Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD77E21F8D0F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goR75wJS6Am2 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE2821F8CFF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from piolinux.mtcc.com (65-165-164-246.volcano.net [65.165.164.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p86IU7Ej003184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:30:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4E6666A9.5000102@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:30:01 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
References: <4E665B25.6090709@mtcc.com> <4E6661FA.7050804@alcatel-lucent.com> <CD0B1909-8298-4CC3-B273-7B26E71EAB31@hueniverse.com> <4E666512.7010701@mtcc.com> <1315333611.41270.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1315333611.41270.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4713; t=1315333809; x=1316197809; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OAUTH-WG]=20problem=20statement |Sender:=20 |To:=20William=20Mills=20<wmills@yahoo-inc.com> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20 format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=a2D5xdODsNs6BOMbTxJScnMa9rVfePBA6DAWZ4oRND0=; b=YmYne7L1GYFrXzcYc05Mw4a4+JM3612sdnyTwqNWE0fiOnaiRgHczXwMvV au7+UoMIAvG8Jm7WIJIm0quNqtSg/Vq201Bi5N6TUfXRpsiHNtpFVESy44bu 8jivPLz4ooTdPvCGjl10KUFHPnnIKKTkoRQITUd4ttxjyjXYwf0XU=;
Authentication-Results: ; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.com
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:28:24 -0000

William Mills wrote:
>  > How, exactly, is the user supposed to protect themselves against 
> rogue apps?
> 
> Don't install them.

Will they be marked with rfc 3514?

Mike

> 
> *From:* Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
> *To:* Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
> *Cc:* "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
> 
> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>  > I agree. If you are going to install a native app, you better trust 
> it not to do bad things. Grabbing your password is the least interesting 
> thing such an app can abuse. I don't see any need to change the v2 draft.
> 
> How, exactly, is the user supposed to protect themselves against rogue apps?
> It sounds like the solution is to tell them to never use oauth in an app 
> at all.
> 
> Is oauth only intended to be used on standalone trustable web browsers? 
> I don't recall
> seeing that anywhere.
> 
> Mike
> 
>  >
>  > EHL
>  >
>  > On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:10, "Igor Faynberg" 
> <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com 
> <mailto:igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  >> Mike,
>  >>
>  >> You've got the problem statement right: allowing the user to 
> authorize  resource access to another party without divulging user's 
> credentials is the objective of OAuth. You are also right in that the 
> attack you have described defies the whole purpose of OAuth.  I do not 
> think though that it is related to OAuth per se.
>  >>
>  >> To this end, the security work led by Torsten has thoroughly 
> analyzed the protocol and specified protection against multiple protocol 
> attacks.  From what you described, it appears to me that the attack you 
> mention is not related to the protocol but rather to the user's 
> environment.  There is no possible protection from key loggers that a 
> protocol can implement. I could be mistaken; in any case, it looks like 
> the problem rests with the implementation of WebView.
>  >>
>  >> If I am wrong, I would appreciate a detailed description of what 
> happened.
>  >>
>  >> Igor
>  >>
>  >> On 9/6/2011 1:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>  >>> Hi all,
>  >>>
>  >>> Barry suggested that I might subscribe and explain what I sent him.
>  >>>
>  >>> My basic problem is that in neither the protocol nor the threats 
> drafts,
>  >>> I can't seem to find what problem is actually trying to be solved with
>  >>> oauth, and what assumptions you're making about various elements.
>  >>>
>  >>> Here's what I did. I've written an app, and I wanted re-integrate the
>  >>> ability to send tweets after they deprecated Basic. So the app has a
>  >>> webView (android, iphone...) which it obviously completely controls.
>  >>> With oauth, the webview UA will ultimately redirect off to Twitter's
>  >>> site to collect the user's credentials and grant my app's backend an
>  >>> access token (sorry if I get terminology screwed up, i'm just coming
>  >>> up to speed).
>  >>>
>  >>> What occurs to me is that webview affords exactly zero protection from
>  >>> my client (ie, the app) from getting the user's twitter 
> credentials. All
>  >>> I have to do is set up a keypress handler on that webview and in a few
>  >>> minutes of hacking I have a key logger. etc.
>  >>>
>  >>> So what I can't tell is whether this is a "problem" or not, because I
>  >>> don't know what problem you're trying to solve. If the object of oauth
>  >>> isn't to keep user/server credentials out of the hands of a third 
> party,
>  >>> then what is it trying to solve? Is there an expectation that the
>  >>> UA is trusted by the user/server? What happens when that's not the 
> case?
>  >>>
>  >>> Regardless of whether I'm misunderstanding, it would sure be nice 
> to have
>  >>> both the problem and your assumptions laid out, hopefully with some 
> prominence
>  >>> so you don't get these sort of dumb questions.
>  >>>
>  >>> Mike
>  >>> _______________________________________________
>  >>> OAuth mailing list
>  >>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>  >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> OAuth mailing list
>  >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>  >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > OAuth mailing list
>  > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
>