Good questions! Answers inline: > On 12 Dec 2020, at 10:07, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > > Thanks for sharing, Neil! > > I‘ve got some questions: > Note: I assume the tokens you are referring in your article are OAuth access > tokens.
No, probably not. Just auth tokens more generically. > - carrying tokens in URLs wie considered bad practice by the Security BCP and > OAuth 2.1 due to leakage via referrer headers and so on. Why isn’t this an > issue with your approach? This is generally safe advice, but it is often over-cautious for three reasons: 1. Referer headers (and window.referrer) apply when embedding/linking resources in HTML. But when we’re talking about browser-based apps (eg SPAs), that usually means JavaScript calling some backend API that returns JSON or some other data format. These data formats don’t have links or embedded resources (as far as the browser is concerned), so they don’t leak Referer headers in the same way. When the app loads a resource from a URI in a JSON response the Referer header will contain the URI of the app itself (most likely a generic HTML template page), not the capability URI from which the JSON was loaded. Similar arguments apply to browser history and other typical ways that URIs leak. 2. You can now use the Referrer-Policy header [1] and rel=“noopener noreferrer” to opt out of this leakage, and browsers are moving to doing this by default for cross-origin requests/embeds. (This is already enabled by default in Safari). 3. When you do want to use capability URIs for top-level navigation, there are places in the URI you can put a token that aren’t ever included in Referer headers or window.referrer or ever sent to the server at all - such as the fragment. JavaScript can then extract the token from the fragment (and then wipe it) and send it to the server in an Authorization header or whatever. See [2] for more details and alternatives. [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Referrer-Policy [2]: https://neilmadden.blog/2019/01/16/can-you-ever-safely-include-credentials-in-a-url/ > - generating (self contained) or using (handles) per URL access tokens might > be rather expensive. Can you sketch out how you wanna cope with that > challenge? A decent HMAC implementation takes about 1-2 microseconds for typical size of token we’re talking about. > - per URL Access tokens are a very consequent Form or audience restriction. > How do you wanna signal the audience to the AS? As I said, this isn’t OAuth, but for example you can already do this with the macaroon access tokens in ForgeRock AM 7.0 - issue a single access token and then make copies with specific audience restrictions added as caveats, as discussed in [3]. Such audience restrictions are then returned in the token introspection response and the RS can enforce them. My comment in the article about ideas for future OAuth is really just that the token endpoint should be able to issue multiple fine-grained access tokens in one go, each associated with a particular endpoint (or endpoints). You could either return these as separate items like: “access_tokens”: [ { “token”: “abc...”, “aud”: “https://api.example.com/foo” }, { “token”: “def...”, “aud”: “https://api.example.com/bar” } ] Or just go ahead and combine those into capability URIs. (I think I already mentioned this a long time ago when GNAP was first being discussed). Speaking even more wishfully, what I would really love to see is a new URL scheme for these, something like: bearer://<token>@api.example.com/foo Which is equivalent to a HTTPS link, but the browser knows about this format and when clicking on/accessing such a URI it sends the token as an Authorization: Bearer header automatically. Ideally the browser would also not allow the token to be accessible from the DOM. Even without browser support I think such a URI scheme would be useful to allow GitHub and others to more easily recognise capability URIs checked into public git repos and perhaps provide a way to automatically revoke them (.well-known/token-revocation perhaps). [3]: https://neilmadden.blog/2020/07/29/least-privilege-with-less-effort-macaroon-access-tokens-in-am-7-0/ — Neil > > best regards, > Torsten. > >> Am 12.12.2020 um 08:26 schrieb Neil Madden <neil.mad...@forgerock.com>: >> >> Not directly related to DPoP or OAuth, but I wrote some notes to help >> recovering XSS Nihilists: >> https://neilmadden.blog/2020/12/10/xss-doesnt-have-to-be-game-over/ >> >> — Neil >> >>> On 12 Dec 2020, at 00:02, Brian Campbell >>> <bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think that puts Jim in the XSS Nihilism camp :) >>> >>> Implicit type flows are being deprecated/discouraged. But keeping tokens >>> out of browsers doesn't seem likely. There is some menton of CSP in >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-07#section-9.7 >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 4:10 PM Jim Manico <j...