I am currently developing a codebase for all mobile projects developed by our team.
One of the main services I'm working on is the authentication service, but I am unsure about whether to treat authentication and the user together or separated, understanding authentication as all the process of obtaining and storing the authentication token (sign in, sign up and sign out), and user as the instance of that user, all its data and all the methods linked to it (CRUD of the user and related content).
You really want to think about authentication and authorization separately if you can. For small enough project's it's worth consolidating, but the more separation you can include the better for the future.
Just to baseline:
Authentication => Who are you?
Authorization => What can you do?
Authentication paradigms are almost always (these days) external, from SAML, to FIDO2, to whatever comes next... It's going to be a moving target, and you DON'T want your authorization scheme tightly tied to it. Authorization is almost always an internal concern, and should not be tied to the flavor of the week that is authentication. Not to mention the fact that it is a near certainty that you will soon be supporting multiple authentication protocols simultaneously (you aren't already?), and embedding roles based on that auth is a messy thing at best.
Also, you are at some point going to need to do something horrible, like dumping your user database and moving to a new provider. Don't make that even messier by putting all your authorization logic in there.
Finally, testing is immensely easier when you can mock authorization without authentication. Test cases will dramatically simplify if you can "impersonate" a different role on demand.
In any reasonably large/complex product you will have multiple domain views onto a user.
Each of these views will translate into separately stored data and logic/services for each view. The key being separation of concerns.
In order to make sure the different views can be connected it is useful to have a common identifier for a user that you may want to pass between services. But you may not need to pass a lot of additional information across the services. For example the domain services do not need to know about passwords etc.
Even in your question an authentication service may be separate from an authorization service may be separate from anything else, etc.
Related
I'm in a real build or buy struggle. GCP identity platform would serve almost all our needs.
Basically I want to build usermanagement on my own (including rbac and groups) and ONLY want to solve Login and tokens with the below requirements. I know quite a bit about jwt and authentication in general. The question I'm asking my self is just of its better to build a solution on my own or to use one existing.
Is there any alternative which supports the following:
multi tenancy (at scale >10k tenants)
MFA
social login
SSO with oidc and saml
and of course persistence (using refresh tokens)
Are there any tipps for self building? Are there any alternatives? Any direction is greatly appreciated 🙏
PS:
None of these are what I need: Ory, keycloak, okta, auth0, fusionauth, gluu
USER DATA
When you integrate OAuth there are always 2 sources of user data:
The identity data's view of users
Your own business data's view of users
I think what you are saying is that you want finer control over user data, while also externalising difficult security work.
TOKENS AND CLAIMS
The identity system should be able to include values such as Tenant ID in access tokens, regardless of which data source each value is stored in.
Similarly the User ID in your business data is also likely to be needed in tokens. This value should be provided to your APIs in a consistent way, regardless of how the user signs in, and this is managed via account linking.
DESIGNING END-TO-END FLOWS
The main thing is to think through how these will work, for both new and existing users. This detailed Curity article provides some worked examples.
CHOOSING A SOLUTION
Don't choose a third party identity system until you've designed your end to end flows and clarified your requirements. The key thing about OAuth is that it requires extensible building blocks, rather than being an out of the box solution.
Some companies start with home grown identity microservices, which can become a lot of work, but may be ok in the early days. I always recommend keeping application code portable, so that you can migrate to a better provider in future, if needed.
Are you only considering open source solutions? Azure AD ticks all of your boxes.
You should not implement security logic like authorization or authentication or encryption yourself. IMO its always better to use an existing solution - especially features like MFA are not trivial to implement.
None of these are what I need: Ory, keycloak, okta, auth0, fusionauth, gluu
Why is that? It seems to me most of those are a good option for you - especially the open source ones
I'm extremely confused on how to use a centralized IDP with both authentication and authorization. The architecture for my project was to be a single web API and one React client. I wanted to keep things structured out into microservices just to try something more modern, but I'm having major issues with the centralized identity, as many others have.
