how to use cakePHP addUnauthenticatedActions() with tokens in the URL - authentication

I am working in Cake 4 and have successfully included the authentication plugin that replaces the deprecated Auth(). To avoid an infinite redirect loop I have added the actions I want excluded from authentication similar to that shown in the Cake CMS tutorial.
UsersController:
$this->Authentication->addUnauthenticatedActions(['login', 'forgotpassword', 'resetpassword']);
I intend to use tokens for the resetpassword action and a reset link sent to a user will look something like this.
http://localhost/axletrace/users/resetpassword7724d1bbd400e0bd624411549a2dd64c6b73481e
Because the action requested now looks like 'resetpassword7724d1bbd400e0bd624411549a2dd64c6b73481e', it is not a match to the exclusions listed above and it redirects to the login page.
I have tried using a wildcard as shown below but it makes no difference.
$this->Authentication->addUnauthenticatedActions(['login', 'forgotpassword', 'resetpassword*']);
Given that the token is not a static value what is the way to handle this situation. I am trying to use the token as an authentication token only. I would prefer not to use JWT Authentication and I am not worrying about session tokens for the time being.
Any help would be apprecated, thanks.

Related

Creating a "pre-signed/tokenized" URL which skips the login step (Json Web Tokens)

I'm working on an application where an administrator will send a unique link to a user for them to fill out a form. The system requires authentication in order to fill out a form, however I would like this unique link to "skip" the login step for the user. ie when the user receives the link, they can simply click it and fill out the form without logging in, but behind the scenes the user is actually authenticated with a Json Web token. Ideally I would like the link to never expire, or possibly after 1 year so the user could use the link 6 months down the road and the link will seamlessly still work for the user.
The most obvious solution would be to generate a JWT token with a lengthy expiry when the admin generates the link and just include the token in the url that is sent to the user. When the user receives the link, they already have a JWT token so they don't need to login. However this feels like it may be insecure because now the user has a JWT token for their user with a long expiry sitting in their email inbox.
I think I might be able to include information in the JWT token that would restrict it for that specific purpose (filling out the form), but I'm not even sure if I'm on the right path here.
What is the best way to do this, is there any other recommended ways to create sort of a "pre-signed" url that skips the login step?
I'm using ASP.NET Core as the backend, but I'm not sure if it's relevant as this is more of a general authentication / JWT problem.
doesn't matter what precautions you take, anyone who gets a hold of the email would be authenticated. I would consider PGP (or the like) in sending email to user.

Laravel 5.2 - How to implement register with api token without session?

I'm looking for a way to create a api token after registration without session
And I also have a question:
Regular site have session to identify the current user
But in api How can I identify the current user if we do not create for him a session?
I'm having trouble with these questions
The main concept is that in login request you send e-mail and password and you get the token.
In all next request you send always this token (so you know which user makes the request) and for this you also send other data (if they are necessary).
Of course you need to make sure this token is somehow unique so you can now exactly which user is making the request.
You can implement it on your own or you can take advantage on some ready components.
In fact in Laravel 5.2 you have TokenGuard built in so you can create simple token authentication out of the box. You can watch this movie on Laracasts for further details.
You can also use some other packages for example JWT Auth

