However, this doesn't address my earlier use case of a signed, cross-
domain JSONP call, especially if it's sitting on a non-HTTPS page; I
need to make a non-HTTP XHR request to obtain a (signed or tokenized)
URL to include in my <script> include, so requiring a bearer token and
SSL basically forces me to have the whole page delivered over HTTPS,
which may be overkill for my application.
While I can understand that token and secret acquisition might need
SSL, always requiring it on authorized requests too seems too much.
Can someone explain/re-explain why query parameter signatures need to
be eliminated? The Authorization header is great when you can
manipulate it, but you can't always. Why is it problematic for the
signatures to be able to appear in either place?
Jon
........
Jon Moore
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:39 PM, "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <[email protected]>
wrote:
In practice this is the same as logging in which I expect to require
SSL anyway. Signed or not, attackers should not be able to login to
your email account simply by using a MITM attack when you click on
your IM client. So SSL is required already.
EHL
On 4/9/10 7:30 AM, "George Fletcher" <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, this is possible, though to be secure it should really happen
over SSL which is less of a requirement for a signed request.
I guess the main question is whether we really need to remove the
signature related parameters from URL and only allow them in the
Authorization header. For signed requests, these use cases pretty
much require that the signature parameters be allowed in the URL.
Obviously, if we change our model to not use signed URLs then this
issue goes away:)
Thanks,
George
On 4/9/10 12:58 AM, Brian Eaton wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:08 AM, George Fletcher <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> wrote:
I realize that these sorts of use cases are trivial if establishment
of the
SSO session switches from a signed mechanism to the OAuth WRAP
bearer token
model. The one nice feature of the signed URL is that it is one time
use
where the bearer token can be replayed multiple times.
Yep, Google does this kind of thing too.
Is there something that stops you from declaring that a particular
token is single use?
1) Client makes call to Authorization server, passing in either the
refresh token or an access token (depending on the security model you
want.)
2) AS returns a token.
3) Client uses the token to pop open a web browser.
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
