Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Is 4-legged OAuth possible?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Mike Malone  
View profile  
 More options Mar 27 2009, 3:56 am
From: Mike Malone <mjmal...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:56:37 -0700
Local: Fri, Mar 27 2009 3:56 am
Subject: Re: [oauth] Re: Is 4-legged OAuth possible?

Good post, Eran, but if you removed the token/consumer matching requirement
entirely, and encouraged sharing token credentials, wouldn't we essentially
be in the same boat we're currently in with usernames and passwords? (Ok,
that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but we'd still be giving up a lot of
what makes OAuth secure.)

What if an application could request a limited use token (limited
permissions, limited number of requests, limited lifetime, etc.) that it
could then pass on to a third party application to make requests? Just a
thought...

Mike

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:

> First, let's now get carried away with the leg count... I don't think
> naming this scenario 4-legged is helpful.

> I think your use case could be addressed in many way and the complexity
> level should be based on the actual threat model, not some generic
> "requirements".

> You'll notice that while section 6.3.2 (Core 1.0) explicitly requires that
> "The Request Token matches the Consumer Key", there is no such requirement
> in section 7. This means clients are free to share the token credentials
> with other clients if permitted by the server.

> This is a question of managing expectations more than anything else (when a
> user authorizes an application, they usually have an idea of what the
> application is going to do, including using other applications). I would
> encourage servers to permit token usage by clients other than those the
> tokens were issued to, only after explicitly obtaining permission for that
> from the client.

> While it would be great to have a way to keep the chain of control active
> for sharing access, services like Twitter might be just fine with just
> allowing tokens to be shared between applications.

> EHL

> More thought on my blog
> http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2009/03/taking-oauth-beyond-the-...

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: oauth@googlegroups.com [mailto:oauth@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
> > Of Ivan Kirigin
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:14 AM
> > To: OAuth
> > Subject: [oauth] Is 4-legged OAuth possible?

> > Hi,

> > I recently integrated Twitter's OAuth into my site, http://tipjoy.com

> > It's a great user experience and a lot like Facebook Connect.

> > But I ran into a problem when developing our API for Twitter
> > applications to use Tipjoy for payments. OAuth tokens aren't
> > transferable like a username & password. For example, a Twitter user
> > on TweetDeck can input a username & password, which lets TweetDeck
> > post a picture to TwitPic. If TweetDeck were granted OAuth access to
> > the user's Twitter account, TwitPic couldn't verify the access tokens
> > easily, and couldn't communicate to Twitter with them.

> > How can we power this 4-legged OAuth? Twitter could act as an
> > intermediary, to tell TwitPic that the request from TweetDeck is
> > authorized.

> > I'm told Facebook is coming up with a solution for Facebook Connect.
> > As the environment for social apps becomes more connected, this
> > communication between 3rd parties about users on the OAuth provider
> > become more important.

> > What do you all think?

> > Thanks,
> > Ivan
> > http://tipjoy.com


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.