Claimed https scheme as app identity proof #141
Labels
draft-00-feedback
Feedback from reviews of draft -00
interim
Items to discuss in the next WG interim meeting
From the "Impersonation of native apps" security considerations section:
Vittorio: I find this misleading. Client side measures such as claimed schemes, domains etc might work to prevent an app impersonating another app on the same device/OS, but they aren’t guaranteed to be honored on other operating systems. The AS has no way of knowing whether those measures have been enforced on the client, hence it should not accept them as proof.
Aaron: I believe this was intended to allow the AS to skip the consent screen on repeated authorizations if the app is using a claimed https redirect URI vs a custom scheme. Would it be enough to clarify that this only applies to skipping the consent screen or other similar policies at the AS, but doesn't turn it into a confidential client?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: