Hi,
There is an extra “where” in this Terminology definition:
"reverse domain name notation" A naming convention based on the
domain name system, but where where the domain components are
reversed, for example "app.example.com" becomes "com.example.app".
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-09
cheers
Axel
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of William Denniss
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 9:35 PM
To: John Bradley
Cc: internet-dra...@ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08.txt
That's an important distinction. It's not a "web-view vs browser" question, but
an "embedded user-agent vs external user-agent" question. If something is
named "webview" but has all the attributes of an external use-agent, then it's
still an external user-agent for the purpose of the BCP.
I tried to be careful to always use the term "embedded user-agent" following
the nomenclature of RFC6749, e.g. title of Section 8.1. Webview is referenced
in a few places, for example Sec 8.1 says "In typical web-view based
implementations of embedded user-agents", as most embedded user-agents do
happen to use technology called webview – but there's no normative text that
means something named "webview" but that is actually an external user-agent
can't be used.
External user-agent is defined in the spec as such:
"external user-agent" A user-agent capable of handling the
authorization request that is a separate entity to the native app
making the request (such as a browser), such that the app cannot
access the cookie storage or modify the page content.
Earlier versions were not as careful with the terms, but it was tightened up
and clarified for this very reason.
Regarding the Windows broker, it is explicitly mentioned as an external user
agent in the implementation details appendix (emphasis added):
Universal Windows Platform (UWP) apps can use the Web Authentication
Broker API in SSO mode as an external user-agent for authorization
flows…
I've had the same experiance as you John, and have not seen U2F work on any
implementation of webview that I've used (including iOS, Android, and Windows
using the old-style embedded IE control).
+1 to update the BCP when and if the best current practice changes. I believe
it does accurately capture the best current practice as of today.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:08 PM, John Bradley
<ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
That is theory that CTAP should let web-views work.
I just ran a test on the current shipping Android build. U2F is only working
from the View controller and system browser.
Web-view is not currently exposing CTAP.
I believe that is also the case on iOS, but haven't built a app to test it.
This first version of the BCP doesn’t go into advanced issues around Web
Auth/Fido in detail. We know that currently WebView/View controller/Token
Agent work with existing CTAP implementations.
Once we have systems deployed that can use CTAP from a web view we can update
the BCP.
We may also have a definitional problem, we consider the Windows token broker
in SSO mode to fit the model of a view controller/Web View in that it is
sandboxed from the app , rather than considering it a web-view. I know that
the token broker can support WebAuthentication (CTAP 2) in recent RS2 builds of
Win 10.
John B.
On Mar 7, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Anthony Nadalin
<tony...@microsoft.com<mailto:tony...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Not true John, the CTAP support that is current would support the web-view w/o
any changes
-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 12:16 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
<hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>>
Cc: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>;
oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08.txt
On fido I can tell you that for security reasons U2F wont work from a web-view
currently.
Once we move to Web Auth (Fido 2) where the OS provides a API for apps to call
to get the token it will work but the tokens are audianced to the app based on
its developer key and bundle_id so that a app cant ask for a token for a
different site to do correlation.
It is true that Fido UAF currently requires a web-view to work as the
authenticator is effectively compiled in to each application, and that
application has access to the private keys on most platforms (Samsung knox
being the only exception to that that I know of where the keys are managed by a
common API to hardware key storage, but they are scoped like U2F as well)
So for the most part it is true and that unless you use the browser to get the
Fido token the audience is for the app.
Example Salesforce creates native app that may use enterprise SSO via SAML,
and the enterprise may use Fido as a authentication factor.
If they use the webview + fido API approach the app can only get a token for
SalesForce based on its signing key. It could fire up the web-view and do U2F
authentication with the enterprise after Salesforec has redirected the user.
However it will give every enterprise a token audience to Salesforce with a
salesforce specific key. If there is a second app for say Slack if they do
the same thing the enterprise would get a slack audienced token and a slack key
forcing a separate registration.
The recommended alternative is that the app use a custom tab for the user to
SalesForce and that redirect to the enterprise.
The enterprise gets the same token/key with the correct audience from all apps
on the device using the browser or custom tab.
The user may not need to signin a second time, and if they do there Fido token
will not need to be re-registerd.
The Fido API approach really only works for first party apps like PayPal if the
the app is not doing federation and paypal is doing the authentication for
there own app.
