IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Split the authorization endpoint into two endpoints

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Sat, 17 April 2010 02:57 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 08DCA3A69EF for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 sIwpCU2JUG-B for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BDDF93A6919 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24399 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2010 02:57:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 17 Apr 2010 02:57:48 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:57:48 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: James Manger <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>, John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:57:44 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Split the authorization endpoint into two endpoints
Thread-Index: AcrdCitsLp+WWglvQMKPMWBhihZtKQAezmZQABLw0xAAAiYJ4A==
Message-ID: <C7EE71B8.32459%eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11257592315@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7EE71B832459eranhueniversecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Split the authorization endpoint into two endpoints
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: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:57:58 -0000

This has nothing to do with it. There is no PUT and DELETE or POST with non-form body when *requesting a token*.

We need to do a better job not to confuse accessing protected resources with the flow calls. They are completely different.

EHL


On 4/16/10 7:02 PM, "James Manger" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:

>> In either case, we should not restrict the access token URL to POST-only.
>> A GET request is just as secure and can be much easier to write code for

> If you are using GET, then refresh tokens and client secrets will end
> up side by side in web server log files.

These are exactly the sort of reasons why client authentication should be any "normal" auth scheme, and not an OAuth-special client_secret POST parameter. That fails for PUT, DELETE, and POST with a non-form body; and the security changes with GET.

--
James Manger

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email