User registration/authentication flow on a REST API

I know this is not the first time the topic is treated in StackOverflow, however, I have some questions I couldn't find an answer to or other questions have opposed answers.
I am doing a rather simple REST API (Silex-PHP) to be consumed initially by just one SPA (backbone app). I don't want to comment all the several authentication methods in this question as that topic is already fully covered on SO. I'll basically create a token for each user, and this token will be attached in every request that requires authentication by the SPA. All the SPA-Server transactions will run under HTTPS. For now, my decision is that the token doesn't expire. Tokens that expire/tokens per session are not complying with the statelessness of REST, right? I understand there's a lot of room for security improvement but that's my scope for now.
I have a model for Tokens, and thus a table in the database for tokens with a FK to user_id. By this I mean the token is not part of my user model.
REGISTER
I have a POST /users (requires no authentication) that creates a user in the database and returns the new user. This complies with the one request one resource rule. However, this brings me certain doubts:
My idea is that at the time to create a new user, create a new token for the user, to immediately return it with the Response, and thus, improving the UX. The user will immediately be able to start using the web app. However, returning the token for such response would break the rule of returning just the resource. Should I instead make two requests together? One to create the user and one to retrieve the token without the user needing to reenter credentials?
If I decided to return the token together with the user, then I believe POST /users would be confusing for the API consumer, and then something like POST /auth/register appears. Once more, I dislike this idea because involves a verb. I really like the simplicity offered in this answer. But then again, I'd need to do two requests together, a POST /users and a POST /tokens. How wrong is it to do two requests together and also, how would I exactly send the relevant information for the token to be attached to a certain user if both requests are sent together?
For now my flow works like follows:
1. Register form makes a POST /users request
2. Server creates a new user and a new token, returns both in the response (break REST rule)
3. Client now attaches token to every Request that needs Authorization
The token never expires, preserving REST statelessness.
EMAIL VALIDATION
Most of the current webapps require email validation without breaking the UX for the users, i.e the users can immediately use the webapp after registering. On the other side, if I return the token with the register request as suggested above, users will immediately have access to every resource without validating emails.
Normally I'd go for the following workflow:
1. Register form sends POST /users request.
2. Server creates a new user with validated_email set to false and stores an email_validation_token. Additionally, the server sends an email generating an URL that contains the email_validation_token.
3. The user clicks on the URL that makes a request: For example POST /users/email_validation/{email_validation_token}
4. Server validates email, sets validated_email to true, generates a token and returns it in the response, redirecting the user to his home page at the same time.
This looks overcomplicated and totally ruins the UX. How'd you go about it?
LOGIN
This is quite simple, for now I am doing it this way so please correct me if wrong:
1. User fills a log in form which makes a request to POST /login sending Basic Auth credentials.
2. Server checks Basic Auth credentials and returns token for the given user.
3. Web app attached the given token to every future request.
login is a verb and thus breaks a REST rule, everyone seems to agree on doing it this way though.
LOGOUT
Why does everyone seem to need a /auth/logout endpoint? From my point of view clicking on "logout" in the web app should basically remove the token from the application and not send it in further requests. The server plays no role in this.
As it is possible that the token is kept in localStorage to prevent losing the token on a possible page refresh, logout would also imply removing the token from the localStorage. But still, this doesn't affect the server. I understand people who need to have a POST /logout are basically working with session tokens, which again break the statelessness of REST.
REMEMBER ME
I understand the remember me basically refers to saving the returned token to the localStorage or not in my case. Is this right?
If you'd recommend any further reading on this topic I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks!
REGISTER
Tokens that expire/tokens per session are not complying with the statelessness of REST, right?
No, there's nothing wrong with that. Many HTTP authentication schemes do have expiring tokens. OAuth2 is super popular for REST services, and many OAuth2 implementations force the client to refresh the access token from time to time.
My idea is that at the time to create a new user, create a new token for the user, to immediately return it with the Response, and thus, improving the UX. The user will immediately be able to start using the web app. However, returning the token for such response would break the rule of returning just the resource. Should I instead make two requests together? One to create the user and one to retrieve the token without the user needing to reenter credentials?
Typically, if you create a new resource following REST best practices, you don't return something in response to a POST like this. Doing this would make the call more RPC-like, so I would agree with you here... it's not perfectly RESTful. I'll offer two solutions to this:
Ignore this, break the best practices. Maybe it's for the best in this case, and making exceptions if they make a lot more sense is sometimes the best thing to do (after careful consideration).
If you want be more RESTful, I'll offer an alternative.
Lets assume you want to use OAuth2 (not a bad idea!). The OAuth2 API is not really RESTful for a number of reasons. I'm my mind it is still better to use a well-defined authentication API, over rolling your own for the sake of being RESTful.
That still leaves you with the problem of creating a user on your API, and in response to this (POST) call, returning a secret which can be used as an access/refresh token.
My alternative is as follows:
You don't need to have a user in order to start a session.
What you can do instead is start the session before you create the user. This guarantees that for any future call, you know you are talking to the same client.
If you start your OAuth2 process and receive your access/refresh token, you can simply do an authenticated POST request on /users. What this means is that your system needs to be aware of 2 types of authenticated users:
Users that logged in with a username/password (`grant_type = passsword1).
Users that logged in 'anonymously' and intend to create a user after the fact. (grant_type = client_credentials).
Once the user is created, you can assign your previously anonymous session with the newly created user entity, thus you don't need to do any access/refresh token exchanges after creation.
EMAIL VALIDATION
Both your suggestions to either:
Prevent the user from using the application until email validation is completed.
Allow the user to use the application immediately
Are done by applications. Which one is more appropriate really depends on your application and what's best for you. Is there any risk associated with a user starting to use an account with an email they don't own? If no, then maybe it's fine to allow the user in right away.
Here's an example where you don't want to do this: Say if the email address is used by other members of your system to add a user as a friend, the email address is a type of identity. If you don't force users to validate their emails, it means I can act on behalf of someone with a different email address. This is similar to being able to receive invitations, etc. Is this an attack vector? Then you might want to consider blocking the user from using the application until the email is validated.
You might also consider only blocking certain features in your application for which the email address might be sensitive. In the previous example, you could prevent people from seeing invitations from other users until the email is validated.
There's no right answer here, it just depends on how you intend to use the email address.
LOGIN
Please just use OAuth2. The flow you describe is already fairly close to how OAuth2 works. Take it one step further an actually use OAuth2. It's pretty great and once you get over the initial hurdle of understanding the protocol, you'll find that it's easier than you thought and fairly straightforward to just implement the bits you specifically need for your API.
Most of the PHP OAuth2 server implementations are not great. They do too much and are somewhat hard to integrate with. Rolling your own is not that hard and you're already fairly close to building something similar.
LOGOUT
The two reasons you might want a logout endpoint are:
If you use cookie/session based authentication and want to tell the server to forget the session. It sounds like this is not an issue for you.
If you want to tell the server to expire the access/refresh token earlier. Yes, you can just remove them from localstorage, and that might be good enough. Forcing to expire them server-side might give you that little extra confidence. What if someone was able to MITM your browser and now has access to your tokens? I might want to quickly logout and expire all existing tokens. It's an edge case, and I personally have never done this, but that could be a reason why you would want it.
REMEMBER ME
Yea, implementing "remember me" with local storage sounds like a good idea.
I originally took the /LOGON and /LOGOUT approach. I'm starting to explore /PRESENCE. It seems it would help me combine both knowing someone's status and authentication.
0 = Offline
1 = Available
2 = Busy
Going from Offline to anything else should include initial validation (aka require username/password). You could use PATCH or PUT for this (depending how you see it).
You are right, SESSION is not allowed in REST, hence there is no need to login or logout in REST service and /login, /logout are not nouns.
For authentication you could use
Basic authentication over SSL
Digest authentication
OAuth 2
HMAC, etc.
I prefer to use PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY [HMAC]
Private key will never be transmitted over web and I don't care about public key. The public key will be used to make the user specific actions [Who is holding the api key]
Private key will be know by client app and the server. The private key will be used to create signature. You generate a signature token using private key and add the key into the header. The server will also generate the signature and validate the request for handshake.
Authorization: Token 9944b09199c62bcf9418ad846dd0e4bbdfc6ee4b
Now how you will get private key? you have to do it manually like you put facebook, twitter or google api key on you app.
However, in some case you can also return [not recommended] the key only for once like Amazon S3 does. They provide "AWS secret access key" at the registration response.

