My team and I have been working on a web application for our clients that uses JSON web tokens for authentication and authorization. Using Azure AD as our identity provider, we verify a user's identity and generate a signed JWT with the user's permissions in it. The JWT then gets included in the authorization header of all subsequent requests to the APIs. Pretty standard stuff as far as JWTs go.
We're now being asked to provide the capability to link directly into our system from another third-party web application without forcing the user to reauthenticate. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to do so without creating a massive security loophole.
The way I picture this working would be to implement an endpoint for programmatic authentication in our system that accepts a cryptographically signed payload with an API key and the user's ID or email address. The third-party system would have a private key with which to sign the payload, and we'd have a public one to verify the signature. If the request is legitimate, we'd issue a token for the specified user, and they could use that to link to whatever they like.
I'm already getting yelled at by at least one person that this is a complete joke from a security standpoint because, among other things, it completely bypasses AAD authentication. I believe the third-party system in question does use AAD for authentication, but that's not really relevant either way because we're trusting them implicitly whether they've authenticated their users or not. Either way I take his point.
I'm not a security expert and I don't claim to know whether there even is a proper way to do this kind of thing, but from my vantage it doesn't really seem all that much less secure than any other mechanism of authentication and authorization using JWTs. Is that true? Are we nuts for even trying? Is there a way to do it that's more secure? What should I know about this that I demonstrably don't already?
Thanks in advance for the help. At the very least I hope this spurs some helpful conversation.
Single Sign-On (SSO) enables users to enter their credentials once to sign in and establish a session which can be reused across multiple applications without requiring to authenticate again. This provides a seamless experience to the user and reduces the repeated prompts for credentials.
Azure AD provides SSO capabilities to applications by setting a session cookie when the user authenticates the first time. The MSAL.js library allows applications to leverage this in a few ways.
MSAL relies on the session cookie to provide SSO for the user between different applications.
Read more in this documentation.
Related
I am very new to the concepts of SSO and Keycloak. I am trying to read the official documentation of Keycloak. In the "Supported Protocols" part (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/securing_apps/index.html), the documentation talks about the two use cases of using OIDC like this:
"The first is an application that asks the Keycloak server to authenticate a user for them. After a successful login, the application will receive an identity token and an access token. The identity token contains information about the user such as username, email, and other profile information. The access token is digitally signed by the realm and contains access information (like user role mappings) that the application can use to determine what resources the user is allowed to access on the application.
The second type of use cases is that of a client that wants to gain access to remote services. In this case, the client asks Keycloak to obtain an access token it can use to invoke on other remote services on behalf of the user. Keycloak authenticates the user then asks the user for consent to grant access to the client requesting it. The client then receives the access token. This access token is digitally signed by the realm. The client can make REST invocations on remote services using this access token. The REST service extracts the access token, verifies the signature of the token, then decides based on access information within the token whether or not to process the request."
What I do not understand is this: In the first paragraph it talks about an application making a request and in the second one it talks about a client. But aren't applications counted as clients? Why the specific differentiation? And can anyone given an example of the remote services that is talked about in the second part?
Thank you.
But aren't applications counted as clients? Why the specific differentiation? And can anyone given an example of the remote services that is talked about in the second part?
Yes exactly it. The reason for the differentiation is because there could be many applications more than just this one client. And the client, that the user is authed against may want to access all those other applications' data.
For example take the google ecosystem. Does google email have access to drive, and photos, etc... While it could out the box, it doesn't. You need to explicitly allow email "offline access" to those other applications, even though they are all part of the same platform.
Keycloak understands this and provides that terminology. But it is a bit confusing because this isn't the best way to think about it. Instead a better explanation is that there is just the user and service clients. The service clients all talk to each other and ask for a user's data. While a user may want their data by going straight to one application, other applications may want that user's data too.
Assuming you want to actually allow one service to ask for user data from another service, you want to be using something that supports authorization as a service and not just authentication. There are some examples of this, such as PolicyServer and Authress.
