKS00cWz3+df1egWZ0ULeSyi86cS8UJbnqtWc9dUMkZe m9+6j+6EhE30zsg79lVvAyEYKbi3YCGwhEuKD/+Zoz14ocygQGYrkfJMfU5gbS+HA8Hc wSIc4x6y+jIApMopS3Vg8Db/+AA674eBjn67E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id 11mr637211qcf.2.1259610241979; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:44:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:44:01 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Mike Malone <>
To: Brent Goldman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Naitik Shah <>, Luke Shepard <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Facebook, OAuth, and WRAP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:44:13 -0000

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Brent Goldman <> 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.


> 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.