@manicode.com> wrote: >>>> The basic theme from the web attacker community is: >>>> >>>> 1) XSS is a game over event to web clients. XSS can steal or abuse >>>> (request forgery) tokens, and more. >>>> >>>> 2) Even if you prevent stolen tokens from being used outside of a web >>>> client, XSS still allows the attacker to force a user to make any request >>>> in a fraudulent way, abusing browser based tokens as a form of request >>>> forgery. >>>> >>>> 3) There are advanced measures to stop a token from being stolen from a >>>> web client, like a HTTPonly cookies and to a lesser degree, JS Closures >>>> and Webworkers. >>>> >>>> 4) However, these measures to protect cookies are mostly moot. Attackers >>>> can just force clients to make fraudulent requests. >>>> >>>> 5) Many recommend the BFF pattern to hide tokens on the back end, but >>>> still, request forgery via XSS allows all kinds of abuse. >>>> >>>> XSS is game over no matter how you slice it. >>>> >>>> Crypto solutions do not help. Perhaps the world of OAuth can start >>>> suggesting that web clients use CSP 3.0 in specific ways, if you still >>>> plan to support Implicit type flows or tokens in browsers? >>>> >>>> Respectfully, >>>> >>>> - Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/9/20 12:57 PM, Brian Campbell wrote: >>>>> Thanks Philippe, I very much concur with your line of reasoning and the >>>>> important considerations. The scenario I was thinking of is: browser >>>>> based client where XSS is used to exfiltrate the refresh token along with >>>>> pre-computed proofs that would allow for the RT to be exchanged for new >>>>> access tokens and also pre-computed proofs that would work with those >>>>> access tokens for resource access. With the pre-computed proofs that >>>>> would allow prolonged (as long as the RT is valid) access to protected >>>>> resources even when the victim is offline. Is that a concrete attack >>>>> scenario? I mean, kind of. It's pretty convoluted/complex. And while an >>>>> access token hash would reign it in somewhat (ATs obtained from the >>>>> stolen RT wouldn't be usable) it's hard to say if the cost is worth the >>>>> benefit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:47 PM Philippe De Ryck >>>>> <phili...@pragmaticwebsecurity.com> wrote: >>>>>> Yeah, browser-based apps are pure fun, aren’t they? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason I covered a couple of (pessimistic) XSS scenarios is that the >>>>>> discussion started with an assumption that the attacker already >>>>>> successfully exploited an XSS vulnerability. I pointed out how, at that >>>>>> point, finetuning DPoP proof contents will have little to no effect to >>>>>> stop an attack. I believe it is important to make this very clear, to >>>>>> avoid people turning to DPoP as a security mechanism for browser-based >>>>>> applications. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Specifically to your question on including the hash in the proof, I >>>>>> think these considerations are important: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Does the inclusion of the AT hash stop a concrete attack scenario? >>>>>> 2. Is the “cost” (implementation, getting it right, …) worth the >>>>>> benefits? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here’s my view on these considerations (specifically for browser-based >>>>>> apps, not for other types of applications): >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The proof precomputation attack is already quite complex, and short >>>>>> access token lifetimes already reduce the window of attack. If the >>>>>> attacker can steal a future AT, they could also precompute new proofs >>>>>> then. >>>>>> 2. For browser-based apps, it seems that doing this complicates the >>>>>> implementation, without adding much benefit. Of course, libraries could >>>>>> handle this, which significantly reduces the cost. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that these comments are specifically to complicating the spec and >>>>>> implementation. DPoP’s capabilities of using sender-constrained access >>>>>> tokens are still useful to counter various other scenarios (e.g., >>>>>> middleboxes or APIs abusing access tokens). If other applications would >>>>>> significantly benefit from having the hash in the proof, I’m all for it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On a final note, I would be happy to help clear up the details on >>>>>> web-based threats and defenses if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> — >>>>>> Pragmatic Web Security >>>>>> Security for developers >>>>>> https://pragmaticwebsecurity.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 Dec 2020, at 22:47, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Danial recently added some text to the working copy of the draft with >>>>>>> https://github.com/danielfett/draft-dpop/commit/f4b42058 that I think >>>>>>> aims to better convey the "nutshell: XSS = Game over" sentiment and >>>>>>> maybe dissuade folks from looking to DPoP as a cure-all for browser >>>>>>> based applications. Admittedly a lot of the initial impetus behind >>>>>>> producing the draft in the first place was born out of discussions >>>>>>> around browser based apps. But it's neither specific to browser based >>>>>>> apps nor a panacea for them. I hope the language in the document and >>>>>>> how it's recently been presented is reflective of that reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The more specific discussions/recommendations around in-browser apps >>>>>>> are valuable (if somewhat over my head) but might be more appropriate >>>>>>> in the OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps draft. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With respect to the contents of the DPoP draft, I am still keen to try >>>>>>> and flush out some consensus around the question posed in the start of >>>>>>> this thread, which is effectively whether or not to include a hash of >>>>>>> the access token in the proof. Acknowledging that "XSS = Game over" >>>>>>> does sort of evoke a tendency to not even bother with such incremental >>>>>>> protections (what I've tried to humorously coin as "XSS Nihilism" with >>>>>>> no success). And as such, I do think that leaving it how it is (no AT >>>>>>> hash in the proof) is not unreasonable. But, as Filip previously >>>>>>> articulated, including the AT hash in the proof would prevent >>>>>>> potentially prolonged access to protected resources even when the >>>>>>> victim is offline. And that seems maybe worthwhile to have in the >>>>>>> protocol, given that it's not a huge change to the spec. But it's a >>>>>>> trade-off either way and I'm personally on the fence about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Including an RT hash in the proof seems more niche. Best I can tell, it >>>>>>> would guard against prolonged offline access to protected resources >>>>>>> when access tokens are bearer and the RT was DPoP-bound and also gets >>>>>>> rotated. The trade-off there seems less worth it (I think an RT hash >>>>>>> would be more awkward in the protocol too). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:40 AM Philippe De Ryck >>>>>>> <phili...@pragmaticwebsecurity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The suggestion to use a web worker to ensure that proofs cannot be >>>>>>>>> pre-computed is a good one I think. (You could also use a sandboxed >>>>>>>>> iframe for a separate sub/sibling-domain - dpop.example.com). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An iframe with a different origin would also work (not really >>>>>>>> sandboxing, as that implies the use of the sandbox attribute to >>>>>>>> enforce behavioral restrictions). The downside of an iframe is the >>>>>>>> need to host additional HTML, vs a script file for the worker, but the >>>>>>>> effect is indeed the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For scenario 4, I think this only works if the attacker can >>>>>>>>> trick/spoof the AS into using their redirect_uri? Otherwise the AC >>>>>>>>> will go to the legitimate app which will reject it due to mismatched >>>>>>>>> state/PKCE. Or are you thinking of XSS on the redirect_uri itself? I >>>>>>>>> think probably a good practice is that the target of a redirect_uri >>>>>>>>> should be a very minimal and locked down page to avoid this kind of >>>>>>>>> possibility. (Again, using a separate sub-domain to handle tokens and >>>>>>>>> DPoP seems like a good idea). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My original thought was to use a silent flow with Web Messaging. The >>>>>>>> scenario would go as follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Setup a Web Messaging listener to receive the incoming code >>>>>>>> 2. Create a hidden iframe with the DOM APIs >>>>>>>> 3. Create an authorization request such as >>>>>>>> “/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=...&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%example.com&state=...