I think a security considerations addendum makes sense. regards, Torsten.
<div>-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------</div><div>Von: "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org> </div><div>Datum:15.09.2014 23:15 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>An: Antonio Sanso <asa...@adobe.com> </div><div>Cc: oauth@ietf.org </div><div>Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] open redirect in rfc6749 </div><div> </div>As we discussed before: This isn't really an open redirection in the classical sense since nothing gets leaked and the URI is tied back to a known (albeit malicious) client registration. And I thought the clear solution was to have an AS not automatically redirect to an untrusted client in error conditions, where "untrusted" is defined by the AS with guidance. If anything this is a security considerations addendum. -- Justin On Sep 15, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Antonio Sanso <asa...@adobe.com> wrote: > The problem is that a malicious client can register a malicious redirect uri > and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.1.2.1 does the rest (as > previously discussed) > > regards > > antonio > > On Sep 15, 2014, at 10:43 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> If a server accepts a URL from a client to be used as a redirect that the >> server doesn’t recognize or is not registered, that is an open redirect. >> >> The specification does no allow open-redirects, it considers this a >> mis-configuration. >> >> Take a look at sections 3.1.2.2 and 10.15 of RFC6749. >> >> Phil >> >> @independentid >> www.independentid.com >> phil.h...@oracle.com >> >> >> >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 1:00 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: >> >>> There may be a problem with semantics in this discussion. >>> >>> There is a redirect performed by athe authorization endpoint to a fixed uri >>> that is pre registered with the authorization server without user >>> prompting. >>> >>> That probably doesn't fit the strict definition of a open redirector. >>> >>> It may however create similar security issues in situations with relatively >>> open registration of clients. >>> >>> The largest issues are that the browser might leak information across the >>> redirect in the fragment or referrer. That has been used in attacks >>> against Facebook in the past. >>> >>> This is no where near the end of the world, however we need to look at the >>> security considerations and see if we can provide better advice to >>> implementors. In some cases returning a error to the browser may be best. >>> >>> I don't think we need to go so far as not returning any error to the client >>> under any circumstance. >>> >>> John B. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Simply not true. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> @independentid >>>> www.independentid.com >>>> phil.h...@oracle.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Antonio Sanso <asa...@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> hi *, >>>>> >>>>> my understanding is that there is a rough consensus that if an OAuth >>>>> Provider follows rfc6749 verbatim will end up having an open redirector. >>>>> My next question would be now, is there anything we can do to raise some >>>>> awareness about this issue? >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> >>>>> antonio >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Hans Zandbelt <hzandb...@pingidentity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am convinced about the issue in the use case Antonio provided but I >>>>>> hope not to close the door on returning errors to known and trusted >>>>>> clients. Not sure anymore if that's possible though because the >>>>>> distinction can't be "registered"... >>>>>> >>>>>> Hans. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/4/14, 3:01 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>>>>>> hi Bill >>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Bill Burke <bbu...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FWIW, Antonio convinced me and I'm going to change this in our IDM >>>>>>>> project. Thanks Antonio. What convinced me was that the user is >>>>>>>> probably expecting a login screen. Since there is this expectation, >>>>>>>> it might make it a little easier for the attacker to convince the user >>>>>>>> that a spoofed login screen is real. I know this issue can only >>>>>>>> happen with unrestricted registration, but, IMO, this proposed change >>>>>>>> doesn't really have much of an effect on usability and is even >>>>>>>> backward compatible with the current RFC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wouldn't it better though to never do a redirect on an invalid request >>>>>>>> and just display an error page? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for sharing your thoughts :). Display an error 400 is what >>>>>>> Google does :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> antonio >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2014 3:50 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Hans, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really fail to see how this can be addressed at registration time >>>>>>>>> for cases where registration is unrestricted (namely all the big >>>>>>>>> Providers) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> antonio >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Hans Zandbelt >>>>>>>>>> <hzandb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Classifying like this must also mean that consent should not be >>>>>>>>>> stored until the client is considered (admin) trusted, and admin >>>>>>>>>> policy would interfere with user policy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IMHO the security consideration would apply only to dynamically >>>>>>>>>> registered clients where registration is unrestricted; any other >>>>>>>>>> form would involve some form of admin/user approval at registration >>>>>>>>>> time, overcoming the concern at authorization time: there's no >>>>>>>>>> auto-redirect flow possible for unknown clients. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/14, 9:04 AM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I think this advice isn't a bad idea, though it's of course up to >>>>>>>>>>> the AS >>>>>>>>>>> what an "untrusted" client really is. In practice, this is something >>>>>>>>>>> that was registered by a non-sysadmin type person, either a >>>>>>>>>>> dynamically >>>>>>>>>>> registered client or something available through self-service >>>>>>>>>>> registration of some type. It's also reasonable that a client, even >>>>>>>>>>> dynamically registered, would be considered "trusted" if enough >>>>>>>>>>> time has >>>>>>>>>>> passed and enough users have used it without things blowing up. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- Justin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Antonio Sanso <asa...@adobe.com >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:asa...@adobe.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hi again *, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> after thinking a bit further IMHO an alternative for the untrusted >>>>>>>>>>>> clients can also be to always present the consent screen (at least >>>>>>>>>>>> once) before any redirect. >>>>>>>>>>>> Namely all providers I have seen show the consent screen if all the >>>>>>>>>>>> request parameters are correct and if the user accepts the redirect >>>>>>>>>>>> happens. >>>>>>>>>>>> If one of the parameter (with the exclusion of the client id and >>>>>>>>>>>> redirect uri that are handled differently as for spec) is wrong >>>>>>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>>>>>> the redirect happens without the consent screen being shown.. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> antonio >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Antonio Sanso <asa...@adobe.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:asa...@adobe.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not know if this is only dynamic registration... >>>>>>>>>>>>> let’s talk about real use cases, namely e.g. Google , Facebook , >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.. is that dynamic client registration? I do not know… :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Said that what the other guys think? :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would this deserve some “spec adjustment” ? I mean there is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason >>>>>>>>>>>>> if Google is by choice “violating” the spec right? (I assume to >>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid >>>>>>>>>>>>> open redirect…) >>>>>>>>>>>>> But other implementers do follow the spec hence they have this >>>>>>>>>>>>> open >>>>>>>>>>>>> redirector… and this is not nice IMHO... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Hans Zandbelt >>>>>>>>>>>>> <hzandb...@pingidentity.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/14, 7:14 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Hans Zandbelt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hzandb...@pingidentity.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is your concern clients that were registered using dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registration? