That works. In fact, I would further go and say MUST NOT but that probably is too much for a security consideration.
Best, Nat Nat Sakimura / n-sakim...@nri.co.jp / +81-90-6013-6276 このメールには、本来の宛先の方のみに限定された機密情報が含まれている場合がございます。お心あたりのない場合は、誠に申し訳ございませんが、送信者までお知らせ頂き、また受信されたメールは削除してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。 PLEASE READ :This e-mail is confidential and intended for the named recipient only. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail. ________________________________ 差出人: Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net> 送信日時: 水曜日, 11月 28, 2018 11:38 午後 宛先: n-sakimura Cc: Dick Hardt; Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org 件名: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security Topics -- Recommend authorization code instead of implicit Hi Nat, Am 28.11.2018 um 21:10 schrieb n-sakimura <n-sakim...@nri.co.jp<mailto:n-sakim...@nri.co.jp>>: I would support 1) clearly defining Implicit as the flow that returns access token from the authorization endpoint ( some people confuses implicit as the flow that returns ID Token in the front channel) That’s the current text: In order to avoid these issues, Clients SHOULD NOT use the implicit grant or any other response type causing the authorization server to issue an access token in the authorization response. What would you like to modify? 2) Banning the returning of the access token that are not sender constrained from the authorization endpoint In order to avoid these issues, Clients SHOULD NOT use the implicit grant or any other response type causing the authorization server to issue an access token in the authorization response, if this access tokens is not sender-constraint. What about this? kind regards, Torsten. Best, Nat Outlook for iOS を入手 差出人: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf..org>> (Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com<mailto:dick.ha...@gmail.com>> の代理) 送信日時: 水曜日, 11月 28, 2018 8:58 午後 宛先: Hannes Tschofenig Cc: oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> 件名: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security Topics -- Recommend authorization code instead of implicit +1 While there are various mechanisms to alleviate some of the issues of implicit, I don't think we can recommend specifics, and there may be future ones in the future. I think we all agree that implicit without any mitigation is problematic. How about we recommend against using implicit alone? On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:34 AM Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@arm.com<mailto:hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>> wrote: Hi all, The authors of the OAuth Security Topics draft came to the conclusion that it is not possible to adequately secure the implicit flow against token injection since potential solutions like token binding or JARM are in an early stage of adoption. For this reason, and since CORS allows browser-based apps to send requests to the token endpoint, Torsten suggested to use the authorization code instead of the implicit grant in call cases in his presentation (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-oauth-sessb-draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-01). A hum in the room at IETF#103 concluded strong support for his recommendations. We would like to confirm the discussion on the list. Please provide a response by December 3rd. Ciao Hannes & Rifaat 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