In section 1.1 of RFC 6749, there are four roles: resource owner, resource server, client, and authorization server.
Does OAuth become redundant or unnecessary if the client and the resource owner are the same entity?
For example, I have a closed API and a front-facing web server. (The front-facing web server would be both the client and the resource owner.) I am trying to decide whether to switch to OAuth 2 authentication instead of using the current username/password authentication method. Is there any added security for moving to OAuth 2 if the API remains closed to third-party applications? (That is, no third-parties will ever have access to the API.)
Thanks!
In the case where the Resource Owner and Client/Resource Server roles coincide OAuth 2.0 may become less relevant from a security point of view, since one of the primary objectives of OAuth not to expose primary credentials of the user to the client becomes moot. That is also the reason why the so-called Resource Owner Password Credentials grant is considered to be a legacy/deprecated flow.
However, it may still make sense to follow the OAuth 2.0 pattern for a number of reasons:
the ability to leverage a standardized protocol through stock libraries and
frameworks without relying on custom code
the fact that in your case the Resource Server is still made strictly OAuth 2.0 compliant, dealing with Clients presenting access tokens, irrespective of what the Client/Resource Owner relationship/implementation is; this would make it easier to allow for 3rd-party client access in a future scenario
the fact that you concentrate verification of user credentials on a single path between Client and Authorization Server so each of your Resource Servers don't need to be bothered by checking user credentials individually, possibly dealing with different authentication mechanisms
and perhaps most importantly, also security-wise: once the user has authenticated through the Client using his primary credentials, the Authorization Server can issue a refresh token as well as an access token; the Client can store and use the refresh token to a new access token when the old one expires; this frees the Client from storing the primary user credentials if it wants to keep accessing the API for a long period of time without requiring explicit user interaction and authentication and makes the resulting system less vulnerable for leakage/loss of user credentials since the user credentials (password) are not stored in the Clients
If you have the following issue then you should use OAuth;
Let's say you a Gmail like web mail provider. Some of your users are using a third party app which logs in into your user's account and auto replies certain emails for you. Or you are Facebook like social network web site where some of your users use a third party app which analyzes your friend networks and prints a 2D graph for you. In this case your users are giving away their usernames and passwords. How would they prevent a certain third party app accessing their account after they gave away their username and password? Simply by changing their password. Now you have another problem; other third party apps won't be able to access the user's account. Then the user have to re-give away his password to other apps he trusts. Now this is problem too because it is not user friendly. OAuth is simply a temporary password that your user gives away to a third party app developer. He can revoke it whenever he wants without changing his own password.
Other than that OAuth is unnecessary. Just use a session cookie if you are not going to have third party app developers. It is a random string stored in user side. And on the server side will have whatever you want. Just look how PHP sessions are used and stored on server side. You can define their lifespan and refresh time automatically from php.ini.
A typical recommendation for securing a REST API is to use HTTP Basic Authentication over SSL. My question is, should HTTP Basic Authentication only be used to authenticate the client (ie. the app accessing the API), or can it also be used to authenticate the user (the consumer of the app)?
It seems most APIs have to deal with both, as almost all web services employ some sort of user accounts. Just consider Twitter or Vimeo—there are public resources, and there are private (user specific) resources.
It seems logical that a simple REST API could do both client and user authentication at the same time using using HTTP Basic Authentication (over SSL).
Is this a good design?
By authenticate the client you probably mean the usage of API Key, this mechanism is used to track the concrete application/client. The second thing is that it gives you the possibility to disable the application by disabling the key, for example when client's author removes his account from the service. If you want to make your API public then it is a good idea.
But you need to remember that it gives you no real protection, everybody can download the client and extract that key.
I would not recommend to use Basic Authentication for API authentication. When it comes to authentication then you should consider that the application (client) developer has to implement its side of the authentication, too. Part of that is not only authentication itself but also how to get credentials and even much more than that.
I recommend to make use of an established authentication standard that ships with client libraries for the most popular programming languages. Those libraries make it much more likely that developers are going to adapt your API, because they reduce implementation effort on the client side.
Another important reason for using authentication standards is that they make developers (and others) more confident in the security of your authentication system. Those standards have been audited by experts and their weaknesses and strengths are well known and documented. It is unlikely that you are going to develop a nearly as solid authentication flow unless you are a security expert :-).
The most established standard in this field is OAuth but you can find alternatives by searching for "oauth alternatives".
How does OAuth help you with your problem setting?
In OAuth 2, the application client has to obtain an access token for a user before accessing any protected resource. To get an access token, the application must authenticate itself with its application credentials. Depending on the use-case (e.g. 3rd party, mobile) this is done in different ways that are defined by the OAuth standard.
An access token should not only represent a user but also which operations may be used on what resources (permissions). A user may grant different permissions to different applications so this information must somehow be linked to the token.
How to achieve such a semantic for access tokens however is not part of OAuth - it just defines the flow of how to obtain access tokens. Therefor, the implementation of the access token semantic is usually application specific.
You can implement such token semantic by storing a link between an access tokens and its permissions in your backend when you create the access token. The permissions may either be stored for every user-application combination or just for every application, depending on how fine-granular you want things to be.
Then, each time that an access token is processed by the API, you fetch this information and check whether the user has sufficient permissions to access the resource and to perform the desired operation.
Another option is to put the permission information into the access token and to sign or encrypt the token. When you receive the access token, you verify or decrypt it and use the permissions that are stored in the access token to make your decision. You may want to have a look on Json Web Tokens (JWT) on how to accomplish that.
The benefit of the later solution is better scalability and less effort during backend implementation. The downside of it are potentially larger requests (especially with RSA encryption) and less control over tokens.
I am working on an internal authentication system for users of a set of of RESTful web applications. Our intention is that a user should be able to sign-on once via a web form and have appropriate access to all these RESTful applications in our domain, which may be distributed in a private cloud across many servers. (I understand already that having a single authenticated session is not aligned with a pure RESTful approach, but this is a usability requirement.)
The applications themselves will be written in a variety of programming languages so a language-neutral approach is required. It was suggested to me that we might use OpenID or OAuth or a similar framework to handle the authentication but my understanding is that these are intended for third-party services and not the first-party services that would share data on our internal system. In this case, we might have a central provider service with all the other applications treated as third parties (or relying parties).
Questions:
Are OpenID/OAuth suitable for authentication among first-party services?
If so, how would one be advised to set up authentication for this use case?
Wouldn't a user have to grant individual permission to each first-party server that they wanted to use, just as they would need to grant individual permission to any third-party server? I think this would violate the requirement of having a single sign-on for accessing all the first-party services.
Are there good examples of sites supporting this first-party use case?
What would be a good alternative framework for this first-party use case?
You do not need OAuth for SSO services.
The primary use/advantage of OAuth is, as you know already, granting access to a 3rd party app to access/use your resource in a controlled manner.
Rather than having an authentication/authorization server that you would need for OAuth, why not use a single log in service across all your APIs. An OAuth access token is totally different from what you need.
As far as I understand, what you can have is something like OAuth in a way that your server vends out tokens to the app. (I'm assuming that it's a totally internal system, so tokens cannot be misused).
So basically what I'm proposing is:
When an app tries to access the first API it's redirected to a web-form.
The user enters credentials and is taken to the DB for verification. Let there be a service that generates a token for the user/app
Next API access request would be made with that token - the token uniquely identifies the app
Depending on the level of security you need you can sign some text using HMAC and send it as token, or if its totally internal just generate a unique identifier for the app/user and send it to other API
On receiving the token, each service first calls the main server with the token and internally fetches the corresponding customer/user ID and performs the required function.
In short separate the login + token generation + token verification into a different module. All APIs should use this module for login/token verification.
What I have proposed here works like OAuth but all security aspects have been stripped down since you want to use it in a private cloud.
