I'm trying to understand the information at https://developer.sonos.com/build/content-service-add-features/add-authentication/use-authentication-tokens/
There's an "auth token" and there's a "private key" (from getDeviceAuthTokenResponse) which seems to be variously termed "key" and also "refresh token".
I think I understand the purpose for refresh tokens in general (i.e. something that lives forever, but isn't passed around often and isn't passed around to just everyone), but the first section in that URL above seems to indicate that the auth token and the key are both passed to just about every request.
Why should tokens be short-lived when the key, which is long-lived, is passed along in parallel, it seems. Why not then just not populate the initial private key and let the auth token live forever?
What am I missing? Are the token and private key (aka refresh token) NOT actually passed together everywhere, or is the operative word that the very original private key only ever passed (which the server can choose to change but seems pointless to include it, in the end)
You are totally right. Both the key and the refresh token are send in parallel when fetching stuff from Sonos music services.
This is also documented in my unofficial Sonos api documentation
So the answer to your question: Yes, they did not follow the general oauth2 recommendations regarding the refresh token. Normally you would also need a second request to get a new token, once the token is expired. With the Sonos music services, you just get a special xml message with the error and the new access token.
Also checkout my Sonos library for node/typescript, which has support for external music services
Related
I’m building a react native app that will interact with APIs that I also write/manage. I have found Auth0 documentation for implementing this flow, but I’m not sure on where/when to save the tokens. I want to be sure I nail this step, because I feel like it has the potential to reduce the security of the flow by a great deal if I don’t do it correctly.
Here is the flow as I understand it (no error handling, only happy-path for sake of brevity):
A user enters the app for the first time, or is not already logged in
They log in using the Auth0 web-login-thingy
I receive a token
I can use the token to authenticate with my API
Questions:
Do I store that token? I don’t want my users to have to log in every time they use the app. If I do store the token, where do I store it?
If I’m not storing it, what do I do? Do I ping an authentication/authorization endpoint with Auth0 every time they open the app and get a new token?
Say I am storing the tokens, if I'm using the ID token for user data, should I be hitting the API again regularly to keep it up to date? Only when the user opens the app again? Not until they trigger a change in the app?
Instead of using the ID token for user data, should I just use that to get the user's ID and ping my database for user data?
I have the basics of this flow, and I'm able to sandbox it, but I want to start applying production-ready app logic to this flow and that's where I'm stuck. I’m a little lost here, so any help is good help.
Thanks!!
Here's a brief answer to your questions when using Auth0:
Yes! you store it, the most secure way to store the token is in your device's local storage, that way it is not kept either in application's state or in a global variable.
2&3. See above, but to add more information, you can configure your tokens to have an expiry length. in theory you would convert this 'expiry time from inception' to a date object, and can do one of two things; you can request a new token using the Refresh Token (that comes with the original) once the expiry has been reached, or force the user to re-log in and re issue a new token at this time (i prefer the latter, prevents people from just renewing their tokens forever as long as they remain logged in)
Use the auth token to request user information after login, this can be stored in app state/global variables/wherever. You then want to use the auth token in the Authorization Header for each API call, along with whatever data you are sending. this ensures that even once someone is INSIDE the application, they need to have a valid token to actually do anything involving data (imagine someone back-dooring into your app and skipping the authorization, or using something like postman to just hammer your API with garbage). it would work something like this: GET userData { Header: auth token } -> GET userProfile (by sending your user ID returned from GET userData) PLUS {Header: auth token }
I can give more in depth examples if you wish, and i apologize if i misunderstood any of the question and gave redundant/incorrect answers
Edit: Resources about using secure storage for keys
Document for when to use in-memory storage Vs persistent storage. The TL;DR is use in-memory if the key is expected to expire before a standard session duration, and persistent for storing a key between sessions
https://hackernoon.com/mobile-api-security-techniques-682a5da4fe10
link to Keychain Services doc
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/keychain_services#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000897-CH203-TP1
link to SharedPreferences doc
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/SharedPreferences.html
AsyncStorage is a simple, unencrypted, asynchronous, persistent,
key-value storage system that is global to the app. [1]
You could store it in your AsyncStorage, but thats not necessarily a secure location itself (e.g. not encrypted, accessible on rooted devices...). Typically clients will issue access tokens that last anywhere from several hours to a couple days and these will provide their owner access to your API-resources. If there is sensitive data behind your login screen, you're probably better off simply re-doing the auth-flow and invalidate older access tokens on login.
I have created an API that I only want certain clients having access to. After a bit of research, I found that API Keys and API Secrets are pretty good way of controlling that.
I want to basically generate my own secrets using information I control. For example, if I create the secret 1500315177265-8005550000-System, the secret itself has information I can reference and validate. From what I understand, it doesn't matter what the secret is, as long as its not shared, and that's what makes it a secret. I can append some long salt values to make it much harder to guess. Can I use secrets securely this way?
