Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Dominick Baier
Well - first of all that it uses all the recommend validation techniques - state validation + protection - nonce validation - at_hash validation - identity token validation - discovery + solid and tested JS code I don’t see extra value for a JS client in things like “signed requests” - as I said

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Jim Manico
+1 I'm with you Aaron. I am not as well versed as other members of this standard body in OAuth but I would be happy to help build this document if folks with more experience would help. - Jim On 2/17/17 8:05 AM, Aaron Parecki wrote: > Can you describe the aspects that make a JS client library "s

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Jim Manico
> Given a solid client library for JS, I think implicit flow is OK to use. If you can, can you dig deeper here? What is it about this particular library that makes its use of the OAuth 2 implicit flow secure? Signed messages? Only supports registered clients? Something else? Aloha, Jim On 2/17/

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Aaron Parecki
Can you describe the aspects that make a JS client library "solid"? This is what I think would be useful to see written up in a document like the Native Apps one. It's interesting to me that so many of you have independently opted to use the auth code flow for Javascript apps. I think that's a sig

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Dominick Baier
Given a solid client library for JS, I think implicit flow is OK to use. But I agree that there are many “home grown” implementation out there that are not secure - and the necessary JS code to write a good client is not necessarily the “pit of success”. You should give this lib a go (it’s also a

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Adam Lewis
+1000 We are currently going through internal turmoil over the usage of implicit grant for ua-based apps. The webapp case is well understood and the WG has work in progress to define best practices for native apps. Having one for ua-based apps would be HUGELY beneficial On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 a

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Jim Manico
Thank you to those answering my question on implicit for JS clients. The responses so far seem to represent what the security world is saying about the implicit grant - keep away from it other than for a few OIDC use cases. Does anyone think it would be valuable to author a brief RFC to give cle

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Google's use of Implicit Grant Flow

2017-02-17 Thread Sebastian.Ebling
Same for Deutsche Telekom. Our javascript clients also use code flow with CORS processing and of course redirect_uri validation. Best regards Sebastian Von: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Bill Burke Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 00:14 An: oauth@ietf.org Betreff: Re: