-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
fix: issue 298 #299
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
fix: issue 298 #299
Conversation
some nitpicks and clarifications
- Generating a unique Status List for every Referenced Token. By these means, the Issuer could maintain a mapping between Referenced Tokens and Status Lists and thus track the usage of Referenced Tokens by utilizing this mapping for the incoming requests. | ||
- Encoding a unique uri in each Reference Token which points to the underlying Status List. This may involve using uri components such as query parameters, unique path segments or fragments to make the uri unique. | ||
|
||
This malicious behaviour can be detected by Relying Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing the number of different Status Lists and their sizes with the volume of Reference Tokens being verified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This malicious behaviour can be detected by Relying Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing the number of different Status Lists and their sizes with the volume of Reference Tokens being verified. | |
This malicious behavior can be detected by Relying Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing the number of different Status Lists and their sizes with the volume of Reference Tokens being verified. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We've been mainly using the British spelling, so I'd keep behaviour as is.
draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.md
Outdated
|
||
A malicious Issuer could bypass the privacy benefits of the herd privacy by generating a unique Status List for every Referenced Token. By these means, the Issuer could maintain a mapping between Referenced Tokens and Status Lists and thus track the usage of Referenced Tokens by utilizing this mapping for the incoming requests. This malicious behaviour could be detected by Relying Parties that request large amounts of Referenced Tokens by comparing the number of different Status Lists and their sizes. | ||
A malicious Issuer could bypass the privacy benefits of the herd privacy by |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’m not entirely sure if it’s always a malicious issuer. This kind of thing can "accidentally" be introduced by a legitimate issuer due to the various reasons (due to lack of recommendations, knowledge, and whatnot).
It's a bit unfortunate that there isn't much RPs can do about it as URLs such as https://example.com/some_tenant_guid1/statuslists/1 and https://example.com/some_tenant_guid2/statuslists/1 are valid ones.
I've also left a comment about the use of claim vs property in my #298. |
Co-authored-by: Paul Bastian <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrii Deinega <[email protected]>
Fixes #298