OpenID/Oauth hybrid [was Re: specs Digest, Vol 27, Issue 3]

Dirk Balfanz balfanz at
Tue Nov 18 01:40:40 UTC 2008

[+Brian Eaton]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Allen Tom <atom at> wrote:

> Sadly, because the OpenID authentication request is not signed, the CK
> can't be authenticated, but as you pointed out, although the user may
> authorize the application, the CK secret is still required to fetch the
> credentials. The worst that could happen is that a user will authorize an
> impostor, but the impostor will not be able to retrieve the token.
> That being said, in our case, the CK contains additional information
> besides the scope. Yahoo's OAuth Permissions screen contains a lot of rich
> information including the application's name, description, developer(s),
> images, authorization lifetimes, etc. Over time, new fields may be added to
> the approval page.
> While it might make sense for the application's scope to be passed in at
> authorization time, does it also make sense to define new parameters for all
> the other application specific metadata? The actual data that needs to be
> displayed on an approval page is very SP specific, and some SPs may have
> security/legal policies requiring that all metadata is manually reviewed,
> which makes it impossible for metadata to be passed in at runtime.

Oh I see. Ok. I'l make a new revision of the spec where I add a required
parameter (the consumer key) to the auth request.

What should the spec recommend the OP should do if the consumer key and
realm don't match? Return a cancel? Return something else?

Another change I'll be making is to take out references to unregistered
consumers. Brian found a weakness in our approach (the one where we make the
association secret the consumer secret) that makes me think we need to think
about unregistered consumers a bit more[1].


[1] Basically, the problem is that we have oracles around the web that add
OAuth signatures to arbitrary requests. They're called OpenSocial gadget
containers. If and when OpenID signatures and OAuth signatures converge,
with the current propocal we might end up in a situation where my gadget
container will create OAuth signatures using the same key needed to assert
auth responses.

> So that's why SPs may need the CK in order to display the Approval page.
> Make sense?
> Allen
> Dirk Balfanz wrote:
>> Need to know the CK for what? What purpose would hinting at the CK serve
>> (since it wouldn't prove ownership)? And don't say "scope" :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the specs mailing list