OAuth is not secure or I didn't understand it?_问答_开发者

I was thinking about security for my REST web Service API, and decided to take a look at others large services and how they do it. As an example I decided to study Twitter's OAuth. After reading beginners guide I'm a little be confused and shocked.

As I understood it's Service provider responsibility to authenticate user and to show User what kind of access consumer is demanding (for example it want's read only access to specific resource). But I saw service providers that doesn't inform user on what type of access consumer is demanding (and even now showing consumer's identity). The second part of problem is that consumer can show his own custom Provider Service Authentication form in IFrame, and just hide access details, they can just steal you password, or request unlimited access to you resources, they can do basically what ever they want, there are lot's of way to trick user.

As an example let's take a LinkedIn. They request your gmail username and password inside their own form, and you have no idea how they will use it. They can just steal it and store in their DB, they can OAuth wit开发者_运维技巧h it to gmail (and they don't show gmail's page with information what type of access they request), they can do whatever they want with this information.

What I'm trying to say is not that OAuth communication protocol is not secure, but rather there are lot's of way to use it improperly to trick the user and get his credentials.

BTW there were some security flaws in OAuth protocol itself: (http://oauth.net/advisories/2009-1/) and I'm pretty sure there are more, but no one cares to find them.

I'm going to go with 'You didn't understand it.' (In your defense, very few people do.)

Let's be clear: The session fixation attack you're referring to affected OAuth 1.0, but was resolved in OAuth 1.0a, which became RFC 5849. There are no major implementors of OAuth 1.0 — the major implementors all either implemented OAuth 1.0a/RFC 5849 or they implemented one of the OAuth 2.0 drafts.

As for the username/password anti-pattern, OAuth 1.0a does not provide for a mechanism to exchange a username and password for an access token. OAuth 2.0 does, but only for the purposes of supporting installed applications. Keep in mind that an installed application could simply keylog (or similar) if it really wanted to. When it comes to security, all bets are off if an application is already running natively and unsandboxed on the client's machine. But this is actually a very different scenario than what you're talking about. Web applications in both OAuth 1.0a and OAuth 2.0 don't ever touch the username and password.

The flow for OAuth 1.0a goes like this: The application asks the provider for a request token, telling it all of the things it wants access to. The provider issues the temporary unauthorized token, at which point the client may send the user to the provider to authorize that token. The user logins in with their username and password on the provider's site and then either grants or denies access. The provider then redirects back with a verifier string that allows the site to upgrade to an authorized access token. All of these interactions are signed. If the signatures don't match on any of them, the provider will reject the request. And the user can revoke any token at any time, removing the client's ability to access their account.

There are a number of security considerations with the protocol, but if you actually read the list, it's essentially the same list of the security issues that affect almost every site on the internet. These security considerations are all very well known and very well understood. To my knowledge, there are currently no known exploitable attacks against providers that correctly address all of these security considerations.

Point being, you are much safer using OAuth 1.0a or OAuth 2.0 to authorize a third party than with any of the alternatives. If you don't feel comfortable with these, the solution is simple: Don't authorize third parties to access your account. There certainly are plenty of reasons why you might not want to do that.

It sounds like you are confused about what's not secure. As I understand it, the OAuth protocol itself, if implemented properly, is secure. It's just that it's easy to implement improperly, and users get confused because they don't really understand what they are doing.

For example, what LinkedIn is doing is all wrong. I would never give them my gmail account information in this way. In order for me to provide my gmail account information, I insist on seeing that my browser is using SSL with Google and so the root frame of the page comes from Google.

Then there is the matter of trusting Google to correctly tell me what access is being requested and by who. If I don't trust them to do this, I shouldn't be using OAuth.