I believe that it’s simpler and more elegant to return an issuer, from which
the discovery metadata document can be retrieved, which contains *all* the
configuration information about the authorization server, than to return some
of the configuration parameters but not most of them (which is what the
oauth-meta proposal does). There’s lots more in a typical discovery document
than just a few endpoint addresses. For instance, there are statements about
what response types are supported, other configuration choices, keys, etc.
I also think that returning the issuer is more future-proof than trying to
decide now what all the configuration information is that might want to be
verified by the client and hoping we get it right. With the issuer, assuming
that discovery is supported, it can retrieve and check all of it, should the
client want/need to do so. Even when discovery isn’t supported, the issuer
still provides a concrete identifier for the authorization server that can be
checked for equality.
We talked about the value of that approach in the side meetings in Yokohama and
people were supportive then.
-- Mike
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:48 PM
To: Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 Mix-Up Mitigation
I will point out for clarification that this would be like IdP discovery in
openID 2 that everyone did. I think IdP not doing RP discovery in openID 2 is
a weak argument.
There may be other evidence that RP will not do discovery, but if that is the
case why are we doing a OAuth discovery spec?
Many people see your spec as discovery as well just in a different way.
I think both ways can work, but doing both leaves too many options.
John B.
On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:38 PM, Nat Sakimura
<sakim...@gmail.com<mailto:sakim...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Still doing the analysis. We spent 1.5 hours today with John, George, nov and
me on the OpenID Connect WG call on this issue. John explained the mitigation,
but none of us was convinced that it works.
Then, after the call, I and nov went on with various scenarios. The interim
conclusion is that:
* client_id response parameter does not help. There are legitimate cases
that client_id duplicates out there and we cannot ban that.
* iss response parameter does not help unless the discovery is performed
and the value of iss is checked against the value of OAuth issuer inside the
document. (<- Discovery becomes mandatory. From our experience on RP discovery
step in OpenID 2.0, chance of this being done properly seems to be rather slim.)
* sending the state to the token endpoint helps in the case code was
stollen, but code should not be stolen to start with.
Cheers,
Nat
2016年1月22日(金) 7:59 John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>>:
There have been a lot of discussions. I think Hannes posted some minutes of the
F2F meeting we had with the security researchers.
The problem can’t be mitigated without some action on the client side. It
boils down to the client making a request to AS1 (From it’s perspective) and
getting back a response from AS 2 (that it thinks is AS1)
This can be done if AS1 is a good AS but has it’s logs compromised so that an
attacker can read them. Hans Zandbelt built a proof of concept for the attack.
In some cases the attacker gets the code and the credential to use it at the
good AS token endpoint and in others it just gets the code and can replay that
at the client to extract information from the API through the client by binding
the api access to a new account.
PKCE unfortunately mitigates a different attack, where the client is
impersonated and trys to replay a intercepted code. It however assumes the
token endpoint is good, and is no help in the case of a compromised token
endpoint.
The client in these attacks is vulnerable because it relies on some local
state, or the value of the state parameter to know who the response is coming
from. This allows a authorization request that is intercepted to be used to
create a new request in that browser to a different AS, or trick the client
into using a Authorization endpoint for a different authorization server.
One problem is that OAuth doesn’t really have a unified concept of what a AS
is. Traditionally it is a Authorization endpoint URI, token end point URI and
resource server URI that some one gives the client in some documentation.
As ling as a client only talks to one AS then there is no problem. However
once a client is configured to talk to more than one AS, we have problems if
one of those AS lies about it’s endpoints, or is compromised and used to attack
another AS. As a design goal you don’t want the overall security to be
limited by the weakest system.
One approach as Nat promotes is to have the authorization endpoint return the
next hop, token endpoint for code or RS URI for token. The token endpoint must
also return the RS URI or the client must push the RS URI to the token endpoint
or the attacker just replaces the RS URI in the config and captures the token
that way.
