Skip to content
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

Add info to security considerations about outdated security practices, and link in new versions #3603

Open
handrews opened this issue Feb 22, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
security: meta Metadata in and about the specification security

Comments

@handrews
Copy link
Member

handrews commented Feb 22, 2024

See PR #3584 from @AxelNennker for the background. We agreed in the TDC meeting 2024-02-22 to add info in security considerations and probably also on the learn site, and link to that and to any new RFCs in 3.0.4/3.1.1/3.2.0.

@lornajane also noted that we should replace any examples using deprecated practices with ones that are current.

@AxelNennker
Copy link
Contributor

Regarding

@lornajane also noted that we should replace any examples using deprecated practices with ones that are current.

I assume that a PR replacing the implicit grant type examples by authoriztionCode grant type examples should start in v3.0.4-dev, right? Examples are non-normative and changing to another flow in an example should not break things.

https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/v3.0.4-dev/versions/3.0.4.md

I would write that PR but I do not want doing it for the wrong version. Please advise.

@AxelNennker
Copy link
Contributor

If I wrote an PR updating https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/main/SECURITY_CONSIDERATIONS.md?plain=1 to which branch would that be?

I would recommend reading to API designers/developers the elven years old OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations and the new draft probably replacing it this year OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice. From there I would argue that implicit flow should be replaced by authorization code flow with PKCE.

@AxelNennker
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe mention FAPI 2.0 Security Profile because what is good for the Financial Industry should be considered for other APIs that e.g. handle health data, personal data, child data etc.

@handrews
Copy link
Member Author

I'm not sure what's going on with the security considerations document, as I think it was a stop-gap for putting such a section in future releases. @darrelmiller can you advise?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
security: meta Metadata in and about the specification security
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants