Good news, the oauth_callback parameter should /always/ be set in the application imho. Looking forward to your "flip the switch" celebrations today.
On Apr 23, 9:59 am, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We had to wait for the midnight deadline before giving too many > details because we're taking a slightly more active approach. The code > for these changes was scheduled to go out yesterday but there was a > problem with some unrelated changes and the whole thing was rolled > back. I'm hoping to get it out early today as an emergency deploy. If > anyone has missed it, Eran posted a good explanation [1] for people > not digging the security advisory wording. > While I'm still working to get the changes out here is what you > can expect: > > 1. The lifetime of a Request Token is now much, much shorter. This new > time limit should be long enough for a person to complete the flow, > but short enough that it cuts off attacks. > » Note this is for request tokens, not access tokens. > > 2. For the time being the oauth_callback parameter will be disabled > for both authentication and authorization. The user will be sent to > the application callback in both cases. > » I'm working with the other OAuth implementers on a way to bring > it back, and Eran mentions it a bit at the end of his post [1]. We > want to make sure it works correctly before launching it so you don't > end up spending time to implement something we then have to turn off. > > As for questions about the severity of Twitter's initial response > I think you'll find Yahoo! [2] has done the same. From the OAuth > response mails I can assure you there were others as well but since > they have no public mention of it I'll let them go unmolested. It > wasn't just Twitter, that was just the only place you were looking :) > > Thanks; > — Matt Sanford, "of Alex and Doug fame" > > [1] -http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/04/explaining-the-oauth-ses... > [2] -http://developer.yahoo.net/blog/archives/2009/04/oauth_update.html > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 06:25 AM, mikehar wrote: > > > > > Totally agree with Pierre. I think we all understand the security > > issue. Why was twitter's approach so much more severe than other > > services? Why not just a warning on login? Can Doug or Alex shed some > > light on this? > > > wrt the ETA, can we get an update? One blog post said yesterday, the > > posting on this site says today. > > > Also, I'm a little taken aback by the "it's beta" rationalization for > > the massive disruption in service. It's one thing to mark it as public > > beta, it's another thing entirely to define 'beta' belatedly as "not > > suitable for production use". Does that mean we get an SLA on the non- > > beta APIs? > > > On Apr 23, 1:44 am, twitscoop <lollic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi guys, is there an ETA for it to be restored ? It seems Oauth's > >> recommended approach is to simply add a warning notice on > >> authorization until this is fixed (this is what Google did). Anyways, > >> even with this security flow, oauth is safer than providing twitter > >> credentials to third parties... > > >> Thanks! > >> Pierre > > >> On Apr 23, 7:30 am, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote: > > >>> Bill, > >>> The majority of our developers find OAuth sufficient because they > >>> are > >>> writing a Web applications. We are pleased that the deprecation of > >>> the > >>> source parameter lowered our support load and continues to drive > >>> adoption of > >>> our preferred authentication scheme. > > >>> There are of course other cases where developers find the current > >>> implementation's beta status or browser requirement concerning. I > >>> have yet > >>> to reject a source parameter request that provides a valid argument > >>> explaining why OAuth does not meet the application's needs. > > >>> Thanks, > >>> Doug Williams > >>> Twitter API Supporthttp://twitter.com/dougw > > >>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Bill Robertson > >>> <billrobertso...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >>>> I respectfully disagree. (I would colorfully disagree, but you > >>>> seem > >>>> pretty beat up right now and you don't deserve any guff) I think > >>>> developers of smaller apps see that little tag-line as a good > >>>> source > >>>> of advertising, and it seems inaccessible now if you're new (right? > >>>> wrong?). You can only get it if you use OAuth, but OAuth is now > >>>> disabled? > > >>>> Anyway, just my $0.02. Prioritize it like everything else you > >>>> need to > >>>> do (i.e. it's the 37th #1 thing on your list.) > > >>>> Good luck. > > >>>> On Apr 22, 7:58 pm, Alex Payne <a...@twitter.com> wrote: > >>>>> We don't consider source registration a "key feature". It's an > >>>>> incentive we provide to our developers. We wanted to encourage new > >>>>> developers to look into OAuth. It won't be in beta forever, > >>>>> after all. > > >>>>> We have to balance the reality of testing a new technology in our > >>>>> stack with encouraging that technology's adoption. OAuth will > >>>>> provide > >>>>> the Twitter developer community with a number of benefits, and > >>>>> that's > >>>>> the direction in which we want to move, even while there are > >>>>> kinks to > >>>>> work out. > > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 15:37, bwannon <bwan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> If beta for you guys means "still in testing, not suitable for > >>>>>> production use", then why depreciate key features from basic > >>>>>> auth like > >>>>>> source registration before you have a production ready release? > > >>>>>> On Apr 22, 3:27 pm, Alex Payne <a...@twitter.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>http://blog.twitter.com/2009/04/whats-deal-with-oauth.html > > >>>>>>> In short: there's a security issue with OAuth, and the major > >>>>>>> OAuth > >>>>>>> providers are working together to patch the vulnerability before > >>>>>>> information about the issue is publicly released. That > >>>>>>> information > >>>>>>> will be available athttp://oauth.net/atmidnight, PST. > > >>>>>>> In cooperation with this consortium of other OAuth providers > >>>>>>> (including Yahoo!, Google, Netflix, etc.), we agreed not to > >>>>>>> disclose > >>>>>>> the nature of the vulnerability, nor even that a vulnerability > >>>>>>> existed, until all members of the group agreed to do so. I > >>>>>>> apologize > >>>>>>> for what must have seemed unnecessarily tight-lipped > >>>>>>> communication > >>>>>>> around this issue, but please understand that we and the other > >>>>>>> companies involved are trying to mitigate the impact of this > >>>>>>> vulnerability as much as possible. > > >>>>>>> Please also note that our OAuth support is in beta, albeit > >>>>>>> public > >>>>>>> beta. We have not suggested to developers that they rely > >>>>>>> solely on > >>>>>>> OAuth until our support of the standard leaves beta. I know > >>>>>>> that some > >>>>>>> companies practice a policy of "perpetual beta", but at > >>>>>>> Twitter, we do > >>>>>>> not. For us, "beta" really means "still in testing, not > >>>>>>> suitable for > >>>>>>> production use". > > >>>>>>> Thanks for your patience and understanding. > > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc.http://twitter.com/al3x > > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc.http://twitter.com/al3x-Hide > >>>>> quoted text - > > >>> - Show quoted text -
