in my company we are using azure api management.
I'm reading the microsoft doc and i'm focused on product and subscription. On 2 api i started to apply the product with related subscription (that i passed to my dev colleagues and they are using with our mobile app). On 99% of api we implemented jwt validation policy as security layer.
One or two api are exposed without subscription or jwt validations, as dev requirement.
I don't understand the subscription and their use. I would like to generate a subscription key specific for api without jwt policy, but i think is not the right way becouse the key will be hardcoded into our mobile app and can easily stolen i think.
here policy jwt:
<validate-jwt header-name="Auth-token" failed-validation-httpcode="401" failed-validation-error-message="Unauthorized" clock-skew="600">
<issuer-signing-keys>
<key certificate-id="jwt" />
</issuer-signing-keys>
</validate-jwt>
There are some other method on api management to implement for this case? Or subscription is enough?
As you said the subscription key will be hard coded and you also have manually rotate it .
Jwt with bearer tokens are a better way because the tokens have expiration dates this makes them better.
Azure active directory is also good if you want RBAC.
Refer the following documentation for further details.
Related
There are primarily two ways to authenticate using Google's reCAPTCHA Enterprise in a non-Google cloud environment (we use AWS). Google recommends using Service Accounts along with their Java client. However, this approach strikes me as less preferable than the second way Google suggests we can can authenticate, namely, using Api Keys. Authenticating via an Api Key is easy, and it’s similar to how we commonly integrate with other 3rd party services, except rather than a username and password that we must secure, we have an Api Key that we must secure. Authenticating using Service Accounts, however, requires that we store a Json file on each environment in which we run reCAPTCHA, create an environment variable (GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS) to point to that file, and then use Google's provided Java client (which leverages the environment variable/Json file) to request reCAPTCHA resources.
If we opt to leverage Api Key authentication, we can use Google’s REST Api along with our preferred Http Client (Akka-Http). We merely include the Api Key in a header that is encrypted as part of TLS in transit. However, if we opt for the Service Accounts method, we must use Google’s Java client, which not only adds a new dependency to our service, but also requires its own execution context because it uses blocking i/o.
My view is that unless there is something that I’m overlooking--something that the Service Accounts approach provides that an encrypted Api Key does not--then we should just encrypt an Api Key per environment.
Our Site Key is locked down by our domain, and our Api Key would be encrypted in our source code. Obviously, if someone were to gain access to our unencrypted Api Key, they could perform assessments using our account, but not only would it be exceedingly difficult for an attacker to retrieve our Api Key, the scenario simply doesn't strike me as likely. Performing free reCAPTCHA assessments does not strike me as among the things that a sophisticated attacker would be inclined to do. Am I missing something? I suppose my question is why would we go through the trouble of creating a service account, using the (inferior) Java client, storing a Json file on each pod, create an environment variable, etc. What does that provide us that the Api Key option does not? Does it open up some functionality that I'm overlooking?
I've successfully used Api Keys and it seems to work fine. I have not yet attempted to use Service Accounts as it requires a number of things that I'm disinclined to do. But my worry is that I'm neglecting some security vulnerability of the Api Keys.
After poring a bit more over the documentation, it would seem that there are only two reasons why you'd want to explicitly choose API key-based authentication over an Oauth flow with dedicated service accounts:
Your server's execution environment does not support Oauth flows
You're migrating from reCAPTCHA (non-enterprise) to reCAPTCHA Enterprise and want to ease migration
Beyond that, it seems the choice really comes down to considerations like your organization's security posture and approved authentication patterns. The choice does also materially affect things like how the credentials themselves are provisioned & managed, so if your org happens to already have a robust set of policies in place for the creation and maintenance of service accounts, it'd probably behoove you to go that route.
Google does mention sparingly in the docs that their preferred method for authentication for reCAPTCHA Enterprise is via service accounts, but they also don't give a concrete rationale anywhere I saw.
We are trying to set up a scheduled job based on NodeJS which will call an API via an API gateway. The API calls another API. There is no user or browser involved. The call must be authenticated and have a valid OAuth token from our IdP. How should it look like to have a more secure approach?
How the flow should look like? Which one the API Gateway or the second API should validate the token? or both? Thanks
A key point is that JWT access token validation is designed to scale. In older architectures it was common to use perimeter security (eg API gateway validates token) but this is no longer recommended.
Instead validate the JWT in each API using a library. Here is some example code and for other technologies see Curity API Guides.
Here are a couple of related articles if you are interested in API security trends:
Zero Trust Architecture
Phantom Token Pattern
Finally, this article discusses that JWTs can often be forwarded between microservices, to keep your code simple.
We have an application that has frontend UI(Which is a web application) which communicates with a resource server. Our frontend will be using some APIs from a resource server to get data.
I am planning to add frontend to Okta and provide access to okta registered users.
In the resource server, we have some APIs that we want to expose to our customers to integrate in their system(Programmatically). To use our APIs, we have to provide client credentials(client ID/secret) to them. Using clientId/Secret, they will get access_token and will use that in a subsequent request. We can display this clientId/Secret via frontend UI once the user logs in to it via Okta.