The other way is to provide a name for each AS as part of registration and the
client not allow duplicate registrations with the same name. When the response
comes back the client checks the name against the one it made the request to.
If the name dereferences to a discovery document then the client can check that
name at registration or runtime to validate the net hops.
I think the two approaches mitigate the attack in similar ways. Nat’s is more
REST friendly and returns the next hop as a parameter of header.
The one Mike and I wrote up based on the meeting in Germany provides
identifiers (iss and client_id) that can be checked for validity in the simple
case and be dereferenced via .well-known to get the information Nat’s proposal
is providing.
Perhaps the main difference is Nat is using the token endpoint as the
identifier for the AS and Mike’s is using location for a discovery document as
the identifier.
I don’t recall the reasons using the token endpoint as the identifier was
rejected at the meeting. Perhaps others can post the reasons.
We need to close on this quickly, otherwise if we are indecisive fixes will not
go into products for another year or so until this is a RFC.
That is my main concern.
John B.
On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Josh Mandel
<jman...@gmail.com<mailto:jman...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Nat - that's helpful. If both mitigations *can* work effectively, then I
would like to see this group consider the decision between them carefully (if
that hasn't happened yet). Again, don't hesitate to let me know if this is the
wrong place/time for such discussion.
At a high level, I would rather ask server developers to do some "coding", for
two reasons:
1. Most OAuth servers talk to many, many clients. So consolidating the security
critical work in one place (server) is a net savings of work (rather than
asking each client to implement these checks.
2. OAuth server developers are typically more sophisticated than client
developers, and therefore more likely to understand the implications and more
likely to get these critical details correct. Asking each client developer to
do something right is likely to result in heterogenius implementation and
persistent security holes. But if the server does the heavy lifting, and
clients just have to pass along an extra parameter, this is more likely to see
consistent implementation (for example, clients will fail to work if
misconfigured, which will prompt developers to fix them).
On Jan 21, 2016 09:40, "Nat Sakimura"
<sakim...@gmail.com<mailto:sakim...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Josh,
It is similar but slightly different IMHO.
Section 4.6.4 of the RFC6819 is the access token phishing by a counterfeit
resource server.
The mix-up attack described here is the code phishing by a counterfeit token
endpoint.
In my view, both can be mitigated by the server returning the next step: i.e.,
authorization endpoint returning the legitimate token endpoint uri, and token
endpoint returning legitimate resource endpoint uris. This involves no
discovery endpoint, which is good.
Your way also works. It is just the reverse of my proposal. The difference
being that my proposal does not need any coding on the server but just
configuration, and it can return more metadata if needed.
Cheers,
Nat
2016年1月21日(木) 23:04 Josh Mandel <jman...@gmail.com<mailto:jman...@gmail.com>>:
Apologies if this is the wrong forum for my comment (and please direct me to
the appropriate place in that case), but I have two questions about the propose
mitigation (and the thinking behind it) that I think the write-up could address:
1. Could the writeup clarify whether/how the primary "mixup" threat differs
from what RFC6819 identifies as in section 4.6.4?
2. Has the workgroup considered a mitigation that puts more responsibility on
the authorization server, and less on the client? For example, if would be
helpful for the writeup to clarify why having the client send an "audience
field" (in the terminology of RFC6819) to the authorization endpoint would not
mitigate the threat. (In that scenario, the authorization server can recognize
that the audience does not correspond to a resource server it knows, rather
than asking clients to make this check). I assume this approach has been
considered and rejected as an incomplete mitigation, but I don't have
visibility into where/how that discussion went.
Thanks,
Josh
Hi all,
this is the call for adoption of OAuth 2.0 Mix-Up Mitigation, see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-mix-up-mitigation-00
Please let us know by Feb 9th whether you accept / object to the
adoption of this document as a starting point for work in the OAuth
working group.
Note: This call is related to the announcement made on the list earlier
this month, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15336.html. More
time for analysis is provided due to the complexity of the topic.
Ciao
Hannes & Derek
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
