Hi Brian,

I know. But there is this sentence in 3.2.1,

----------
In the "authorization_code" grant_type request to the token endpoint,
an unauthenticated client sends "client_id" to prevent itself from
inadvertently accepting a code
intended for a client with a different "client_id".
-----------

which explicitely discusses the authz code w/o saying this behavior is mandatory. People might "feel" a contradiction or difference to 4.1.3. I would suggest to either remove this sentence in 3.2.1 or change it to:

----------
In the "authorization_code" grant_type request to the token endpoint,
an unauthenticated client MUST send its "client_id" to prevent itself from
inadvertently accepting a code
intended for a client with a different "client_id".
-----------

regards,
Torsten.

Am 27.07.2012 15:47, schrieb Brian Campbell:
Hey Torsten,

The requirement that public clients send their client_id with an authz
code grant is in 4.1.3 (Where the Access Token Request for the code
grant is defined) of John's proposed text:

4.1.3.  Access Token Request

   client_id
         REQUIRED if the client is NOT authenticating with the
         authorization server as described in Section 3.2.1




On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt
<tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
Hi John,

I would expect sending a client_id is a MUST for public clients in the authz code grant type. That's not how I read the proposed text for section 3.1.

regards,
Torsten.



John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> schrieb:

The changes introduced in Draft 29 had unintended consequences on parts of
the spec caused by
Sec 4.3,  4.4 and 6 referencing Sec 3.2.1 as part of client
authentication.

This change restricts the requirement to send client_id to only Sec 4.1.4
for clients that are not authenticated per Sec 3.2.1




Section 3.2.1


A public client that was not issued a client password MUST use the
  "client_id" request parameter to identify itself when sending
requests to the token endpoint. This allows the authorization server
  to ensure that the code was issued to the same client.  Sending
"client_id" prevents the client from inadvertently accepting a code intended for a client with a different "client_id". This protects
  the client from substitution of the authentication code.  (It
  provides no additional security for the protected resource.)


Change  to

A client MAY use the "client_id" request parameter to identify itself
  when sending requests to the token endpoint.
In the "authorization_code" grant_type request to the token endpoint, an unauthenticated client sends "client_id" to prevent itself from
  inadvertently accepting a code
intended for a client with a different "client_id". This protects
  the client from substitution of the authentication code.  (It
  provides no additional security for the protected resource.)


** This allows any client to send client ID and explains the threat to
code.


4.1.3.  Access Token Request



Add
  client_id
        REQUIRED if the client is NOT authenticating with the
        authorization server as described in Section 3.2.1




** This makes client_id only REQUIRED for the code flow if the client is
not otherwise authenticated.

Change


     ensure the authorization code was issued to the authenticated
     confidential client or to the public client identified by the
     "client_id" in the request,


To:
     ensure the authorization code was issued to the authenticated
confidential client, or if the client is public, ensure the code was
     issued to "client_id" in the request,


** That removes the implication of authentication.




_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to