There is no way I'm going to allow not signing the request URI and any query parameters. That leaves just the body...
EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: Skylar Woodward [mailto:sky...@kiva.org] > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:43 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-hammer-oauth-v2-mac-token-02 > > Here's a thought: > > signed_content="request,query,body" > > If not included, it defaults to "request,query". It's non-breaking (except for > the implied removal of bodyhash), allows for either body or query content to > be omitted from the signature, and looks less ugly than bodyhash=true. If > you prefer, the value of this attribute could be one of a predefined string > (request_query, request_query_body, request, etc.) rather than individual > parsed elements. > > On Feb 7, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > > Yeah... > > > > I struggled with that. There is no reason to include the body hash with the > request other than to indicate a body hash is included in the normalized > request string. It's just that an attribute like 'bodyhash=true' is so ugly... > > > > I'm still thinking about this. > > > > EHL > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Skylar Woodward [mailto:sky...@kiva.org] > >> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:25 AM > >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-hammer-oauth-v2-mac-token-02 > >> > >> On body-hash... > >> > >> Having completed a trial implementation, it seems redundant, and > >> potentially problematic, to include the body-hash in the > >> Authentication header. The danger is that implementors may neglect to > >> recalculate the hash themselves, reusing the value (even if > >> incorrect) provided by the client. Why not just require the provider > >> to calculate this and validate it by comparing the final signature? > >> This way it's clearer for everyone what the expectations are in validating > the signature. > >> > >> I propose either a flag (eg, usebodyhash="1") or an algorithm > >> (bodyhashalgorithm="sha1"). If this parameter was provided, the > >> correct hash would be added to the base string for signing. If > >> omitted (or set false?) then an empty string is used for base string > element #4. > >> > >> > >> On including parameters for signing... > >> > >> I'd retract my suggestion that we'd include parameter-hash in the header. > >> Instead, I would suggest making parameters optional in calculating > >> the signature using a flag as with bodyhash. Providers could require > >> including parameters if so desired. Parameters could be included as > >> currently defined, or with a hash method similar to entity-body > >> (which I find both simpler and more congruent). > >> > >> Again, the goal in making query parameters optional is to allow > >> providers to make signature calculation as simple as possible for > >> clients (so much as it is in line with the security requirements of > >> the provider) and avoid complexities in implementation such as those that > tripped up OAuth 1. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jan 22, 2011, at 2:09 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > >> > >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-oauth-v2-mac-token-02 > >>> > >>> New version includes the following changes: > >>> > >>> o Added body-hash support. > >>> o Updated OAuth 2.0 reference to -12 and added token type > >>> registration > >> template. > >>> o Removed error and error URI attributes (codes were just a > >>> duplication > >> of the HTTP status codes). > >>> > >>> Feedback would be greatly appreciated. > >>> > >>> EHL > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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