My goal is fairly simple. User logs in, selects a tenant from a list of tenants that they have access to, and then they are redirected to the client with roles and a "tid" or tenant id claim which is just the GUID of the selected company.
The Microsoft prescribed way to add identity in my scenario is IdentityServer, so I started with that. Everything was smooth sailing until I discovered the inner workings of the tokens. While some others have issues adding permissions, the authorization logic in my application is very simple and roles would suffice. While I would initially be fine with roles refreshing naturally via expiration, they must immediately update whenever my users select a different tenant to "log in" to. However, the problem is that I cannot refresh these claims when the user changes tenants without logging out. Essentially, I tried mixing authorization with authentication and hit a wall.
It seems like I have two options:
Obtain the authorization information from a separate provider, or even an endpoint on the identity server itself, like /user-info but for authorization information. This ends up adding a huge overhead, but the actual boilerplate for the server and for the client is minimal. This is similar to how the OSS version of PolicyServer does it, although I do not know how their paid implementation is. My main problem here is that both the client and resource (API) will need this information. How could I avoid N requests per interaction (where N is the number of resources/clients)?
Implement some sort of custom state and keep a store of users who need their JWTs refreshed. Check these and return some custom response to the caller, which then uses custom js client code to refresh the token on this response. This is a huge theory and, even if it is plausible, still introduces state and kind of invalidates the point of JWTs while requiring a large amount of custom code.
So, I apologize for the long post but this is really irking me. I do not NEED to use IdentityServer or JWTs, but I would like to at least have a React front-end. What options do I have for up-to-date tenancy selection and roles? Right when I was willing to give in and implement an authorization endpoint that returns fresh data, I realized I'd be calling it both at the API and client every request. Even with cached data, that's a lot of overhead just in pure http calls. Is there some alternative solution that would work here? Could I honestly just use a cookie with authorization information that is secure and updated only when necessary?
It becomes confusing when you want to use IdentityServer as-is for user authorization. Keep concerns seperated.
As commented by Dominick Baier:
Yes – we recommend to use IdentityServer for end-user authentication,
federation and API access control.
PolicyServer is our recommendation for user authorization.
Option 1 seems the recommended option. So if you decide to go for option 1:
The OSS version of the PolicyServer will suffice for handling the requests. But instead of using a json config file:
// this sets up the PolicyServer client library and policy provider
// - configuration is loaded from appsettings.json
services.AddPolicyServerClient(Configuration.GetSection("Policy"))
.AddAuthorizationPermissionPolicies();
get the information from an endpoint. Add caching to improve performance.
In order to allow centralized access, you can either create a seperate policy server or extend IdentityServer with user authorization endpoints. Use extension grants to access the user authorization endpoints, because you may want to distinguish between client and api.
The json configuration is local. The new endpoint will need it's own data store where it can read the user claims. In order to allow centralized information, add information about where the permissions can be used. Personally I use the scope to model the permissions, because both client and api know the scope.
Final step is to add admin UI or endpoints to maintain the user authorization.
I ended up using remote gRPC calls for the authorization. You can see more at https://github.com/Perustaja/PermissionServerDemo
I don't like to accept my own answer here but I think my solution and thoughts on it in the repository will be good for anyone thinking about possible solutions to handing stale JWT authorization information.
I am creating a Web API service for an application with a single tenant database. Each company will have it's own database strictly controlled and created by us. I am aware of the maintenance implications of single-tenant databases compared to multi-tenant and we feel single-tenant best fits our needs. Users will be created by us only.
There will be a master database to "map" each user to their company database when authenticating based on only their username (email address). If there is a match on email the authentication will then continue within the client's company database which will contain the password hash.
This leaves the databases self contained which is needed for foreign keys for audit records. The master database simply acts as a mapping or routing based on username (email address).
