On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna= 40amazon....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> As I think through this, I’m struggling to identify the threats this > actually helps mitigate. > > A client metadata parameter implies that the value may be different for > different clients, and that any given client won’t already know via other > means whether or not it needs to use PAR. That means we’re only talking > about dynamic clients since statically registered clients already have some > proprietary out-of-band registration mechanism (e.g., a developer console). > As I tried to articulate in the original email and Filip also mentioned in a different fork of this email thread, defining metadata can be beneficial even when it's not used dynamically at runtime. So we're not only talking about dynamic clients. > > A client metadata parameter also implies that the AS allows some clients > to make non-PAR requests (otherwise it would be an AS metadata parameter).. > A per client setting seems necessary for existing ASs to roll out PAR support over time or just generally in support of diverse client capabilities and requirements. > If that’s the case then presumably a malicious party could register their > own client that doesn’t use PAR. > > So it seems to me that the only scenario that this parameter would protect > against is a malicious party impersonating a dynamically registered client > that uses PAR. That wouldn’t apply to Mix-Up, since in that attack the > attacker uses its own client. > This client metadata parameter is meant to be something that would prevent a malicious actor from controlling the content of the authz request parameters, which could be done by crafting the link and tricking a user into following it. I mentioned mix-up as an example because the first variant of it desribed at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-15#section-4.4..1 does something along those lines. > > If a client can do PAR, then it can do authorization code grant and PKCE, > so we’re further limited to scenarios where the attacker does not need to > be able to redeem the authorization code themselves. What threats fall into > this category? > > — > Annabelle Backman (she/her) > AWS Identity > > On Apr 14, 2020, at 2:44 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell= > 40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > I was hoping to get to a rough consensus in support of the idea before > coming up with a name that everyone will hate :) > > In the meantime, however, name suggestions are of course welcome. > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:22 PM Vladimir Dzhuvinov < > vladi...@connect2id.com> wrote: > >> I'm all for that. >> >> I suppose you have already thought of a suitable name? :) >> >> Vladimir >> On 14/04/2020 23:08, Brian Campbell wrote: >> >> Using PAR can facilitate improved security by giving clients a >> (relatively) simple means for sending a confidential, integrity protected, >> and (for confidential clients anyway) authenticated authorization request. >> >> It seems like some of that improved security could be undermined by a >> malicious actor somehow getting a user to navigate to a URL of a regular >> old parameterized authorization request. One variation of the Mix-Up Attack >> does this >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-15#section-4.4.1 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-15#section-4.4..1> >> for example and email, social media, online forums, etc., are other ways a >> user might be tricked into following a maliciously crafted link. >> >> Following from that it seems logical that an authorization server might >> want to restrict some clients from sending a regular parameterized >> authorization request and instead require use of the PAR endpoint to >> initiate an authorization request. Something like this could, of course, be >> implemented as custom policy or configuration in any AS. But I'm thinking >> it might be common enough to warrant adding a client metadata parameter to >> the PAR draft specifically for it. The metadata (and registered extensions) >> defined by Dynamic Client Registration [RFC7591] has come to imply a >> general data model and expected associated behaviors for clients that is >> useful for authorization server implementations, even when the Dynamic >> Client Registration Protocol isn't directly in play. This particular >> situation seems like a good potential candidate for a new such client >> metadata parameter that would indicate that the given client can only use a >> request_uri value obtained from the PAR endpoint to initiate an >> authorization request. And that a regular old fashioned authorization >> request from the given client would result in an error. >> >> Do the folks of this fine WG think something like this would be a >> worthwhile addition to the PAR draft? >> >> >> >> >> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and >> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any >> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited... >> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender >> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from >> your computer. Thank you.* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited... > If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from > your computer. Thank you.* > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
