100% and that’s a good point. Stolen tokens will no longer work under token binding but XSS that does “stored request forgery” is still the bane of all web based apps.
No web app with XSS vulnerabilities is safe from “stored forged requests”, which means you really need to be bulletproof from XSS if you want secure web software. Token binding does not stop this at all. So escape! Sanitize HTML input! Use safe JS sinks! Handle client side JSON correctly! CSP that app. These are critical defenses if you want security on the web. Token binding helps if a token is stolen. It should no longer be effective or active when used in a different client. -- Jim Manico @Manicode Secure Coding Education +1 (808) 652-3805 > On May 18, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Neil Madden <neil.mad...@forgerock.com> wrote: > > I might be missing something here, but aren’t bound tokens exactly as > vulnerable to the XSS attacks you describe as http-only cookies are? > > — Neil > > On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 5:43 pm, Jim Manico <j...@manicode.com> wrote: > A few notes: > > > The session cookie should also be flagged as http only to protect it. > > This provides no real protection. If I get XSS into your site I don’t need to > steal the cookie. I can just force requests that will automatically send it > (client side or stored request forgery). So while it’s a standard suggestion, > it helps little. > > > Having a refresh token in local storrage may introduce new security issues > > unless it is token bound. > > Token binding is not live yet, right? If you need to store a token in a > browser please note there is no safe place to store it. LocalStorage can be > harvested by XSS and even the strongest cookies can be replayed as discussed > above. I can’t wait for browser based token binding! But it will likely take > years for this to be avail in the majority of browsers. > > > Understanding the security issues of the code flow in the browser is > > important, before any new recommendation. > > Well said. It looks to be the only secure workflow for browser based apps. > Love it how passwords are kept away from RP’s and high powered tokens are not > stored in the browser. > > Aloha, > -- > Jim Manico > @Manicode > Secure Coding Education > +1 (808) 652-3805 > >> On May 18, 2018, at 12:27 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: >> >> Yes that was the original intent to have the AT be short lived and refresh >> the AT via the authorization endpoint based on the session cookie. >> >> The session cookie should also be flagged as http only to protect it. >> >> Having a refresh token in local storrage may introduce new security issues >> unless it is token bound. >> >> Understanding the security issues of the code flow in the browser is >> important, before any new recommendation. >> >> John B. >> >> From: Brock Allen >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] is updated guidance needed for JS/SPA apps? >> To: David Waite, Hannes Tschofenig >> Cc: oauth@ietf.org >> >> >> One thing I maybe should have listed in the pros/cons in my original email >> is session management and token lifetime considerations, keeping in mind the >> original intent of the implicit flow. >> >> What I mean is that with implicit grant type, the client's ability to get >> new access tokens is limited to the user's session at the AS/OP. Obviously >> other flows make more sense to obtain longer lived access (via refresh >> tokens), but I don't know about a browser-based JS app. In a sense there's a >> bit of protection for the end user built into that design by virtue of being >> tied to the user's cookie at the AS/OP. >> >> Just throwing that out as an additional discussion point. >> >> -Brock >> >>> On 5/18/2018 6:04:47 AM, David Waite <da...@alkaline-solutions.com> wrote: >>> I have written some guidance already (in non-RFC format) on preferring code >>> for single page apps, and other security practices (CORS, CSP). From the AS >>> point of view, it aligns well with the native apps BCP. There are benefits >>> of thinking about native and SPA apps just as ‘public clients’ from a >>> policy/properties point of view. It also greatly simplifies OAuth/OIDC >>> support on both the AS administrator and client developer side when >>> converting web properties into native apps using technologies like Electron >>> or Cordova. >>> >>> For the later requirements in the list around token policy, I am not sure >>> these are requirements for single page apps per se. I don’t believe the >>> need for a policy using short-lived refresh tokens, revoking at signout, or >>> use of the revocation endpoint are different from browser and native >>> applications. Rather they seem to be a function of usage patterns that an >>> AS may need to support, and we happen to sometimes associate those usage >>> patterns with typical usage of native apps vs of browser apps. For example, >>> browser login on a borrowed device can easily leak over to being app >>> authorization - the authentication/authorization are web-based processes to >>> achieve SSO. >>> >>> I have been working on some guidance here around token lifetimes and >>> policies, but I don’t know whether that brings in too much AS/OP business >>> logic (and, likely implied product/deployment features) to be industry >>> practices. >>> >>> -DW >>> >>>> On May 17, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Hannes Tschofenig >>>> <hannes.tschofe...@arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Brock, >>>> >>>> there have been several attempts to start writing some guidance but so far >>>> we haven’t gotten too far. >>>> IMHO it would be great to have a document. >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> Hannes >>>> >>>> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brock Allen >>>> Sent: 17 May 2018 14:57 >>>> To: oauth@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] is updated guidance needed for JS/SPA apps? >>>> >>>> Much like updated guidance was provided with the "OAuth2 for native apps" >>>> RFC, should there be one for "browser-based client-side JS apps"? I ask >>>> because google is actively discouraging the use of implicit flow: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/openid/AppAuth-JS/issues/59#issuecomment-389639290 >>>> >>>> >From what I can tell, the complaints with implicit are: >>>> * access token in URL >>>> * access token in browser history >>>> * iframe complexity when using prompt=none to "refresh" access tokens >>>> >>>> But this requires: >>>> * AS/OP to support PKCE >>>> * AS/OP to support CORS >>>> * user-agent must support CORS >>>> * AS/OP to maintain short-lived refresh tokens >>>> * AS/OP must aggressively revoke refresh tokens at user signout (which is >>>> not something OAuth2 "knows" about) >>>> * if the above point can't work, then client must proactively use >>>> revocation endpoint if/when user triggers logout >>>> >>>> Any use in discussing this? >>>> >>>> -Brock >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are >>>> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the >>>> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the >>>> information in any medium. Thank you. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
