Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement
Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 18:10 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.madsen@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 5CF8021F8C49 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2fx4V74hqzRo for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3F121F8C3C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkar4 with SMTP id r4so6661783bka.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=sKnYTP/KJu9sU1MZ6FzHGLe7ki6znMisBiytab1mcUU=; b=c9N4c1IXK2B1Fb59dPNpbqlhzWId0Js+0dtI+SJC6kvgWRZEmYrIeFE0z4iWzwU19t MEZnM96U/W/JXoF82VPgfRPDMQrQuDEh0jEuPRgARZRJ05EjA4NNOZVvlOsBXqS/BAf8 hD0tv+8VFBSMeIavr/Dybn974k5gY9N6Zr6A4=
Received: by 10.204.142.18 with SMTP id o18mr2906181bku.30.1315332707769; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pmadsen-mbp.local (CPE0022b0cb82b4-CM0012256eb4b4.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.152.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y3sm1256254bkw.4.2011.09.06.11.11.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E66629B.5000100@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:12:43 -0400
From: Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
References: <4E665B25.6090709@mtcc.com> <4E6661FA.7050804@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6661FA.7050804@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000108080600010407040803"
Cc: 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 18:10:09 -0000
that is the original problem statement, but surely no longer the only one On 9/6/11 2:10 PM, Igor Faynberg 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Jill Burrows
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement David Waite
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Aiden Bell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Melinda Shore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] problem statement Phil Hunt