I created a new Web API project and used the Individual Accounts template. I like the way it works but unfortunately I don't see how I can customize this enough to accommodate for my needs. Would this be possible? I need to use tokens. The only other alternative I can think of is a completely custom authentication procedure but security is not something I want to take lightly as I'm sure I will mess up somewhere along the line. I am aware that the user passes its username and password over SSL to the server which responds with a token which then gets included in the header of each subsequent request to an authorized resource. I just need to know if this is something I will have to completely implement myself? This whole thing may just be a silly model for an application in which case I am open to suggestions.
Any feedback would be helpful.
Thanks
After lots of searching I finally found the type of solution I was looking for. Dominick from Thinktecture has a blog post which details a nice embedded token authorization method which I can now extend upon. This is exactly the type of solution I was looking for as it is extremely simple.
Embedding a simple Username/Password Authorization Server in Web API v2
Overview
I'm looking to create a (REST) API for my application. The initial/primary purpose will be for consumption by mobile apps (iPhone, Android, Symbian, etc). I've been looking into different mechanisms for authentication and authorization for web-based APIs (by studying other implementations). I've got my head wrapped around most of the fundamental concepts but am still looking for guidance in a few areas. The last thing I want to do is reinvent the wheel, but I'm not finding any standard solutions that fits my criteria (however my criteria my be misguided so feel free to critique that as well). Additionally, I want the API to be the same for all platforms/applications consuming it.
oAuth
I'll go ahead and throw out my objection to oAuth since I know that will likely be the first solution offered. For mobile applications (or more specifically non-web applications), it just seems wrong to leave the application (to go to a web-browser) for the authentication. Additionally, there is no way (I am aware of) for the browser to return the callback to the application (especially cross-platform). I know a couple of apps that do that, but it just feels wrong and gives a break in the application UX.
Requirements
User enters username/password into application.
Every API call is identified by the calling application.
Overhead is kept to a minimum and the auth aspect is intuitive for developers.
The mechanism is secure for both the end user (their login credentials are not exposed) as well as the developer (their application credentials are not exposed).
If possible, not require https (by no means a hard requirement).
My Current Thoughts on Implementation
An external developer will request an API account. They will receive an apikey and apisecret. Every request will require at minimum three parameters.
apikey - given to developer at regisration
timestamp - doubles as a unique identifier for each message for a given apikey
hash - a hash of the timestamp + the apisecret
The apikey is required to identify the application issuing the request. The timestamp acts similarly to the oauth_nonce and avoids/mitigates replay attacks. The hash ensures that request was actually issued from the owner of the given apikey.
For authenticated requests (ones done on the behalf of a user), I'm still undecided between going with an access_token route or a username and password hash combo. Either way, at some point a username/password combo will be required. So when it does, a hash of several pieces of information (apikey, apisecret, timestamp) + the password would be used. I'd love feedback on this aspect. FYI, they would have to hash the password first, since I don't store the passwords in my system without hashing.
Conclusion
FYI, this isn't a request for how to build/structure the API in general only how to handle the authentication and authorization from solely within an application.
Random Thoughts/Bonus Questions
For APIs that only require an apikey as part of the request, how do you prevent someone other than the apikey owner from being able to see the apikey (since sent in the clear) and make excessive requests to push them over usage limits? Maybe I'm just over thinking this, but shouldn't there be something to authenticate that a request was verified to the apikey owner? In my case, that was the purpose of the apisecret, it is never shown/transmitted without being hashed.
Speaking of hashes, what about md5 vs hmac-sha1? Does it really matter when all of the values are hashed with with sufficiently long data (ie. apisecret)?
I had been previously considering adding a per user/row salt to my users password hash. If I were to do that, how could the application be able to create a matching hash without knowing the salt used?
The way I'm thinking about doing the login part of this in my projects is:
before login the user requests a login_token from the server. These are generated and stored on the server on request, and probably have a limited lifetime.
to login the application calculates the hash of the users password, then hashes the password with the login_token to get a value, they then return both the login_token and the combined hash.
