Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt

Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> Fri, 31 March 2017 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sberyozkin@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 881711270A7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zVzU7RiR3Z6r for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22c.google.com (mail-wr0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE7CD127058 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k6so92162081wre.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AMS+nLlHYtgWAOAbR4uPcwEMO/gWnHuxMLAXbcSlADU=; b=d0LSu+ZklexqdppIGIIJjKJsFeFP+vr4b0+ix9sz8HiteWGlz4YxaWQwjts5OZ3+IT 5KlBOKkyD7dXKFqaTv02i7yC4pTig11LlsQuEwP9Id+3XnzosvD3ru5wl2CrTqAAohZJ im1ySydZyRVqLBJVZDsVvj6TTS2xUckjrvgmN/NKtJNwiP5dFKjmf3NzNakycmxyu+J8 2EO9QpO5WF9nluUV4bAPlEaovSSHjrJcHw9NA1VGHsNpxZyxBXxquKPVNSzGfSObO/LI sc5nAJoMF0VRF4V1ZvCZcMT7wTI00eqBgTNmQALyfLaRofvuiE6krgi6/rUAhWlZofQK sngQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AMS+nLlHYtgWAOAbR4uPcwEMO/gWnHuxMLAXbcSlADU=; b=f7OWrwgoefpuoWW1BSEocMWyFJMJ1NadZB+T+sh4w8pl5YzRzRZwUc6QMKMyHT/w+J KE6QqjzBIjByYxkGH2uv6mDqKCeBRer2Nmm/wLFxfqiu9XYeE/Vm5DSPaRxK/mEtr5yk gL4eAdDO4Yg3loZ7jT9FTOCV/iL8hCFOBIksL58fzGhnB4axx3Z4w4tPxqMGhTP2M76q mkxEdB6IWM3pMMHq8DYyeODfXrCD9U1UkVG8cLdOqGIUVEoZR7oh0x7ESnC/ZxYI0zDq Yil+VXzlcbwPhESNz/L711h2ascty/JqDaLzfgm1jsyrjrUX8HDfEfoimwZjiYbKxJqo nCWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0atu6LWTaR1hmCJ2H0vAZF83uKdW06O3npHklB8uAmm0+OT09/8XcN2eYgTw46WA==
X-Received: by 10.223.134.50 with SMTP id 47mr1950805wrv.50.1490953249002; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.36.226.98] ([80.169.137.53]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y65sm6000980wrb.50.2017.03.31.02.40.48 for <oauth@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 02:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <CAANoGhJDKgqWaqhdL6TCO7RhE==h=ZmJeKbU-cuwUZwE+siHMA@mail.gmail.com> <n6swy6f6jws7vdnx4rs66ktg.1490929049898@email.android.com> <58ddcfc3.5c2e6b0a.7b9e3.bbc6@mx.google.com> <B4C58688-6933-4E46-BA80-15E5E8B38F6F@lodderstedt.net> <58ddd7a5.e4886b0a.bf30d.bce7@mx.google.com>
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4bea3552-eac8-8fb4-8dd6-887ff40e59dd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:40:47 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <58ddd7a5.e4886b0a.bf30d.bce7@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/tV39kxO0QqK-33bX8BGjLw6LwTE>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:40:55 -0000

Hi John

I see a line in our implementation checking that if a response_type is 
also available as a query parameter then it must match the request claim 
value.
Would it make sense to require checking all the well-known query 
parameters and if they exist - enforcing they must also be available in 
the request object ?

