Discovery in general for OAuth isn't well understood. This conversation and
others like it around the 'discovery' draft demonstrate that. But
publishing AS metadata is something that is understood and already in wide
use for Connect. The rough consensus (except for a very few but vocal
dissenters) on this list over the last few weeks/months has been that
draft-ietf-oauth-discovery should describing AS metadata and its location.
It's been suggested that the title reflect that scope and I might even
suggest that the document identifier be changed to avoid further
confusion.

The IDP mixup is addressed by the AS identifying itself to the client in
the authorization response (it has a few other things in it that arguably
shouldn't be in or should be elsewhere but that's a different question).
The Mix-Up Mitigation draft uses the issuer value to do that. Issuer
becomes a logical name/identifier for an AS. And that can tie it to AS
metadata or even discovery if/when that exists. But discovery or AS
metadata isn't necessary there. Yes Tony, we'd all like to see a
comprehensive solution but conflating different and unrelated things is
only making matters worse (as I'm sure you are well aware).

A 'bad RS' phishing for legitimate access tokens is a different kind of
endpoint confusion. Most deployments now have a static relationship defined
between RS and AS so it's more of a potential problem in the future.
Despite the concern voiced about it the potential (as far as I can tell
anyway), draft-hunt-oauth-bound-config provides a very nice attack vector
for such a 'bad RS' by pointing to an AS to obtain tokens it could misuse
at legitimate RS(s). John has alluded to this.

There have been a number of incremental updates/extensions to OAuth 2.0 and
there look to be more coming.  Concerns have been expressed over the number
of documents and implements knowing what to use when. I don't think the
answer is to try and jam unrelated new stuff into new docs to keep the
number of docs low is a good idea though. I'd much prefer to have concise
and cohesive documents. The larger issue of confusion around too many
documents should be addressed at a higher level. For example, something
like an implementation guide or even something like an OAuth 2.1 that
describes the available extensions and when/why one would use them.



On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> I would really like to see a comprehensive solution not this piece work,
> so we know what we are solving and what we are not.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hans Zandbelt
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 3:26 PM
> To: Phil Hunt (IDM) <phil.h...@oracle.com>; John Bradley <
> ve7...@ve7jtb.com>
> Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for
> draft-hunt-oauth-bound-config-00.txt
>
> On 3/14/16 10:17 PM, Phil Hunt (IDM) wrote:
> <snip>
> > On Mar 14, 2016, at 14:13, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com
> > <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
> >> Any client that has the resource and issuer hard coded probably
> >> doesn't need discovery.
> > We agree
>
> Yet any client that has hard coded a resource and 2 issuers doesn't need
> discovery either but is vulnerable to the IDP mixup attack.
>
> I'd really like to see the two being addressed independently of each
> other, regardless of the fact that a Discovery solution *could* solve the
> IDP mixup attack as well.
>
> Hans.
>
> --
> Hans Zandbelt              | Sr. Technical Architect
> hzandb...@pingidentity.com | Ping Identity
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7c8cd9a8b2e020444382a708d34c57a6b4%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=1dsstJfhduQ3mZERUx6%2fO3OE241RK7ataalg6RY6JmA%3d
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to