|
|
|
|
|
by alangpierce
2903 days ago
|
|
An argument I've heard against TLS is that it's easy for clients to get wrong. In some cases, client code needs to directly check that the certificate matches the intended domain, and forgetting to do so makes TLS worthless because an attacker can just use any valid certificate. In other cases, certificate checking runs into some problem, and an inexperienced developer finds a "solution" on StackOverflow to just disable certificate checking, which, again, makes TLS worthless. In other cases, a client might make a valid TLS request to the wrong server (either by mistake or due to some other attack). With OAuth 2, any of these problems will leak your bearer token, meaning than an attacker can act as you until the token expires. With OAuth 1, you're typically going over TLS anyway, but even if an attacker knows the contents of all requests, they won't be able to act as you because they still won't be able to sign any future requests. Edit: I just dug up the blog post I've read that describes most of the points I made above: https://hueniverse.com/oauth-bearer-tokens-are-a-terrible-id... |
|