Yes, that's my point. David's point is that we need two tokens to defend against these scenarios.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:02, Allen Tom <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't this currently the case with the OpenID/Oauth Hybrid? If the RP has an > Access Token for the user, and the RP's login cookies are compromised, the > attacker will be able to use the RP as a proxy to the user's data on the OP. > > Is there a new attack scenario that has been introduced that was not already > present in the existing OpenID 2.0/Hybrid? > > Allen > > > On 5/19/10 11:06 PM, "Breno de Medeiros" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am saying that if someone steals the user login cookie for >> coolcalendar.com and coolcalendar also has a token to access the user >> contact data, it's pretty likely that the attacker will recover the >> contacts even if the login cookie is not the same token as the contact >> access token. >> >> It is probably more effective as a security mechanism to restrict >> lifetime of access token in this case. >> >> On Wednesday, May 19, 2010, Allen Tom <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Breno, >>> >>> Can you describe the attack scenario with an example? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Allen >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/19/10 8:38 PM, "Breno de Medeiros" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 20:36, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> So because one thing is potentially insecure we should knowingly make two >>>>> things insecure? I'm not following your logic here. :-\ >>>> >>>> I am saying that the first insecure thing unlocks the second. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Breno de Medeiros <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 20:28, David Recordon <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> And given that the server would return one token good for both the >>>>>>> `openid` >>>>>>> and `calendar` scopes, leaking it via HTTP cookies would be bad. Thus in >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> proposal the access token remains secret and is useful for a variety of >>>>>>> scopes while the signature sure another form of a "token" can become >>>>>>> public and not compromise security. >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't it likely that compromising the logged-in state at the client >>>>>> exposes the data protected by the access token anyway, since the >>>>>> client has access to the token and therefore the data was probably >>>>>> imported and is available in the client? >>>>>> >>>>>>> --David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Allen Tom <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whoa, I think it¹s premature to say that Yahoo supports OpenID Connect, >>>>>>>> but I would imagine that only a single Access Token would be returned >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> coolcalendar.com the Access Token would presumably be good for both >>>>>>>> ³openid² and ³calendar² scope. Why would the OP want to return 2 >>>>>>>> tokens? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Allen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/19/10 5:27 PM, "Dirk Balfanz" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's say I'm coolcalendar.com <http://coolcalendar.com> , and I want >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> "connect" one of my user's accounts to his Yahoo! account. I don't want >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> roll my own auth system, so I'm happy to see that Yahoo! supports >>>>>>>> OpenID >>>>>>>> Connect. To connect, I'll send the user over to Yahoo! with >>>>>>>> scope=openid%20yahoo-calendar. What I get back, in your proposal, is >>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>> different kinds of "tokens": the access token that my servers use to >>>>>>>> access >>>>>>>> Yahoo! and something I'll call "openid connect token" (which in your >>>>>>>> proposal comprises a few different parameters - user id, timestamp, >>>>>>>> signature, etc.) that browsers use (in form of a cookie) to access my >>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>> servers at coolcalendar.com <http://coolcalendar.com> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do those two tokens look different? They serve the same purpose - >>>>>>>> authenticating access from a client to a server, so they should look >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why should Yahoo! run different code to authenticate requests coming >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> my server than the code I'm running on my servers to authenticate >>>>>>>> requests >>>>>>>> coming from browsers - we have to solve the same task, so we should run >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same code. It's simpler. >>>>> > > -- --Breno +1 (650) 214-1007 desk +1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central) MTV-41-3 : 383-A PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7) _______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
