Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-28 Thread Justin Richer
What you suggest below is essentially what John Bradley proposed as a "holder of key" JWT a while ago. The main difference between the two approaches is that mine can also cover aspects of the HTTP request itself in the signature. I think you could do both of them together by simply making the

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-26 Thread Thomas Broyer
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: > >> On our backlog is also support for "service accounts" (to use > Google's terminology), so clients will likely need to do some > crypto-related work. Asking them to do it for each and every request to > sign the access token might not

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-26 Thread Richer, Justin P.
>> On our backlog is also support for "service accounts" (to use Google's >> terminology), so clients will likely need to do some crypto-related work. >> Asking them to do it for each and every request to sign the access token >> might not be that > > > I assume you mean signing the request or a

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-25 Thread Thomas Broyer
Le 25 oct. 2013 19:28, "Torsten Lodderstedt" a écrit : > > > Am 25.10.2013 11:19, schrieb Thomas Broyer: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt < tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> we generate access tokens per resource server in order to mitiga

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-25 Thread Torsten Lodderstedt
Am 25.10.2013 11:19, schrieb Thomas Broyer: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>> wrote: Hi Thomas, we generate access tokens per resource server in order to mitigate this and other risks. You must issue those tokens to different

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-25 Thread Thomas Broyer
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: > On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Thomas Broyer > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> You're right in that the introspection process is about getting meta >> data about a particular t

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-25 Thread Thomas Broyer
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt < tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > we generate access tokens per resource server in order to mitigate this > and other risks. You must issue those tokens to different audiences > (resource server id) and the resource servers must

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-24 Thread Richer, Justin P.
On Oct 23, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Thomas Broyer mailto:t.bro...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Richer, Justin P. mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote: Hi Thomas, You're right in that the introspection process is about getting meta data about a particular token by making an authent

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-23 Thread Torsten Lodderstedt
Hi Thomas, we generate access tokens per resource server in order to mitigate this and other risks. You must issue those tokens to different audiences (resource server id) and the resource servers must validate if the token is issued for its particular audience. Otherwise a compromised resource

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-23 Thread Thomas Broyer
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Eve Maler wrote: > Hi Thomas-- You may want to take a look at UMA, which leverages both OAuth > and Justin's token introspection draft. Token introspection on its own is a > "shallow" kind of loose coupling between authorization servers and resource > servers. If

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-23 Thread Thomas Broyer
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > You're right in that the introspection process is about getting meta > data about a particular token by making an authenticated call. It does > reveal a lot of information about the token -- because that's exactly the > p

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-23 Thread Richer, Justin P.
Hi Thomas, You're right in that the introspection process is about getting meta data about a particular token by making an authenticated call. It does reveal a lot of information about the token -- because that's exactly the point of the protocol. :) If the PR is compromised, then the attacker

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-23 Thread Eve Maler
Hi Thomas-- You may want to take a look at UMA, which leverages both OAuth and Justin's token introspection draft. Token introspection on its own is a "shallow" kind of loose coupling between authorization servers and resource servers. If these are operated by different organizations, as appears

[OAUTH-WG] Comments on draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04

2013-10-22 Thread Thomas Broyer
Hi all, In a platform we're building, we have AS, clients and PRs all as distinct parties managed/provided by distinct companies. There's a single AS though, doing SSO through OpenID Connect (i.e. the AS in an OP). I thus need a way for a PR to ask the AS whether the token presented by the client