Re: [OAUTH-WG] redircet_uri matching algorithm

["Donald F. Coffin" <[e-mail]>]

+1

 

Best regards,

Don

Donald F. Coffin

Founder/CTO

 

REMI Networks

2335 Dunwoody Crossing Suite E

Dunwoody, GA 30338-8221

 

Phone:      [phone]

Email:        <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

 

From: Bill Mills [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:13 PM
To: Mike Jones; Antonio Sanso; John Bradley
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] redircet_uri matching algorithm

 

+1

 

 

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:29 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

+1

I vehemently concur that that working group should stay completely clear of facilitating this insecure practice.

                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ] On Behalf Of Antonio Sanso
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:41 AM
To: John Bradley
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] redircet_uri matching algorithm


On May 21, 2015, at 4:35 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

> I think the correct answer is that clients should always assume exact redirect_uri matching, and servers should always enforce it.  
> 
> Anything else is asking for trouble.

FWIW I completely agree with John here...

regards

antonio


> 
> If clients need to maintain some state the correct thing to do is use the state parameter, and not append extra path or query elements to there redirect_uri.
> 
> A significant number of security problems in the wild come from servers not enforcing this.
> 
> I may be taking an excessively hard line, but partial matching is not something we should be encouraging by making easier.
> 
> I did do a draft on a way to safely use state https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bradley-oauth-jwt-encoded-state-04.txt
> 
> John B.
> 
> 
>> On May 16, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Patrick Gansterer <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
>> 
>> "OAuth 2.0 Dynamic Client Registration Protocol" [1] is nearly finished and provides the possibility to register additional "Client Metadata".
>> 
>> OAuth 2.0 does not define any matching algorithm for the redirect_uris. The latest information on that topic I could find is [1], which is 5 years old. Is there any more recent discussion about it?
>> 
>> I'd suggest to add an OPTIONAL "redirect_uris_matching_method" client metadata. Possible valid values could be:
>> * "exact": The "redirect_uri" provided in a redirect-based flow must match exactly one of of the provided strings in the "redirect_uris" array.
>> * "prefix": The "redirect_uri" must begin with one of the "redirect_uris". (e.g. "http://example.com/path/subpath" would be valid with ["http://example.com/path/", "http://example.com/otherpath/"])
>> * "regex": The provided "redirect_uris" are threatened as regular expressions, which the "redirect_uri" will be matched against. (e.g. "http://subdomain.example.com/path5/" would be valid with ["^http:\\/\\/[a-z]+\\.example\\.com\\/path\\d+\\/"]
>> 
>> If not defined the server can choose any supported method, so we do not break existing implementations. On the other side it allows an client to make sure that a server supports a specific matching algorithm required by the client. ATM a client has no possibility to know how a server handles the redirect_uris.
>> 
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-29
>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg02617.html
>> 
>> --
>> Patrick Gansterer
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth