Re: [OAUTH-WG] Quick question about error response for "response_type=unknown"

"matake@gmail" <matake@gmail.com> Tue, 21 February 2012 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <matake@gmail.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 C897321F885C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 FGz9kcfB7B7U for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E460621F8617 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so7297719dak.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of matake@gmail.com designates 10.68.129.228 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.129.228;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of matake@gmail.com designates 10.68.129.228 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=matake@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=matake@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.129.228]) by 10.68.129.228 with SMTP id nz4mr56299786pbb.91.1329837096540 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=hEvloBJtD9rs9sDdniBRquMpATV4qUwiKb725vUyemw=; b=RnjAfetrki4EtSPozylnA1J8/G03ntiXIIYs0/NjYIsyb1HqE/E+ou1OU4Q7UVedF9 G4HnQwX5qZzry8oPqFzfke+9upC83vl5aNILn5Adw7U6/seWNlYqZjdURm7yt7sgDe+s 25GO7JORFJqToca8xnXwP6zGoVA5DDeSKbBY0=
Received: by 10.68.129.228 with SMTP id nz4mr46775331pbb.91.1329837095425; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (q032020.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp. [203.181.32.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e10sm27857133pbv.0.2012.02.21.07.11.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FEC233B3-7C8B-44DF-AD6D-0427B1B24463"
From: "matake@gmail" <matake@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <923A754A-100F-4534-BEBB-7EC5E6297B9E@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:11:31 +0900
Message-Id: <5FC99886-A2D2-4AC0-93E1-4E07B803DDCD@gmail.com>
References: <58932B8B-2DDE-41D6-A91B-5036CC762C00@matake.jp> <1329757027.28055.YahooMailNeo@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4F4284DD.3030006@alcatel-lucent.com> <1329798149.78115.YahooMailNeo@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <56F7111A-B65E-459A-BB8A-ED87CDF1EB4A@gmail.com> <923A754A-100F-4534-BEBB-7EC5E6297B9E@ve7jtb.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Quick question about error response for "response_type=unknown"
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, 21 Feb 2012 15:11:50 -0000

So only when sever understand the response_type but doesn't support it, it returns "unsupported_response_type" error.
It sounds reasonable for me.

It will make some servers return "unsupported_response_type" with a redirect and some don't, though.

Thanks.

On 2012/02/21, at 23:07, John Bradley wrote:

> If the Authorization server, doesn't understand the response_type and has no other way to determine what sort of flow the client is expecting, I don't see any choice other than returning a error to the user/browser.
> 
> In the case of an unknown response_type the client could also be expecting postMessage, or making a direct connection.  You just don't know.
> 
> There may be cases that the Authorization server could infer how to reply based on the client_id, if the client perhaps doesn't have a client secret issued to it, you could guess that it is using a fragment encoded flow.
> 
> I however don't know that guessing is a good practice.   Probably best to always return an error response without a redirect.
> 
> John B.
> On 2012-02-21, at 8:34 AM, matake@gmail wrote:
> 
>> So the answer is "Show the error to the user without redirecting back to the client", right?
>> I'm now developing OAuth2 and OpenID Connect ruby library, and both of them return errors
>> 
>> case 1. redirect with error in query if response_type is "code" but it's not supported
>> case 2. redirect with error in fragment if response_type is "token code", "token id_token", "token code id_token" or "code id_token" but it's not supported
>> case 3. otherwise show error to the user without redirect since server cannot understand the response_type at all
>> 
>> But other server might not understand some of response_types listed in case 2 at all and choose case 3 in such case.
>> (ie. OAuth servers which don't understand OpenID Connect won't understand "id_token")
>> 
>> So I'm afraid that it reduces interoperability, a bit.
>> 
>> On 2012/02/21, at 13:22, William Mills wrote:
>> 
>>> I does allow some parts of your server config to be discovered.  More of a problem in error responses is usually echoing back the user data, or allowing user enumeration for example.  Care is required, but you don't have a ton of options here.
>>> 
>>> From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
>>> To: oauth@ietf.org 
>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:37 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Quick question about error response for "response_type=unknown"
>>> 
>>> Could there be a potential security hole in providing an error response?  (Not that I see it, but many problems in the past had been caused by helpful responese.)
>>> 
>>> Igor
>>> 
>>> On 2/20/2012 11:57 AM, William Mills wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Respond with an error in protocol.  Thta won't include a redirect, and the client has to know what to do.
>>>> 
>>>> From: nov matake <nov@matake.jp>
>>>> To: oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org> 
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 6:11 AM
>>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Quick question about error response for "response_type=unknown"
>>>> 
>>>> Hi OAuthers,
>>>> 
>>>> My apologies if you already discussed this.
>>>> 
>>>> When OAuth server received unknown response_type, how should the server handle the error?
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Show the error to the user without redirecting back to the client
>>>> 2. Redirect back to the client including the error in query
>>>> 3. Redirect back to the client including the error in fragment
>>>> 
>>>> Since choosing 2 or 3 is impossible in this case, 1 seems reasonable for me.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> nov
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>