Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

Josh Mandel <jmandel@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jmandel@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 1FF111297CF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:22:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 poVlX112MnB0 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com (mail-it0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]) (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 4CFFA129463 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id h10so3697430ith.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:22:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VX1HWz8jq6XBBQcYX1EHCf0a6kDqk4rKFrlAXReEP/w=; b=JqyLbHu3U4VlXbmc8ClBofR931mrBA7vwWTpp9M3bcWOTuqffWFQ2yz1DhUgI/AN3t RO1WhpeQUGsaUx9S81MKawcl/6DulZRHXy7ur2wIgjIjnVVV/w8cMAGEgku1Uy7YDOSu DdMte7HsdaIYbYBvkAgx9iDiIhbP7xhU4TUcJKWEOpkUC7/uE4H5lls/KzT9OIlWcl1V hseh+onmG+eOoRSl0MJDgWjEfe+6nw+cKQmG2Xm8q1th6h7VWSnfYRUpaSyO2zhMNCtg 7+i0vnCLjmthduaeooi4y5cJC9WXGznuc5loVTxn/BgnIaGHRF+26C0VsWpevxwX4tV1 mywQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VX1HWz8jq6XBBQcYX1EHCf0a6kDqk4rKFrlAXReEP/w=; b=i8g5muk30rT66qDy/K+DupPcajtg/XTOL8N7yRV61XfW6cTI+0soeCEEDPcmlb5ttm PULw94XYNlSUhLQVpUcSgH9HyjSaeUuSDVhuxPrCAg4D+k1L3e/d060zcKQmZMokeTrf a474oCqTpIlWp+vW4pKuInY+RLL4GcTYnXh6gFNKsB66JrGTwSCBHTCrHknyili9TPTu dsbtoJvnhyiDfDCVvHSWBO8Ngl+YFgmrPnZw4C2VF4ThworQ7pZwTdmqpmmkNow7Luu2 8Y/nczhO3tg3X92r+CFEVhn3ZcoP7UMOohrrD3sAUuz1jSdfi7TK5X/lNm9GXGQo12tC Sd5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nQSr7gjmR1NQFoXmAIRdAuV1OJbFVsmM8nRHpz2A+ymXBF2RBXDd8RtRtM5K3DidR0WRlN/mLN/GLhiQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.15.167 with SMTP id 39mr4798909iop.204.1487298169342; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:22:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.168.221 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:22:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5d69eb72-b99a-1605-b58b-b7f33bb5db60@redhat.com>
References: <1e63222f-1d3b-59cc-a7c3-f9f3aa14e9df@manicode.com> <5d69eb72-b99a-1605-b58b-b7f33bb5db60@redhat.com>
From: Josh Mandel <jmandel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:22:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CANSMLKGzyFb_Xt8bWyTx1AMehra5zL_9JMO-6Th99bdeHHd=PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d3af80f16a80548b0974c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/xTIhVzojuzgjIMk8idfGN573uVs>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 17 Feb 2017 02:22:52 -0000

We've taken a similar approach for SMART Health IT [1], using the code flow
for public clients to support in-browser apps, and <1h token lifetime. (We
also allow these public clients to request a limited-duration refresh token
by asking for an "online_access" scope; these refresh tokens stop working
when the user's session with the AS ends — useful in systems where that
session concept is meaningful.)

  -Josh

1. http://docs.smarthealthit.org/authorization/

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Bill Burke <bburke@redhat.com>; wrote:

> For our IDP [1], our javascript library uses the auth code flow, but
> requires a public client, redirect_uri validation, and also does CORS
> checks and processing.  We did not like Implicit Flow because
>
> 1) access tokens would be in the browser history
>
> 2) short lived access tokens (seconds or minutes) would require a browser
> redirect
>
> I'd be really curious to hear other's thoughts though.
>
> [1] http://keycloak.org
>
>
>
>
> On 2/16/17 5:44 PM, Jim Manico wrote:
>
> Hello Folks,
>
> I noticed that Google supports the OAuth 2 Implicit flow for third-party
> JavaScript applications.
>
> https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/OAuth2UserAgent
>
> Isn't this generally discouraged from a security POV? *Is there a better
> OAuth 2 flow for third party SPA applications?*
> Aloha,
>
> --
> Jim Manico
> Manicode Securityhttps://www.manicode.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>