IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Microsoft feedback on DPoP during April 2020 IIW session

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 05 May 2020 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 08DC43A0C13 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=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 ogPZe0VJr6Sh for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5323A0C14 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 045MqU5D027981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 May 2020 18:52:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:52:29 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200505225229.GW27494@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <MN2PR00MB0686F8BDA731C6F478C35EFCF5AB0@MN2PR00MB0686.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR00MB0686F8BDA731C6F478C35EFCF5AB0@MN2PR00MB0686.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/yzJIK7M2CYW-wVz50yQepri3GAg>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Microsoft feedback on DPoP during April 2020 IIW session
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 22:52:38 -0000

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 02:29:02AM +0000, Mike Jones wrote:
>   *   Is the DPoP signature really needed when requesting a bound token?  It seems like the worst that could happen would be to create a token bound to a key you don't control, which you couldn't use.  Daniel expressed concern about this enabling substitution attacks.

Substitution and confused deputy attacks, yes.  I would feel a lot better
if the signature is required when requesting the bound token; a fair bit of
extra analysis would be needed to try to remove it.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email