In practice this is the same as logging in which I expect to require SSL anyway. Signed or not, attackers should not be able to login to your email account simply by using a MITM attack when you click on your IM client. So SSL is required already.
EHL On 4/9/10 7:30 AM, "George Fletcher" <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, this is possible, though to be secure it should really happen over SSL which is less of a requirement for a signed request. I guess the main question is whether we really need to remove the signature related parameters from URL and only allow them in the Authorization header. For signed requests, these use cases pretty much require that the signature parameters be allowed in the URL. Obviously, if we change our model to not use signed URLs then this issue goes away:) Thanks, George On 4/9/10 12:58 AM, Brian Eaton wrote: On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:08 AM, George Fletcher <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: I realize that these sorts of use cases are trivial if establishment of the SSO session switches from a signed mechanism to the OAuth WRAP bearer token model. The one nice feature of the signed URL is that it is one time use where the bearer token can be replayed multiple times. Yep, Google does this kind of thing too. Is there something that stops you from declaring that a particular token is single use? 1) Client makes call to Authorization server, passing in either the refresh token or an access token (depending on the security model you want.) 2) AS returns a token. 3) Client uses the token to pop open a web browser. Cheers, Brian
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
