<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Johannes,<br>
<br>
My personal opinion is that if HTTPS is used for the entire protocol
flow, including the RP's return_to URL, then the RP should be able to
verify that the timetamp in the nonce is current, to within a few
minutes, as opposed to having to verify that the entire nonce is truly
unique.<br>
<br>
Allen<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Johannes Ernst wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:E39C16E0-E073-4AA4-94E0-6C7C87AD759D@netmesh.us"
type="cite"><br>
On Jun 8, 2009, at 15:50, Allen Tom wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">6) Pull the replay warning into its own
bullet, and mention the use of a timestamp to bound the time nonces
must be stored for.
<br>
</blockquote>
[atom] Also a good point. On a related note, many large globally
distributed RPs may have a hard time implementing nonces as per the
OpenID spec, as it's technically tricky to globally replicate data,
especially if it needs to be replicated very quickly. In practice, RPs
may only find it practical to verify that the timestamp is "current" as
opposed to actually verifying that the nonce is can only be used once.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In this case, do these mythical "globally distributed RPs" have a
better approach for avoiding replay attacks or do they simply swallow
that risk because no better approach is known.
<br>
<br>
Just wondering ...
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Johannes Ernst
<br>
NetMesh Inc.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr size="4" width="90%"><br>
<center><img src="cid:part1.03070807.04020004@yahoo-inc.com"></center>
<p> <br>
<br>
</p>
<hr size="4" width="90%"><br>
<center><img src="cid:part2.03000201.03020808@yahoo-inc.com"></center>
<p> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://netmesh.info/jernst">http://netmesh.info/jernst</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>