The server checks the login_token is one that it has generated, removing it from its list of valid login_tokens. The server then combines its stored hash of the user's password with the login_token and ensures that it matches the submitted combined token. If it matches you have authenticated your user.
Advantages of this are that you never store the user's password on the server, the password is never passed in the clear, the password hash is only passed in the clear on account creation (though there may be ways around this), and it should be safe from replay attacks as the login_token is removed from the DB on use.
That's a whole lot of questions in one, I guess quite a few people didn't manage to read all the way to the end :)
My experience of web service authentication is that people usually overengineer it, and the problems are only the same as you would encounter on a web page. Possible very simple options would include https for the login step, return a token, require it to be included with future requests. You could also use http basic authentication, and just pass stuff in the header. For added security, rotate/expire the tokens frequently, check the requests are coming from the same IP block (this could get messy though as mobile users move between cells), combine with API key or similar. Alternatively, do the "request key" step of oauth (someone suggested this in a previous answer already and it's a good idea) before authenticating the user, and use that as a required key to generate the access token.
An alternative which I haven't used yet but I've heard a lot about as a device-friendly alternative to oAuth is xAuth. Have a look at it and if you use it then I'd be really interested to hear what your impressions are.
For hashing, sha1 is a bit better but don't get hung up about it - whatever the devices can easily (and quickly in a performance sense) implement is probably fine.
Hope that helps, good luck :)
So what you're after is some kind of server side authentication mechanism that will handle the authentication and authorisation aspects of a mobile application?
Assuming this is the case, then I would approach it as follows (but only 'cos I'm a Java developer so a C# guy would do it differently):
The RESTful authentication and authorisation service
This will work only over HTTPS to prevent eavesdropping.
It will be based on a combination of RESTEasy, Spring Security and CAS (for single sign on across multiple applications).
It will work with both browsers and web-enabled client applications
There will be a web-based account management interface to allow users to edit their details, and admins (for particular applications) to change authorisation levels
The client side security library/application
For each supported platform (e.g.
Symbian, Android, iOS etc) create a
suitable implementation of the
security library in the native
language of the platform (e.g. Java,
ObjectiveC, C etc)
The library
should manage the HTTPS request
formation using the available APIs
for the given platform (e.g. Java
uses URLConnection etc)
Consumers of the general authentication and
authorisation library ('cos that's
all it is) will code to a specific
interface and won't be happy if it
ever changes so make sure it's very
flexible. Follow existing design
choices such as Spring Security.
So now that the view from 30,000ft is complete how do you go about doing it? Well, it's not that hard to create an authentication and authorisation system based on the listed technologies on the server side with a browser client. In combination with HTTPS, the frameworks will provide a secure process based on a shared token (usually presented as a cookie) generated by the authentication process and used whenever the user wishes to do something. This token is presented by the client to the server whenever any request takes place.
In the case of the local mobile application, it seems that you're after a solution that does the following:
Client application has a defined Access Control List (ACL) controlling runtime access to method calls. For example, a given user can read a collection from a method, but their ACL only permits access to objects that have a Q in their name so some data in the collection is quiety pulled by the security interceptor. In Java this is straightforward, you just use the Spring Security annotations on the calling code and implement a suitable ACL response process. In other languages, you're on your own and will probably need to provide boilerplate security code that calls into your security library. If the language supports AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming) then use it to the fullest for this situation.
The security library caches the complete list of authorisations into it's private memory for the current application so that it doesn't have to remain connected. Depending on the length of the login session, this could be a one-off operation that never gets repeated.
Whatever you do, don't try to invent your own security protocol, or use security by obscurity. You'll never be able to write a better algorithm for this than those that are currently available and free. Also, people trust well known algorithms. So if you say that your security library provides authorisation and authentication for local mobile applications using a combination of SSL, HTTPS, SpringSecurity and AES encrypted tokens then you'll immediately have creditibility in the marketplace.
Hope this helps, and good luck with your venture. If you would like more info, let me know - I've written quite a few web applications based on Spring Security, ACLs and the like.
Twitter addressed the external application issue in oAuth by supporting a variant they call xAuth. Unfortunately there's already a plethora of other schemes with this name so it can be confusing to sort out.
The protocol is oAuth, except it skips the request token phase and simply immediately issues an access token pair upon receipt of a username and password. (Starting at step E here.) This initial request and response must be secured - it's sending the username and password in plaintext and receiving back the access token and secret token. Once the access token pair has been configured, whether the initial token exchange was via the oAuth model or the xAuth model is irrelevant to both the client and server for the rest of the session. This has the advantage that you can leverage existing oAuth infrastructure and have very nearly the same implementation for mobile/web/desktop applications. The main disadvantage is that the application is granted access to the client's user name and password, but it appears like your requirements mandate this approach.
In any case, I'd like to agree with your intuition and that of several other answerers here: don't try to build something new from scratch. Security protocols can be easy to start but are always hard to do well, and the more convoluted they become the less likely your third-party developers are to be able to implement against them. Your hypothetical protocol is very similar to o(x)Auth - api_key/api_secret, nonce, sha1 hashing - but instead of being able to use one of the many existing libraries your developers are going to need to roll their own.
Super late to the party but I wanted to throw in some additional points to consider for anyone interested in this issue. I work for a company doing mobile API security solutions (approov) so this whole area is definitely relevant to my interests.
To start with, the most important thing to consider when trying to secure a mobile API is how much it is worth to you. The right solution for a bank is different to the right solution for someone just doing things for fun.
In the proposed solution you mention that a minimum of three parameters will be required:
apikey - given to developer at registration
timestamp - doubles as a unique identifier for each message for a given apikey
hash - a hash of the timestamp + the apisecret
The implication of this is that for some API calls no username/password is required. This can be useful for applications where you don't want to force a login (browsing in online shops for example).
This is a slightly different problem to the one of user authentication and is more like authentication or attestation of the software. There is no user, but you still want to ensure that there is no malicious access to your API. So you use your API secret to sign the traffic and identify the code accessing the API as genuine. The potential problem with this solution is that you then have to give away the secret inside every version of the app. If someone can extract the secret they can use your API, impersonating your software but doing whatever they like.
To counter that threat there are a bunch of things you can do depending on how valuable the data is. Obfuscation is a simple way to make it harder to extract the secret. There are tools that will do that for you, more so for Android, but you still have to have code that generates your hash and a sufficiently skilled individual can always just call the function that does the hashing directly.
Another way to mitigate against excessive use of an API that doesn't require a login is to throttle the traffic and potentially identify and block suspect IP addresses. The amount of effort you want to go to will largely depend upon how valuble your data is.
Beyond that you can easily start getting into the domain of my day job. Anyway, it's another aspect of securing APIs that I think is important and wanted to flag up.
I've been reading about Azure's Access Control Service and claims-based authorization in general for a while now, and for whatever reason, I still don't see the rationale behind moving from role/permission-based authorization to a claims-based model. The models seem similar to me (and they probably are), except that the list of what the client can and can't do comes from a third party and is wrapped up in some sort of token, instead of from some sort of database that the server has to query. What's the advantage of getting a third party (the token issuer) involved?
I fully understand the advantages of outsourcing authentication to a third party. It allows apps to not have to create new users all the time, worry about storing passwords, etc. when they can just push that off to some other service that already has the infrastructure set up. It's essentially the DRY principle for authentication.
However, in my mind, that same logic doesn't work for authorization. Each app has its own resources it has to protect, and therefore its own rules for authorizing users to perform certain actions. The infrastructure seems simple enough that each app could create it on its own (a table mapping users to roles, and possibly another mapping roles to permissions), and even if you wanted to outsource it, it seems that the claims-based model is doing something more complicated than that.
