Ok, missed that – thanks.

 

For now in my implementation I’m also ignoring this problem :)

 

-Brock

 

From: Justin Richer [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 4:37 PM
To: Brock Allen <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP request signing and repeated query/header keys

 

In §7.5 we currently have:

 

   The behavior of repeated query parameters or repeated HTTP headers is
   undefined by this specification.  If a header or query parameter is
   repeated on either the outgoing request from the client or the
   incoming request to the protected resource, that query parameter or
   header name MUST NOT be covered by the hash and signature. [[ Note to
   the WG: is this something we need to cover? ]]

 

Which is to say: Yeah, that’s a problem, probably. We either declare this 
behavior out of scope and say you can’t use this method with that kind of API 
(or at least those parameters/headers) or we define a mechanism for handling 
that. I’m in favor of the former, and removing the text from the generation 
sections that says repeated parameters are processed with no special handling, 
making them explicitly out of scope throughout.

 

I would love to see more feedback from the group about this, especially if 
someone’s got a clever solution.

 

 — Justin

 

On Feb 28, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Brock Allen <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

 

Given that the client can iterate over the query/headers in any order to 
generate the concatenated value to hash, I think there’s an issue with query 
string or header values with repeated keys. I’ll stick with query params for 
simplicity in my sample. 

 

If a client signs this concatenated query: “a=1&a=2” then the “p” value in the 
signed JSON object could be this:

 

"p": [["a", "a"], "blah"]

 

On the resource server, how do you know which key/value pair to put in which 
order for verification? Also, given that different server implementations 
express these incoming parameters in different ways, it seems problematic to be 
consistent.

 

Thanks.

 

-Brock

 

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

 

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to