Oauth supports multiple different kinds of flows. You can use the client crendentials flow from Oauth 2.0 to avoid asking the user to grant permission for every app (this is intended for the cases where you control both the server and the app or where you want to preauthorize certain apps). This post does a good job explaining everything: http://tatiyants.com/using-oauth-to-protect-internal-rest-api/
I am currently developing a web application that is right now comprised of a front end which displays and interacts with the data using a REST API we have written. The only thing that will ever use the API is our front end website, and at some point a mobile app that we will develop.
I have done a lot of reading about how OAuth is the ideal mechanism for securing an API and at this point I am starting to have a good understanding of how it works.
My question is -- since I am never granting access to my API to a third-party client, is OAuth really necessary? Is there any reason it is advantageous? Furthermore, because the back end is simply the API, there is no gateway for a user to authenticate from (like if you were writing an app using the Twitter API, when a user authenticates they would be directed to the Twitter page to grant to access then redirected back to the client).
I am not really sure which direction to go in. It seems like there must be some approach halfway between http authentication and OAuth that would be appropriate for this situation but I'm just not getting it.
From my point of view, one of the scenarios that favor OAuth over other options is to work with untrusted clients, no matter if these are developed by you or a third party.
What's an untrusted client? Think from the point of who handles the credentials that grant access to your API.
For example, your web application could interact with your API in two falvors:
Your web app server side talks to your API. Your web app server is a trusted client because the credentials to access your API can only be access by whom have access to the server...You and your team. You could authenticate your web app server with a client_id and a client_secret.
You may want to make calls directly to your API from your Web app client, which runs on the end user's browser using JavaScript. The end user's browser is an untrusted client. If you were to deliver the credentials to your API down to the browser, anyone could check the JavaScript code and steal your credentials.
A third party Native App is also untrusted. A malicious developer that uses your API could save the credentials of and end user of your platform.
Your Native App is a trusted client and could manage the authentication with a simple username , password and a client id identifying your App.
How can OAuth help? OAuth Authorization code and Implicit grants can help you with this issue. These flows only work with clients that support a redirect, like a browser. And let you authenticate an untrusted client and a user against your Authorization Server to gain access to your Resource Server, your API, without exposing the credentials. Take a look at the RFC to see how it is done.
The good thing of OAuth is that it not only supports these redirect based authentication flows, but it also supports client credentials grant and user credentials grant. So an OAuth Authorization Server would cover all cases.
OAuth 2.0 originally seems like a PITA if you think about having to build a lot of it yourself, but most languages have some really solid OAuth 2.0 setups which you can just bolt in with varying amounts of fiddling. If you're using a framework like Laravel or RoR then it's barely any work.
PHP: http://oauth2.thephpleague.com/
Ruby (Rails or Grape): https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper
If you don't want to redirect users as suggested in your post then ignore other comments and answers that talk about two legged flows. You can use the client_credentials grant type to have apps just provide their client id and secret in return for an access token, which is nice and easy.
I would ask how private are we talking, because if the only systems talking to it are within the backend and have no interaction with the outside world you could probably leave it wide open and just rely on the network to keep it safe (VPN/Firewall).
But if it's private in the sense of "our iPhone app uses it" then you definitely want to go with OAuth 2.0, or something like it.
2 legged OAuth is probably what you want to use. It's basically hashing a shared key, but you have the advantage of not having to write the code yourself.
Here's a related question: Two-legged OAuth - looking for information
You should use Oauth for mobile device to API layer communication.
However, there is no benefit of Oauth in this web UI layer to middle-layer access (machine to machine).
On the other hand there are some potential issues
Managing the access token expiry becomes a pain. Consider that your UI has to cache the access token across multiple nodes in a cluster. Refresh it when expired, and the fact that UI layer is negotiating security with backend will just take extra time once in a while.
In two legged Oauth (OAuth Client Credential as in v2.0) does not support any encryption. So you still need to send key and secret both to the server for getting an access token.
Backend has to implement issuing access token, refresh token, validating access token etc, without any significant benefit