Token binding private keys have similar issues. The pool of private keys will
probably not be shared between apps, and not between the app and the browser
(Win 10 may be an exception but it is not documented yet)
In the case of using AppAuth with token binding the browser maintains the keys
so the enterprise would be able to see the same key and use the same cookies
across all AppAuth Apps.
You can include token binding in your app, however the token bindings and
cookies are going to be sand boxed per app.
Depending on implementation the app gets access to the cookie, but perhaps not
to the private token binding key. (At least I don't think it will in Android
embedded webview).
We could expand on this later in an update to the BCP once Web Authentication
and Token Binding are final.
There are still some unknowns, but in general for any sort of SSO/Federation
3rd party app I don’t see recommending anything other than a custom tab/ view
controller/ external browser.
William can take the formatting question:)
John B.
On Mar 6, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
<hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>> wrote:
Hi William, Hi John,
I just re-read version -8 of the document again.
Two minor remarks only.
Editorial issue: Why do you need to introduce a single sub-section
within Section 7.1. (namely Section 7.1.1)?
Background question: You note that embedded user agents have the
disadvantage that the app that hosts the embedded user-agent can
access the user's full authentication credential. This is certainly
true for password-based authentication mechanisms but I wonder whether
this is also true for strong authentication techniques, such as those
used by FIDO combined with token binding. Have you looked into more
modern authentication techniques as well and their security implication?
Ciao
Hannes
On 03/03/2017 07:39 AM, William Denniss wrote:
Changes:
– Addresses feedback from the second round of WGLC.
– Reordered security consideration sections to better group related topics.
– Added complete URI examples to each of the 3 redirect types.
– Editorial pass.
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:27 PM,
<internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>
<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the IETF.
Title : OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps
Authors : William Denniss
John Bradley
Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08.txt
Pages : 20
Date : 2017-03-02
Abstract:
OAuth 2.0 authorization requests from native apps should only be made
through external user-agents, primarily the user's browser. This
specification details the security and usability reasons why this is
the case, and how native apps and authorization servers can implement
this best practice.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-native-apps%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810078497&sdata=YQ0dcSViranVx4sjH7aeFrEYvTgbQM3OruoK%2FR7EZak%3D&reserved=0
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdat
atracker.ietf.org<http://atracker.ietf.org/>%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-native-apps%2F&data=02%7C0
1%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com<http://40microsoft.com/>%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f9
88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810078497&sdata=YQ0dc
SViranVx4sjH7aeFrEYvTgbQM3OruoK%2FR7EZak%3D&reserved=0>
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810078497&sdata=ipyVLaXhefjwhIPqu4Vym3Nmi%2FXPER8hyKBDvP%2FAVCw%3D&reserved=0
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftoo
ls.ietf.org<http://ls.ietf.org/>%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08&data=02%7C01%7Ct
onynad%40microsoft.com<http://40microsoft.com/>%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf8
6f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=pFJdiZd2ni
SxiuXtThG8OE32rjHxoJ8U0jsoCmiaqKc%3D&reserved=0>
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=0JOejYI%2F9vSFph4dteZ6g16NbvLRy37erpRUAw2q%2FW8%3D&reserved=0
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
.ietf.org<http://ietf.org/>%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-08&data=02%
7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com<http://40microsoft.com/>%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C7
2f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=0J
OejYI%2F9vSFph4dteZ6g16NbvLRy37erpRUAw2q%2FW8%3D&reserved=0>
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org/>
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=sDynfqey0ru0Vm4%2FPEh0MA1IKtkrqmDnQ%2BmPCP%2B6K60%3D&reserved=0>.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsoft.com%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=14GztZLY%2BnQNbhR5bqjS7cRYUSlotpr6JXtFXpduGuI%3D&reserved=0
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
.ietf.org<http://ietf.org/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40micro
soft.com<http://soft.com/>%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7
cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=14GztZLY%2BnQNbhR5bqjS7c
RYUSlotpr6JXtFXpduGuI%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
ietf.org<http://ietf.org/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40micros
oft.com<http://oft.com/>%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7c
d011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=14GztZLY%2BnQNbhR5bqjS7cR
YUSlotpr6JXtFXpduGuI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i
etf.org<http://etf.org/>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&data=02%7C01%7Ctonynad%40microsof
t.com<http://t.com/>%7Ceff092e6b2894ace8f8408d464cda4d5%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01
1db47%7C1%7C0%7C636244281810088501&sdata=14GztZLY%2BnQNbhR5bqjS7cRYUSl
otpr6JXtFXpduGuI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
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