The only partial explanation I've seen comes from Building a Claims-Based Security Model in WCF, and it gives two main advantages to claims-based auth: more flexibility, and someone to "vouch" that the information in a claim is correct. When would you need either of those?
Claims-based authorization seems to be gaining popularity, so I assume there must be some good rationale for it; I just haven't figured out what that is yet. Can someone please provide a concrete example of a situation where claims-based auth works better than role-based, and why it works better in that case?
(EDIT: I missed a third benefit listed in the article: supporting single sign-on/federation. But doesn't authentication deal with that on its own without getting authorization involved?)
I guess the main promise of a benefit from federated security / claims-based system would be one fewer area you have to deal with different systems.
Imagine a site where you have local users authenticating with Windows credentials, a bunch of internet users using username/password, others using certificates, and maybe another group of users with biometric authentication.
In today's system, you have to set up and deal with all different kinds of authentication schemes and their different ways of doing things. That can get pretty messy.
The promise of a federated security solution would be to handle all those chores for you - the STS (security token server) would handle all different kinds of authentication systems for you, and present to you a uniform and trusted set of claims about a caller - no matter from where and on which path he's arriving at your site.
Of course, just examining and reacting to a single set of claims rather than having to understand four, five, ten different and disparate authentication systems looks like a really compelling promise to me!
The purpose of claims based authorization is to allow fine grained access control based on Boolean expressions that evaluate characteristics of the accessing entity and the resource. This reduces or eliminates the need to provision groups. As with federated identity, claims also provide a vehicle for an Identity provider to manage their users wile allowing a resource provider to gate users access to assets.
Note: Claims can be used within a single enterprise and provide the following benefits:
1) Access grants and revocations do not require provisioning or de-provisioning
2) Thus changes are instantaneous
3) Resource owners can define the scope and requirements for access rather than having admins create groups manage group memberships - this moves the access control decisions into the hands of the folks best suited to make such decisions (the data owner)
4) This results in fewer groups being required and fewer member in the groups
5) There can be issues creating a single group to accommodate a large community having access (for
example all full time employees can read a HR policy) - Claims avoids this problem
6) Audit is more informative - the reason a grant or deny took place is clearly visible
7) Claims support dynamic attributes, such as 2-factor authentication, time of day, or network restrictions
There are a lot more reasons, but those ones come to mind. There will shortly be a video at www.cionsystems.com that showcases this (disclaimer - I work there and recorded the video - I still need to post it) Also, for reference, claims aware apps and platforms include SharePoint 2010 on, Windows 2012 (file shares), Azure, many SaaS services (Facebook and Salesforce)
Also, with claims you can blend information from multiple sources (say Facebook and your local AD) etc. - which is increasingly important
Not sure if the rules allow this, but feel free to ping me with your questions or comments. I'll happily edit the post to make any corrections or add pertinent info.
Claims can come from AD, databases tables, SAML, OAuth, algorithms, XACML or any other trusted provider. Harnessing claims requires a bit of kit - with apps and platforms evolving rapidly in this space.
All the Best,
Paul
Claims-based access control also helps build up attribute-based access control and policy-based access control. If you standardize on a set of pre-agreed claims that can be assigned to users based on their other attributes (e.g. a US manager can have claim U_M; a European manager can have claim E_M).
In an attribute-based and policy-based environment, it's possible to achieve fine-grained authorization (also known as fine-grained entitlements) using XACML.
In this case, you can have authorization that depends on who the user is (claims) but also what they want to do (resource information) and under which circumstances (context).
CBAC with XACML will let you express rules like:
managers can edit notes they created themselves or notes that their
direct reports created.
Role based security is a limited security model
Authorization is:
Based on role membership only
Claims based security is much more flexible and expressive
Authorisation can be:
Based on role membership
Based on Age
Based on Geographic Location
Based on an account balance
Based on a size
Based on pre-defined securtiy levels
Based on any combination of the above