Re: [OAUTH-WG] MTLS and in-browser clients using the token endpoint

2018-12-17 Thread Filip Skokan
Correct. If there are certs installed on the device the browsers are likely going to prompt. Having at least one CA configured together with optional_no_ca (even if its a CA noone ever has certs for) additionally omits the prompt for some client configurations. Odesláno z iPhonu 17. 12. 201

Re: [OAUTH-WG] MTLS and in-browser clients using the token endpoint

2018-12-17 Thread John Bradley
I think that works for those browsers if no certificates are installed for the browser.   We should test, but I think if any certificates are available to the browser then it will prompt. John B. On 12/17/2018 1:52 PM, Neil Madden wrote: I am currently running a Tomcat instance that I have c

Re: [OAUTH-WG] MTLS and in-browser clients using the token endpoint

2018-12-17 Thread Neil Madden
I am currently running a Tomcat instance that I have configured to support, but not demand, client certificates using the certificateVerification=“optionalNoCA” setting. With this config I am able to authenticate a confidential client using mTLS, and yet connecting to the same server over HTTPS

Re: [OAUTH-WG] MTLS and in-browser clients using the token endpoint

2018-12-17 Thread John Bradley
Yes that is a general problem with browsers and MTLS. A separate token endpoint is probably useful. I don't really see SPA doing mutual TLS as likely, however once MTLS is turned on on the token endpoint for some clients it can mess up other browser and non browser clients. A separate endpoi

[OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps

2018-12-17 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi all, We would like to get a confirmation on the mailing list for the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-parecki-oauth-browser-based-apps-02 as a starting point for a BCP document about *OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps*. Please, let us know if you support or object to the adoption

[OAUTH-WG] Conclusion ... OAuth Security Topics -- Recommend authorization code instead of implicit

2018-12-17 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi all, Rifaat and I went through the discussion in an effort to judge the outcome. First, we would like to thank you all for your input. Torsten, as the editor of the OAuth Security BCP, got lots of good feedback. Second, there is strong support recommending against the implicit grant and the

[OAUTH-WG] MTLS and in-browser clients using the token endpoint

2018-12-17 Thread Brian Campbell
While there's been some disagreement about the specific wording etc., there does seem to be general consensus coming out of this WG to, in one form or another, recommend against the use of the implicit grant in favor of authorization code. In order to follow that recommendation, in-browser JavaScri

[OAUTH-WG] FW: OAuth WG Virtual Office Hours

2018-12-17 Thread webex
BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 VERSION:2.0 BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Romance Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16010101T03 TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:16010101T0200