Re: [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens

Marco De Nadai <denadai2@gmail.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <denadai2@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 CBE821F0C6E for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:39:01 -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 RK2qcSBQ0uOJ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE4321F8DF1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnv1 with SMTP id v1so7274106ggn.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9bvjdjlISNVoFEsGK5Ir3d3Ffvi7nsXKSZcj5o/1qXg=; b=t+Nvu+HMJhAGhwJSFoO/uNQXXRsaLXiYDtNb5sdEzKk7m5eH/ZUnSxdxzex7vZX16s y1pz/BlKnsVNeuL2QKqzZChDPWxGVgr97qNXhVonDnu5O0AfAJlgLRwY4LKupCpa8AsN Vh4NO6K0BUSxCMTZJiXPIlxKRjMtqGhWEwhG4=
Received: by 10.150.207.12 with SMTP id e12mr7260013ybg.68.1320079139150; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.38.8 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1320078792.65184.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <CAHWszSa89mm1GR0Wz26kFqvNQ3U7qjmXqawkkG5KXmb8stAErg@mail.gmail.com> <429493818451304B84EC9A0797B5D858250823@SEAPXCH10MBX01.amer.gettywan.com> <1320078792.65184.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
From: Marco De Nadai <denadai2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:38:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHWszSbO00C8Oy8qH5brQMF9x83s1MzXxnHjWBEmU9rHfKmjRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cdf1c202a1a0a04b09ae01e"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, Dan Taflin <dan.taflin@gettyimages.com>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens
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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:39:01 -0000

It's a OAuth2-Bearer security consideration not OAuth generally

2011/10/31 William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>

> Yeah, there's a punt here...  I believe it's recognizing that people will
> in fact use bearer tokens on a plaintext channel, the slight mitigation
> being shorter lifespan of the token.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dan Taflin <dan.taflin@gettyimages.com>
> *To:* Marco De Nadai <denadai2@gmail.com>; "oauth@ietf.org" <
> oauth@ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2011 8:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens
>
>   To be consistent, section 10.3 should probably specify that the
> requirement of confidentiality in transit applies specifically to BEARER
> tokens.
>
> I would like to see this relaxed further though, as I argued last week, to
> accommodate situations where a token is scoped to a limited set of data
> that isn’t particularly sensitive. My example was image search. It seems
> too restrictive to require TLS for an operation that does nothing more than
> what anyone could do by pointing a browser at our web site. Http cookies
> can be specified as either requiring or not requiring secure transport; it
> seems reasonable to allow the same option for bearer tokens, which fulfill
> an analogous role.
>
> Dan
>
>  *From:* Marco De Nadai [mailto:denadai2@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:44 AM
> *To:* oauth@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] Security Considerations - Access Tokens
>
> Hi all,
>
>  i've recently noticed that in OAuth 2.0 draft 22, in the section 10.3
> there is this statment:
>
>  Access token (as well as any access token type-specific attributes) MUST
> be kept confidential in transit and storage, and only shared among the
> authorization server, the resource servers the access token is valid for,
> and the client to whom the access token is issued.
>
>  BUT in OAuth 2.0 draft 22 with Authorization Code and MAC Access
> Authentication, I can request a resource with Access Token sent in clear.
> This invalidates the "Access token (as well as any access token
> type-specific attributes) MUST be kept confidential in transit and storage".
>
>  Is it my error?
>
>  --
>  *Marco De Nadai*
>
> http://www.marcodena.it/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2Bpersonali
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>


-- 
*Marco De Nadai*
http://www.marcodena.it/<http://www.marcodena.it/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2Bpersonali>