Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6749 (4749)

2016-07-28 Thread Vladimir Dzhuvinov
On 29/07/16 06:09, Jim Manico wrote: > Thank you Justin, comments inline. > >> These are client secrets, not user passwords, so they’re supposed to be high >> entropy and not human-memorable (or human-typable really). > This still sounds like sensitive data, and I don't understand the relevance

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6749 (4749)

2016-07-28 Thread Phil Hunt (IDM)
This is off topic for the errata process. This is not the place to propose a re-write. As one of the authors of the threat model and sec considerations I think we covered this to too much. :-) Justin's comments are spot on. This has nothing to do with user authentication. Phil > On Jul 28,

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6749 (4749)

2016-07-28 Thread Jim Manico
Thank you Justin, comments inline. > These are client secrets, not user passwords, so they’re supposed to be high > entropy and not human-memorable (or human-typable really). This still sounds like sensitive data, and I don't understand the relevance of "human memorable". If time allows can yo

Re: [OAUTH-WG] URGENT: WPAD attack exposes URL contents evenoverHTTPS

2016-07-28 Thread Vivek Biswas
PKCE256 becomes mandatory in that case. PKCE plain is prone to same attack as that of state or none.   Also PKCE256 should generate new code challenge for every Authorization request.   -Vivek Biswas Consulting Member@Security Oracle.   From: ve7...@ve7jtb.com [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com] S

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6749 (4749)

2016-07-28 Thread Justin Richer
These are client secrets, not user passwords, so they’re supposed to be high entropy and not human-memorable (or human-typable really). Also, this needs to be used over TLS. The connection requires TLS anyway because the tokens returned (or the token keys in the OAuth PoP case) also need to be p

Re: [OAUTH-WG] URGENT: WPAD attack exposes URL contents even overHTTPS

2016-07-28 Thread Justin Richer
I’ve been thinking that we could, in some eventual rewrite of OAuth and its kin, collapse the “state”, “nonce”, and “code_challenge” values all into a single thing. They’re all serving similar purposes but being used differently. There was even talk of replaying the “state” value at the token en

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Security -- Next Steps

2016-07-28 Thread Vladimir Dzhuvinov
I congratulate the idea for a BCP. Ideally that would be a document written with the developer in mind, easy to consume, and outlining all necessary steps to take in order to harden / patch up an OAuth 2.0 implementation / app. The individual attacks could be referenced or described in an appendix