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your issue is then with the trust model of dynamic client >>>>>>>>>>>>>> registration; that is left out of scope of the dynreg spec (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept is not even part of the core spec), but unless you want >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything to be open (which typically would not be the case), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would involve approval somewhere in the process before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> client >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is registered. Without dynamic client registration that approval >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admin based or resource owner based, depending on use case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise the positive case is returning a response to a valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> URL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that belongs to a client that was registered explicitly by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resource owner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well AFAIK the resource owner doesn’t register clients… >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> roles can collapse in use cases especially when using dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> client >>>>>>>>>>>>>> registration >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the negative case is returning an error to that same URL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the difference is the consent screen… in the positive case you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to approve an app.. for the error case no approval is needed,,, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fail to see the open redirect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the client and thus the fixed URL are explicitly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> approved at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some point >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/14, 6:56 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Hans Zandbelt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hzandb...@pingidentity.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try and approach this from a different angle: why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call it an open redirect when an invalid scope is provided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct protocol behavior (hopefully) when a valid scope is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as specified below in the positive case (namely when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is provided) the resource owner MUST approve the app via the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen (at least once). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/14, 6:46 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi John, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:14 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the example the redirect_uri is vlid for the attacker. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is that the AS may be allowing client >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registrations with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary redirect_uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the spec it is unspecified how a AS validates that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controls the redirect_uri it is registering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that if anything it may be the registration step >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security consideration. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (this is the first time :p) but I do disagree with you. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty unpractical to block this at registration time…. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO the best approach is the one taken from Google, namely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 400 with the cause of the error.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *400.* That’s an error. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Error: invalid_scope* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some requested scopes were invalid. {invalid=[l]} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that I hope you all agree this is an issue in the spec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far…. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antonio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Bill Burke <bbu...@redhat.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bbu...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bbu...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bbu...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand. The redirect uri has to be valid in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirect to happen. The spec explicitly states this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2014 11:43 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi *, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO providers that strictly follow rfc6749 are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to open >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me explain, reading [0] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the request fails due to a missing, invalid, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mismatching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirection URI, or if the client identifier is missing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the authorization server SHOULD inform the resource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owner of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error and MUST NOT automatically redirect the user-agent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid redirection URI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the resource owner denies the access request or if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails for reasons other than a missing or invalid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirection URI, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the authorization server informs the client by adding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters to the query component of the redirection URI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format, perAppendix B >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#appendix-B>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now let’s assume this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am registering a new client to thevictim.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://thevictim.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://victim.com/><http://victim.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://victim.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://victim.com/>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://victim.com <http://victim.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://victim.com/>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I register redirect uriattacker.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://uriattacker.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/><http://attacker.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/> <http://attacker.com/>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com <http://attacker.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/>>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to [0] if I pass e.g. the wrong scope I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacker.com <http://attacker.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/><http://attacker.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/>> <http://attacker.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://attacker.com/> <http://attacker.com/>>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Namely I prepare a url that is in this form: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://victim.com/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=bc88FitX1298KPj2WS259BBMa9_KCfL3&scope=WRONG_SCOPE&redirect_uri=http://attacker.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and this is works as an open redirector. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course in the positive case if all the parameters are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t apply since the resource owner MUST approve the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> app >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent screen (at least once). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution would be to return error 400 rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirect URI (as some provider e.g. Google do) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> antonio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.1.2.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Burke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://bill.burkecentral.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org><mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans Zandbelt | Sr. Technical Architect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hzandb...@pingidentity.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com>| Ping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Identity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans Zandbelt | Sr. Technical Architect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hzandb...@pingidentity.com <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ping Identity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hans Zandbelt | Sr. Technical Architect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hzandb...@pingidentity.com <mailto:hzandb...@pingidentity.com>| >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ping >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Identity >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Hans Zandbelt | Sr. Technical Architect >>>>>>>>>> hzandb...@pingidentity.com | Ping Identity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Bill Burke >>>>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >>>>>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Hans Zandbelt | Sr. Technical Architect >>>>>> hzandb...@pingidentity.com | Ping Identity >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
