Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
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 E7A503A6AA5 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 eljfd+1xLPlw for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 45C793A6A6B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28761 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2010 01:33:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 14 Oct 2010 01:33:54 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:33:53 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com>, Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:33:39 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
Thread-Index: ActrMSsdNhceKTtrRBG1WbXQp3Q1QAADqFmA
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FADC@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTikO0oqudUchUnpW0vSsXe0k6QKkJpxjFUU+b413@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FAAB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimS-iMB3Bym968imAWicpSa6D_MSdJNW+NytD_Z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimY3aOcb-SWRD6woj7Zfe4Zd3v_QWb+oE-Wx4v8@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimY3aOcb-SWRD6woj7Zfe4Zd3v_QWb+oE-Wx4v8@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
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, 14 Oct 2010 01:33:38 -0000

Write it, and I'll get it incorporated.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Breno [mailto:breno.demedeiros@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:49 PM
> To: Jeff Lindsay
> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
> 
> +1 for language in the spec describing how to handle this case
> 
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Jeff Lindsay <progrium@twilio.com> wrote:
> >> Hopefully you also invalidate the token (if bearer) since it was send
> >> over an insecure channel.
> >
> > Excuse my naivety, but perhaps that's worth putting in the spec?
> >
> >>
> >> EHL
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> > Behalf Of Breno
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:31 AM
> >> > To: oauth@ietf.org
> >> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
> >> >
> >> > Suppose server A documents that their endpoint X is at
> >> > https://server.example.com/x; there's no service at the
> >> > corresponding http location for security reasons.
> >> >
> >> > Client developer fatfingers URL as http://server.example.com/x
> >> >
> >> > What is the correct response? I understand that this is out of
> >> > scope for the spec, but maybe there's agreement on some guidance?
> >> >
> >> > One thing one shouldn't do is serve a 302 here; it would allow
> >> > defective clients to remain unpatched.
> >> >
> >> > My preference is to simply return a bare 403 or 404 here -- after
> >> > all the endpoint does not exist (404) or if one uses the convention
> >> > that resources at http/https are usually identical, then http is a
> >> > non-authorized method to access the resource (403).
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Breno de Medeiros
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > OAuth mailing list
> >> > OAuth@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> OAuth@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Breno de Medeiros