IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 Mix-Up Mitigation

George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com> Mon, 25 January 2016 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <gffletch@aol.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCB81B2C1B for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:30:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 MbyYtJVByWjq for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omr-a009e.mx.aol.com (omr-a009e.mx.aol.com [204.29.186.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16CBB1B2BFC for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:30:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtaout-aan02.mx.aol.com (mtaout-aan02.mx.aol.com [172.27.19.78]) by omr-a009e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 4050038001B0; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.172.102.124] (unknown [10.172.102.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mtaout-aan02.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 5602138000082; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:30:12 -0500 (EST)
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
References: <569E22E1.5010402@gmx.net> <CANSMLKHjAHr6rUZny5EkX0KBHnOcLuUOZBL0Wwf6V8Y3tt_kNw@mail.gmail.com> <CABzCy2C-_57dO5n6GN6wazA9ozuPivrQd95g_XvdkPWx6zDwAA@mail.gmail.com> <CANSMLKE98FVdDV-7bwW3wZ=-ao5=oXkn9LO5s_M1KmMAt7Drcw@mail.gmail.com> <537B9D13-1159-4B2D-9E1A-A245C9B3659C@ve7jtb.com> <CAAP42hDUciKpS51dyx7Zy-kSCB_JUZqooXiaGTopHaFr_QkF5Q@mail.gmail.com> <995474C5-62E7-4310-84AF-A5EF1CDEA4DB@ve7jtb.com>
From: George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>
Organization: AOL LLC
Message-ID: <56A63F82.40104@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:30:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <995474C5-62E7-4310-84AF-A5EF1CDEA4DB@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060100050102000805060308"
x-aol-global-disposition: G
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1453735813; bh=JK1Cchf/CRfdTh6E0TQEM8Yj9CTm0OIhgVhbz4DOuqg=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tkL/TDT/VNg9FqnPLrx6jEmcqZ56E2fZ839MvrGtz7SD4PdDvoG9s3wfXAzc56CUj eZv6YpB6MYZpKOrn12N0DVfQDx3ex2FlnJsFEMSFUIEkwG476kBHrKPR43MzlBwpiB aPzgjc/Rxc2AgZV3CkQwTtG2ucqner1J13Oo2/w0=
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b134e56a63f84510f
X-AOL-IP: 10.172.102.124
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/uh6vZRrhcxIsXoNiv0dGXouLl-w>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 Mix-Up Mitigation
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:30:15 -0000

I'm still catching up... but to this point specifically...

Doesn't this require that the same client_id NOT be used simultaneously 
at two (or more) Authorization Servers? If so, I don't believe that is a 
viable option. It's a little late in the game to be putting requirements 
on the AS as to how it generates it's client_id.

Thanks,
George

On 1/25/16 9:11 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>
> Returning the iss and client_id from the authorization endpoint per 
> Mike’s draft allows the client to reject the authorization response 
> and not leak the code.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email