Can you give an example where an unknown parameter being ignored can lead to 
security issues?

EH


From: John Bradley <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:55:21 -0700
To: William Mills <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Ignoring unrecognized request parameters

If you have a generic client that works across multiple Authorization endpoints 
some that have extension X and others not, I can see that having the 
Authorization servers ignore unknown parameters is desirable.

However there are some endpoints that are not going to be able to allow unknown 
parameters due to there security policy.   They are often a indication of an 
attack.

If this remains a MUST then some endpoints will have to ignore it, and be non 
compliant.

I would be OK with something like "MUST ignore unknown parameters unless the 
endpoint is required to return an error due to local security policy."

There is probably no perfect compromise on this one.

John B.


On 2012-02-16, at 3:32 PM, William Mills wrote:

No, this is required for forward compatibility.  Implementations that send 
extended parameters like capability advertisements (i.e. CAPTCHA support or 
something) shoudl not be broken hitting older implementations.

________________________________
From: Mike Jones 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Ignoring unrecognized request parameters

In core -23, the last paragraph of section 
3.1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23#section-3.1> now says:

                The authorization server MUST ignore unrecognized request 
parameters.

In -22, this said:

                The authorization server SHOULD ignore unrecognized request 
parameters.

In a security protocol, it seems unreasonable to require that information be 
ignored.  As I see it, it SHOULD be legal to return an error if unrecognized 
information is received.

Why the change?  And can we please have it changed back to SHOULD in -24?

                                                                Thanks,
                                                                -- Mike


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


_______________________________________________
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