&code_challenge=7-ffnU1EzHtMfxOAdlkp_WixnAM_z9tMh3JxgjazXAk&code_challenge_method=S256&prompt=none&response_mode=web_message” >>>>>>>> 4. Load this URL in the iframe, and wait for the result >>>>>>>> 5. Retrieve code in the listener, and use PKCE (+ DPoP if needed) to >>>>>>>> exchange it for tokens >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This puts the attacker in full control over every aspect of the flow, >>>>>>>> so no need to manipulate any of the parameters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After your comment, I also believe an attacker can run the same >>>>>>>> scenario without the “response_mode=web_message”. This would go as >>>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Create a hidden iframe with the DOM APIs >>>>>>>> 2. Setup polling to read the URL (this will be possible for >>>>>>>> same-origin pages, not for cross-origin pages) >>>>>>>> 3. Create an authorization request such as >>>>>>>> “/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=...&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%example.com&state=...&code_challenge=7-ffnU1EzHtMfxOAdlkp_WixnAM_z9tMh3JxgjazXAk&code_challenge_method=S256” >>>>>>>> 4. Load this URL in the iframe, and keep polling >>>>>>>> 5. Detect the redirect back to the application with the code in the >>>>>>>> URL, retrieve code, and use PKCE (+ DPoP if needed) to exchange it for >>>>>>>> tokens >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In step 5, the application is likely to also try to exchange the code. >>>>>>>> This will fail due to a mismatching PKCE verifier. While noisy, I >>>>>>>> don’t think it affects the scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMO, the online attack scenario (i.e., proxying malicious requests >>>>>>>>> through the victim’s browser) is quite appealing to an attacker, >>>>>>>>> despite the apparent inconvenience: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - the victim’s browser may be inside a corporate firewall or VPN, >>>>>>>>> allowing the attacker to effectively bypass these restrictions >>>>>>>>> - the attacker’s traffic is mixed in with the user’s own requests, >>>>>>>>> making them harder to distinguish or to block >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Overall, DPoP can only protect against XSS to the same level as >>>>>>>>> HttpOnly cookies. This is not nothing, but it means it only prevents >>>>>>>>> relatively naive attacks. Given the association of public key >>>>>>>>> signatures with strong authentication, people may have overinflated >>>>>>>>> expectations if DPoP is pitched as an XSS defence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, in the cookie world this is known as “Session Riding”. Having the >>>>>>>> worker for token isolation would make it possible to enforce a >>>>>>>> coarse-grained policy on outgoing requests to prevent total abuse of >>>>>>>> the AT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My main concern here is the effort of doing DPoP in a browser versus >>>>>>>> the limited gains. It may also give a false sense of security. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With all this said, I believe that the AS can lock down its >>>>>>>> configuration to reduce these attack vectors. A few initial ideas: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Disable silent flows for SPAs using RT rotation >>>>>>>> 2. Use the sec-fetch headers to detect and reject non-silent >>>>>>>> iframe-based flows >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, an OAuth 2.0 flow in an iframe in Brave/Chrome carries >>>>>>>> these headers: >>>>>>>> sec-fetch-dest: iframe >>>>>>>> sec-fetch-mode: navigate >>>>>>>> sec-fetch-site: cross-site >>>>>>>> sec-fetch-user: ?1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Philippe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and >>>>>>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any >>>>>>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly >>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>> notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any >>>>>>> file attachments from your computer. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and >>>>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any >>>>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. >>>>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the >>>>> sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file >>>>> attachments from your computer. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> -- >>>> Jim Manico >>>> Manicode Security >>>> https://www.manicode.com >>> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged >>> material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, >>> distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have >>> received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately >>> by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your >>> computer. Thank you._______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> ForgeRock values your Privacy_______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth&source=gmail-imap&ust=1608362770000000&usg=AOvVaw31Ss8FnOZiHe2e0_3e_uNg -- ForgeRock values your Privacy <https://www.forgerock.com/your-privacy>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
