Having thought about it, I'm willing to remove the text below. Are there any
other sections of the bearer token security considerations that you believe
belong in the framework spec rather than the bearer token spec, or that don't
belong at all?
Thanks again,
-- Mike
From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 6:10 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Couple questions on draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-01
security considerations
That text still seems more restrictive than what is in the framework
specification. And it's probably unnecessary - to the point James made
previously, any mention of the AS (beyond specifying the token_type) in a
"using a token" specification should probably be avoided unless there is a very
specific reason for including it. In general, the AS is involved when "getting
a token" and the RS is involved when "using a token."
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Mike Jones
<michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
Thanks for your input, Brian. I accepted these suggestions for draft -02. The
referenced text now reads:
Furthermore, the
authorization server MUST ensure that it only hands out tokens to
clients it has authenticated first and authorized. For this
purpose, the client MUST be authenticated and authorized by
the authorization server. The authorization server MUST also
obtain the consent of the resource owner
prior to providing a token to the client.
I'll leave it up to Eran how much of this security considerations text to
incorporate into the framework specification.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>
[mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of
Brian Campbell
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:38 PM
To: oauth
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Couple questions on draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-01 security
considerations
I know draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-01 has been discussed a fair bit, however, a
couple things jumped out at me in areas that hadn't received much attention yet
so I wanted to raise the questions on a separate thread.
Near the end of section 3.2. Threat Mitigation, it says:
" Furthermore, the resource server MUST ensure that it only hands out
tokens to clients it has authenticated first and authorized. For
this purpose, the client MUST be authenticated and authorized by the
resource server. "
Was the intent here to say authorization server rather than resource server?
The resource server doesn't hand out tokens. Also, aren't there legitimate
cases where the client isn't authenticated (anonymous or other cases where the
client can't keep secrets)?
Then it says:
"The authorization server MUST also receive a
confirmation (the consent of the resource owner) prior to providing a
token to the client."
Does this allow for implicit consent? On my first read of it, I interpret this
as potentially being more restrictive than what is in
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-11
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
