Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to the Power Users community on Codidact!

Power Users is a Q&A site for questions about the usage of computer software and hardware. We are still a small site and would like to grow, so please consider joining our community. We are looking forward to your questions and answers; they are the building blocks of a repository of knowledge we are building together.

Comments on Understanding OAuth(2) security: what's a realistic threat model?

Parent

Understanding OAuth(2) security: what's a realistic threat model?

+4
−0

Suppose I want to use some functionality on foo.com which requires associating my activity with me specifically - for example, posting on a forum, or playing some games and having the site keep track of my wins and losses. Rather than creating a site-specific account or trying to track me by IP, foo.com offers me an option to "authenticate with bar.com", which uses OAuth or OAuth2. I do already have an account at bar.com.

  • If I am not already logged in at bar.com, I should always log in separately before attempting to authenticate, correct? There is no way that foo.com can provide me with a login window and prove to me that it's secure (i.e., that they aren't MITMing me)?

  • Similarly, if I believe I'm logged in at bar.com already, but trying the foo.com authentication link gives me a login form, I should reject this and treat it as a phishing attempt, correct?

  • Supposing I am not asked for credentials - how can I verify that I have been properly redirected through bar.com to give permission for authentication?

  • When I give bar.com permission to authenticate me to foo.com, how do I know that this won't compromise my bar.com login? What information is actually communicated per the OAuth protocol?

  • When I give such permission, typically bar.com will warn me that foo.com wants permission to access (or know) certain information about my bar.com account. How can I be sure that only that information is being transmitted?

  • Could foo.com ever gain the ability to modify my bar.com account information?

  • Could it happen that the authentication appears to just work without me giving consent on a bar.com interstitial? If that happened, what should I do?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Threat to operator (2 comments)
Post
+3
−0

Threats

In my head, there are three main threats, though the OAuth 2 RFC has a whole chapter on the topic. Your questions deal mostly with one of them and slightly with another.

Fake login page

You asked some great questions on this. There are several ways[1][2] (not comprehensive) that people are tricked into providing bar.com credentials, but with care you can avoid them.

Granting more access than expected

OAuth 2 has "scopes" for authorizing specific access to or actions on bar.com. A malicious foo.com may ask for more data on you than it strictly needs. This is similar to the old days of Android permissions: "Why does a flashlight app need to read my emails?"

Identity sharing

Both sites now know that you're a member of the other. This is not necessarily more dangerous than signing up with an email, and in some cases exactly equivalent: If bar.com is an email provider[3] and you were already going to sign up on foo.com with that email, using OAuth probably isn't any worse. (Assuming foo.com sends you at least one email that is recognizable as originating from it.)

  • If you don't want Microsoft to know that you have an account on embarrassingphotos.example.com, don't "Sign in with GitHub" to it.
  • Also vice versa: Don't link accounts if you're worried foo.com will find all your public friends on bar.com and threaten to tell them your nefarious foo.com activity.

Questions

I skipped one of your questions that I think is a duplicate of another one. If you can articulate the difference, I can try to address it.

  • If I am not already logged in at bar.com, I should always log in separately before attempting to authenticate, correct? There is no way that foo.com can provide me with a login window and prove to me that it's secure (i.e., that they aren't MITMing me)?

The login window is from bar.com. The foo.com site typically sends the current page or a new tab to bar.com to do the sign-in.[2:1] You do need to make sure that it's not sending you to a lookalike URL,[1:1] but the certificate should all be fine since it's completely the other site.

  • Similarly, if I believe I'm logged in at bar.com already, but trying the foo.com authentication link gives me a login form, I should reject this and treat it as a phishing attempt, correct?

That would certainly be fishy, but it's the same situation as above. You should be able to tell that you're on the right site by examining the certificate chain and verifying that it's not using lookalike characters[1:2] in the domain.

  • When I give bar.com permission to authenticate me to foo.com, how do I know that this won't compromise my bar.com login? What information is actually communicated per the OAuth protocol?

At no point are your credentials passed anywhere (except if you signed into bar.com to see the interstitial, and only bar.com gets those).

OAuth2 bolts some authorization on top of the authentication, which lets them also say "and here is the list of things my user says you can ask from their account and/or do to their account." In those cases, foo.com has to ask for the permissions, and bar.com shows them to you to grant or deny. Some sites may allow you to choose which things to grant. Some may just let you accept/reject the whole slate. If foo.com asks for things you didn't expect, maybe it's not a service you should trust.

The flow looks like this: foo.com opens a request in your browser to bar.com so your existing session is valid. It asks for the scopes it wants. If you approve the scopes in the interstitial, bar.com sends you back to foo.com with a short-lived code. Then, foo.com's backend issues a request with that code directly to bar.com so a user's browser, extensions, and network can't interfere with it. If bar.com agrees, it gives foo.com a longer-lived token.

  • When I give such permission, typically bar.com will warn me that foo.com wants permission to access (or know) certain information about my bar.com account. How can I be sure that only that information is being transmitted?

You don't, really. You can make your own requesting site, though, and see that it really does only give you the things that you agreed to on bar.com.

Like any software, it can do all sorts of things, and they can be unsafe. And since it's a website, the software can change at any time. All of this is incumbent on bar.com not doing the wrong thing, though. None of it depends on foo.com (though you hope foo.com doesn't leak data either).

  • Could foo.com ever gain the ability to modify my bar.com account information?

Yes. See above. Many sites issue permissions called "scopes" (that it asks you about, on first registration), to do things like load your profile picture or integrate with your calendar on bar.com. Or it can wait and ask (with a new interstitial) for permission to do that later, after your first registration.

  • Could it happen that the authentication appears to just work without me giving consent on a bar.com interstitial? If that happened, what should I do?

I wouldn't expect that the first time, but as above: software can do anything, so bar.com could do that. After the first registration, yes, I'd expect it to bounce between foo -> bar -> foo when you load up a foo.com page, and do all that seamlessly without your input.

If it happened the first time you registered (or if you revoked foo.com access), I'd complain to the owners of bar.com. That would be a security hole in their site.


  1. Lookalikes can be simple like B4R.com or use math or other-alphabet symbols that look the same as the characters in the "normal" trusted URL. Can you spot the Cyrillic letter in bаr.com? Many web browsers try to Punycode those characters, but you still want to be careful. Another tactic is the sirnilarity between rn and m. Did you notice it in the last sentence or read right past it? ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Sometimes the requesting site opens a popup of bar.com, but I don't like that as much. It trains people to click the password field in a picture that looks like a popup, complete with fake close buttons, etc., but isn't a popup at all. You can drag the popup out of the main window's frame to make sure it's not rendered by foo.com. (Attackers' creativity will never cease to amaze me.) ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. I'm looking at you, GMail and Outlook. ↩︎

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Good point about information sharing (1 comment)
Good point about information sharing
Karl Knechtel‭ wrote 8 months ago

It can especially be hard to remember, for example, that Microsoft owns GitHub now.