Sergey
On 31/03/17 05:14, John Bradley wrote:
> They are mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
> However there are two options as to how the authorization endpoint would
> treat extra query parameters like state if they are sent.
>
>
>
> The current text causes the AS to ignore them and not return a error.
>  This would be more backwards compatible with the request object in
> OpenID Connect, however in reality it may cause connect clients to send
> parameters as query parameters  that would be processed by a connect
> server that would be ignored by a OAuth server without any obvious
> error.  There may however be subtle errors downstream from missing
> parameters.
>
>
>
> The other option is to have a cleaner breaking change from Connect and
> have the Authorization endpoint return a error if anything other than
> the two new parameters are sent to the authorization endpoint.
>
>
>
> I am leaning towards the latter as it is easier to debug,  and wont
> allow incompatible Connect requests to be accepted without a error.   We
> would have done this in Connect but couldn’t drop required parameters
> from OAuth in a Connect spec.
>
>
>
> The downside for the latter is that the client would need to know if the
> AS is supporting The Connect version or the OAuth version.
>
>
>
> One of the typical conundrums around how to deal with doing the best
> going forward thing vs not blowing up older implementations.
>
>
>
> In the current proposal a client could put the required parameters both
> places and the same request would work on servers supporting both the
> Connect and OAuth versions.
>
>
>
> John B.
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Torsten Lodderstedt <mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net>
> *Sent: *March 30, 2017 11:01 PM
> *To: *John Bradley <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
> *Cc: *Nat Sakimura <mailto:sakimura@gmail.com>; Nat Sakimura
> <mailto:nat@sakimura.org>; IETF oauth WG <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>
>
>
> I had assumed using the request object is mutual exclusive to use of URI
> query parameters. Did I misinterpret the draft?
>
>
>
>     Am 30.03.2017 um 22:40 schrieb John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com
>     <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>>:
>
>
>
>     It is a trade off between compatibility with Connect and possible
>     configuration errors.
>
>
>
>     In reality it may not be compatible with Connect if the client is
>     sending some parameters outside the object without including them in
>     the object as a Connect client might.    You would potentially wind
>     up dropping state or nonce without an error.
>
>
>
>     I asked Mike and he was leaning to making it a error to send them as
>     query parameters as that would be a clean change.
>
>
>
>     I think the choice is a bit of a grey area.
>
>
>
>     Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>     Windows 10
>
>
>
>     *From: *sakimura@gmail.com <mailto:sakimura@gmail.com>
>     *Sent: *March 30, 2017 9:57 PM
>     *To: *John Bradley <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>; Nat Sakimura
>     <mailto:nat@sakimura.org>
>     *Cc: *IETF oauth WG <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
>     *Subject: *Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>
>
>
>     +1
>
>     Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>
>
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>     From: John Bradley
>     To: Nat Sakimura
>     CC: IETF oauth WG
>
>         So I think we need to make the must ignore clearer for the
>         additional paramaters on the authorization endpoint.
>
>
>
>         On Mar 30, 2017 17:33, "Nat Sakimura" <nat@sakimura.org
>         <mailto:nat@sakimura.org>> wrote:
>
>             Not right now.
>
>             As of this writing, a client can still send duplicate
>             parameters in the query but they get ignored by the servers
>             honoring OAuth JAR. So, it is backwards compatible with
>             OpenID Connect in that sense (OpenID Connect sends duplicate
>             manatory RFC6749 parameters as the query parameters as well
>             just to be compliant to RFC6749). Conversely, servers that
>             do not support OAuth JAR will ignore request_uri etc.
>
>             On Mar 30, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Mike Jones
>             <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com
>             <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Is there a clear statement somewhere along the lines of
>                 “parameters (other than “request” or “request_uri”) are
>                 only allowed to be in the signed object if a signed
>                 object is used”?  That’s the kind of thing I was looking
>                 for and didn’t find.
>
>
>
>
>                 -- Mike
>
>                 *From:* John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com
>                 <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>]
>                 *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:44 PM
>                 *To:* Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com
>                 <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
>                 *Cc:* Nat Sakimura <nat@sakimura.org
>                 <mailto:nat@sakimura.org>>; IETF oauth WG
>                 <oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
>                 *Subject:* RE: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action:
>                 draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>
>
>
>                 The intent of the change is to only allow the paramaters
>                 to be in the signed object if a signed object is used.
>
>
>
>                 This requires State, nonce etc to be in the JWT.  Only
>                 one place to check will hopefully reduce implimentation
>                 errors.
>
>
>
>                 This also allows us to remove the caching text as we now
>                 have one JWT per request, so caching won't happen.
>
>
>
>                 John B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 On Mar 30, 2017 4:36 PM, "Mike Jones"
>                 <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com
>                 <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>                     I **believe** the intent is that **all** parameters
>                     must be in the request object, but the spec doesn’t
>                     actually say that, as far as I can tell.  Or maybe
>                     the intent is that parameters must not be duplicated
>                     between the query parameters and the request object.
>
>
>
>                     One or the other of these statements should be
>                     explicitly included in the specification.  Of
>                     course, I could have missed the statement I’m asking
>                     for in my review, in which case please let me know
>                     what I missed.
>
>
>
>
>                     Thanks,
>
>
>                                                -- Mike
>
>
>
>                     *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org
>                     <mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *John
>                     Bradley
>                     *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:00 PM
>                     *To:* IETF OAUTH <oauth@ietf.org
>                     <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
>                     *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action:
>                     draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>
>
>
>                     Based on feeback from the IESG we have removed some
>                     of the optionality in the draft.
>
>
>
>                     It is a shorter read than draft 12.
>
>
>
>                     John B.
>
>
>
>                     Sent from Mail
>                     <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>                     Windows 10
>
>
>
>                     *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
>                     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>                     *Sent: *March 30, 2017 1:38 PM
>                     *To: *i-d-announce@ietf.org
>                     <mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>                     *Cc: *oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
>                     *Subject: *[OAUTH-WG] I-D Action:
>                     draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>
>
>
>
>
>                     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>                     Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>                     This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization
>                     Protocol of the IETF.
>
>
>
>                             Title           : The OAuth 2.0
>                     Authorization Framework: JWT Secured Authorization
>                     Request (JAR)
>
>                             Authors         : Nat Sakimura
>
>                                               John Bradley
>
>                                Filename        :
>                     draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
>
>                                Pages           : 27
>
>                                Date            : 2017-03-30
>
>
>
>                     Abstract:
>
>                        The authorization request in OAuth 2.0 described
>                     in RFC 6749 utilizes
>
>                        query parameter serialization, which means that
>                     Authorization Request
>
>                        parameters are encoded in the URI of the request
>                     and sent through
>
>                       user agents such as web browsers.  While it is
>                     easy to implement, it
>
>                        means that (a) the communication through the user
>                     agents are not
>
>                        integrity protected and thus the parameters can
>                     be tainted, and (b)
>
>                        the source of the communication is not
>                     authenticated.  Because of
>
>                        these weaknesses, several attacks to the protocol
>                     have now been put
>
>                        forward.
>
>
>
>                        This document introduces the ability to send
>                     request parameters in a
>
>                        JSON Web Token (JWT) instead, which allows the
>                     request to be signed
>
>                        with JSON Web Signature (JWS) and/or encrypted
>                     with JSON Web
>
>                        Encryption (JWE) so that the integrity, source
>                     authentication and
>
>                        confidentiality property of the Authorization
>                     Request is attained.
>
>                        The request can be sent by value or by reference.
>
>
>
>
>
>                     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
>                     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq/
>
>
>
>
>                     There are also htmlized versions available at:
>
>                     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13
>
>                     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13
>
>
>
>
>                     A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
>                     https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes
>                     from the time of submission
>
>                     until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>                     tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
>
>
>
>                     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>
>                     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>
>                     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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>