What OWIN Middleware Redirects After User Grants Client?

I've looked hard into this article about OAuth Authorization Server with OWIN/Katana: http://www.asp.net/aspnet/overview/owin-and-katana/owin-oauth-20-authorization-server
The article does tell us how to set up a basic Auth server but seems to omit a lot of information and code. I'm particularly interested in the implicit grant flow. They did provide the login page and the "permissions" page, but I'm confused:
Where is the code that decides whether the authenticated user has granted the client? This can't be done "behind the scenes" because we NEVER told any middleware "component" the path "/OAuth/Authorize".
Where is the code that actually redirects the user back to the client's website, along with the auto-generated access_token and other values?
I'm suspecting that there is a proper way to "construct" the ClaimsIdentity object (particularly the scope claims) before passing it to authentication.SignIn(claimsIdentity) in /OAuth/Authorize, so that it would automatically redirect the user back to the client with access and refresh tokens.
The MVC Actions of /OAuth/Authorize and /Accounts/Login seem to always return View() even after successful authentication and granting, thus never forwards the user back to the client's website. This seems like I would have to manually determine when to return Redirect(Request.QueryString["RedirectUrl"]);, and figure out the encrypted values to pass along with it. This doesn't seem like I should be generating the exact response.
What did I overlook?
As #(LittleBobby Tables) said your questions are very broad.
Based on how you asked the question you actual understand the topics but not the how?
I suggest you look at the full source code at
http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/OWIN-OAuth-20-Authorization-ba2b8783/file/114932/1/AuthorizationServer.zip
Your answers are either present or will lead you in the right direction

Redirecting back to a page after authentication through OpenID, Oauth, or Facebook Connect

I'm allowing users to login to my site with either OpenID, Twitter OAuth or FBConnect. If the user attempts to go to a page that requires them to be logged in, after that user logs in I want to send them BACK to that page. Is there an easy way to accomplish this with all of these or should I simply just write the redirect page to a cookie and upon a successful login send them to that page? I'm using Django so if there are any nice tips or tricks involving that specifically that would be great.
Thanks for the input in advance!
You could thread that parameter (the page they were at) through as a parameter to your return_to. As noted in the spec:
Note: The return_to URL MAY be used as a mechanism for the Relying Party to attach context about the authentication request to the authentication response. This document does not define a mechanism by which the RP can ensure that query parameters are not modified by outside parties; such a mechanism can be defined by the RP itself.
For example:
def sendOpenIDCheck(...):
# after getting an AuthRequest from Consumer.begin
return_to = oidutil.appendArgs(return_to,
{'destination_url': that_place_they_tried_to_go})
return redirect(auth_request.redirectURL, realm, return_to))
def handleReturnTo(request):
# after doing Consumer.complete and receiving a SuccessResponse:
return redirect(request.GET['destination_url'])
If there's some other state you need to track (like POST data), or you have an extraordinarily long URL that you can't fit in as a query parameter, or you need to have the destination_url tampered with by the user, you store that information server-side, send the key as a query parameter instead of a URL, and look it up when they get back.
Not very different from storing it in the session, unless the user's got several simultaneous tabs in one session that run in to this, and then having it in the query helps.
Sadly OAuth and OpenID aren't really aware of your app states (while OAuth WRAP can be). So you have to take the following assumption:
The user will complete the sign-in WITHOUT switching tabs/windows or doing other requests on your site.
Then you can do the following:
Once you detect the access of a protected site, store the full query in the session. This won't work at all if it's a POST request, you have to prepare for this problem (show them a warning site with a lik that they must login first).
Store a timestamp of when this request happend.
On your OpenID callback check whether the session variables are set and redirect the user to the stored query. Check the timestamp (don't redirect if the timestamp is older than 5 minutes or so). After that clear both variables from the session.
This will lead to odd behaviour if the user violates against the assumption, but I don't think there is any way you can circumvent that.