How should I authenticate requests to the resource server from the frontend? And how do I authenticate requests to resource server via customer using clientId/Secret? Should I use one or two different tokens for this purpose?
Does Okta provides per-user client Id/secret that user(customer) can use to get access_token and send it to access resource server and resource server validate token against Okta.
I just did something very similar. You can read about my experience here: How to pass/verify Open ID token between .net core web app and web api?
I don't know what application framework you are using (.net, node, etc), but if you're using .NET the steps are to (a) install the middleware in your web app, (b) install the middleware in your api app, and (c) make sure calls from your web app to the api app pass the id_token.
If you, in addition to that, need to secure it for external users - it should work the same way. The only difference is they will manually call the /authorize endpoint to get their token - but the middleware should take care of the token verification for you in both cases.
Note I did experience one odd thing which is that I needed to pass the id_token and not the access_token. It is also worth mentioning that the claims were interpreted differently in the app and the api (in that the name of the claims for say, userid, were different between them - the data was still the same).
You will have to use 2 different access tokens. There are 2 different flows going on here:
Web UI to API
Business partner system to API
Technically this means:
Authorization Code Flow (PKCE)
Client Credentials Flow
And in terms of tokens it means:
In the first case there is an end user represented in access tokens (the 'sub' claim)
In the second case there is only a Client Id claim in access tokens
I can advise on token validation techniques if needed - let me know.
To me though this feels like an architectural question - in particular around applying authorization after identifying the caller and versioning / upgrades.
Based on my experience I tend to prefer the following architecture these days, based on 2 levels of APIs: eg with these ones exposed to the internet:
User Experience API serves the UI
Partner API deals with B2B
And both entry point APIs call the same core services which are internal. Might be worth discussing with your stakeholders ..
I have used Auth0 for a while with success, I recently came across a new challenge: allowing external developers to access my API with credentials provided by my web app.
The current system comprises of:
a Web App (not a SPA currently) with Auth0 log in
a back end API with Auth0 api authentication
Currently there is a single client in Auth0. The user logs in on the website and when they call the API via the website the token is passed along in the headers.
My question is: what is the best way to allow developers to request direct access to the api, in a self service manner on my website?
I see two paths forward, either create a client for each developer application via the Auth0 management API (github style), or request a token on behalf of the developer with a VERY long lifespan (like AppVeyor).
I'm assuming that your API provides functionality and/or resources that are associated or owned by an end-user, and you want to allow other application to also access this data on behalf of each end-user. If this isn't the case, and you API is general-purpose and does not require the notion of an end-user identity then other approaches like API keys could also meet your requirements.
Considering the end-user delegation scenario, the approach I would recommend would be going with the creation of separate client applications within Auth0. Like you said, you could automate this process through the Management API so that this process could be handled in a self-service way. Despite being self-service, the application that enabled the registration could still apply constraints in order to make sure only eligible developers could obtain the necessary information to then obtain access tokens to access the API.
This has the benefit that if you wanted to stop an existing developer from using your API you could just remove the associated client application and they wouldn't be allowed to request access tokens anymore and the ones they already had would be short lived and soon expire. This requirement is more complex to implement when using long-lived tokens because they would need to be revoked/blacklisted.
A final note, if these applications don't require to act on behalf an end-user when calling your API and you would prefer to still accept access tokens instead of using a different approach like API keys, then you can consider registering client applications meant to use the client credentials grant.
Iam a student and i making my internship. Sorry for my bad englis
The situation
2 people are building an backend for an message system. There are actual and passed messages. The main backend contains all the data from all the messages. This backend pushes only actual messages to and database from an mini backend which only contains the actual alerts. These actual alerts are provided by an api to multiple front ends such as an app.
I need to do research about api gateways which can make the data in the mini backend accesable for external developers. These developers only need to register or request an account so we know which application/developer connects with our api. We don't have end users with user accounts.
The API need to be scalable because in the future (over a couple of months) this system wil replace an old system. The current system needs to be handle more then 5.000.000 requests in a couple of minutes when sending out an emergency message/alert.
My problem
I googled a lot about authentication methods and i read about OAuth2. This is only necessary for authenticate end users with an user account? I dont have that so OAuth is to complex for my situation i think. But when i look in the documentation of several API Gateways like Mulesoft, Amazon API Gateway and some more i always come back by OAuth and not by an simple authentication token system or something.
See this link and then Creating a client registration flow. This uses OAuth or do i understand this incorrectly?
So now my questions
Is there an default method such as google or facebook uses for authenticate external applications by an API key? and how is this method/framwork/idunno caled?
Is it posible that i can/need to do this with OAuth?
Some example API gateways that can fill in my wishes will be great!
Amazon Api Gateway team here.
Our service supports native API keys which satisfy simple use cases. Are you interested in a simple mechanism to authenticate clients when they access your API? Some limitations would be that it's harder to manage a large number of keys, and there wouldn't really be any authorization to specific backend resources, only authentication to access the API in general.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/how-to-api-keys.html
OAuth is better for dynamic user bases where new users register and you want to be able to control access for existing users over time. It is also useful when users have personal data that only they should be able to access.
Jack