Along the same lines, I am thinking what the need for the API Key is needed if the secret itself has identifying information. More than likely, I'm missing something here or more APIs would do it this way.
You don't need to suffer creating this mechanism by your own, you could just use OAuth for this. Actually by reading how OAuth works, I'm pretty sure that you'll get an overall idea of what the "API Key" is doing.
Long story short. OAuth allows you to create access tokens that will be requested by your users, once the user has asked for an access token, he'll be able to use it to get authenticated on the API.
You can also configure the duration for these access tokens, for example, let's say that you only want them to be valid for one hour. Then the user will use a new access token every hour, helping you to minimize risks against compromised access tokens.
If you want to take a look at the pipeline used by OAuth, it will be something like this:
The user sends an identifier and a shared secret (see them as username and password). If the identifier and the secret are correct, he'll receive a "refresh token", this token will be used to send requests to the token server to receive new "access tokens". The client sends a request to the tokens server to receive an access token, and now he'll be able to send requests to your API, where he'll use his access token as an identifier, and only if the token is valid, he'll get access to your application.
Maybe you could be curious about expired tokens, for example, What happens when the token has expired? Now our user needs to repeat all process again? No, because if the token has expired, he can just send a new request to the tokens server, sending his refresh token, and he'll get a new token to be used with your API.
I'm pretty sure that you already noticed that your API key is the "access token" equivalent, and your shared secret is the equivalent to the credentials used at the beginning of the OAuth process.
You can create your own mechanism, but you will need to take a lot of considerations that are already covered by OAuth. For example, Will you expire your API keys? After all, you should not trust a single key to be sent over every request for an undetermined amount of time. How will you handle the process to request new keys? Do you really want your users to send their secret every time they want a new key? Refresh tokens are useful for this.
I am trying to design REST APIs to support various mobile clients (iOS and Android apps). These apps will let user login using facebook login along with our own email authentication. You can refer to the diagram below to understand my design
There are two levels of authorization take place:
First one is "Client (or App) Authorization" that uses OAuth2. So when user install our app on mobile device, and starts app, then very first thing, app makes "Client (App) Authorization" as shown in above diagram (1st image). And server sends back an long-lived access_token to client to use for all subsequent calls. Here my question are:
Q1) You can see client is sending client_key and client_secret and I am storing them in client_info table. Should this secret be in plain text or it should be in decryt-able format? If I encrypt it, I still need to keep encryption key somewhere in my system. So how it will make it secure? Also in every call, decryption will be an overhead.
Q2) Is it ok to cache access_token for the client in plain text format in redis and use that cache first?
Q3) In order to be extra safe, I am asking clients to send appsecret_proof to make sure the access_token, they are sending belongs to this client only. It uses the same concept as Facebook https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/securing-requests#appsecret_proof. And it is hash_hmac('sha256', access_token, client_secret)
Q4) We will only have our own 2 mobile app (each for iOS and Android) and not providing third party to use our API to develop other apps. That means, our client_info table will only have two rows one for each type of apps. So is it okay, that in app code, we keep client_key and client_secret hardcoded? If yes, then in future when we have to invalidate and use new secret then how will we achieve replacing those info?
Q5) Since it is our own apps for couple of years, so there would be multiple access_token will get created against same client_key and client_secret. In order to save all of them, is it a good idea to store client_key as key and an array of all access_tokens as value in redis. In future, when we will open our API to third party, then this redis storage design can still scale?
=================
Later on, user decides to perform some actions on my app, for that we need user to login to his account. For that user click on "facebook login". My app gets facebook access_token and fb user's id from facebook and pass those info to API server (as shown in 2nd diagram). API server takes that token and call facebook API to validate its access_token. Once token is validated, server uses some metadata related to that user along with FB access token to generate our own user_access_token, lets say utoken. And pass that utoken back to client to pass back in every subsequent user specific API calls. Here my questions are:
Q1) Is it ok to save that utoken in database, user_token table. Should this utoken be in plain text or it should be in decryt-able format? If I encrypt it, I still need to keep encryption key somewhere in my system. So how it will make it secure? Also in every call, decryption will be an overhead.
Q2) In every user specific API calls, should I call facebook every time to check facebook access_token is still valid? I believe I should not, as that is not going to get anything to me. Please note, Facebook is ONLY used for "facebook login".
Q3) What are the information I should encrypt to generate utoken? I am thinking to have a hash or associative array of user's email, user id, role and facebook token and then serialize that data structure and finally encrypt it. Do you think that would be good enough. I understand its per my requirement, but as a standard or common app, are they good enough? Or is there any best practice?
Q4) Should client store utoken in its cookie/cache? Isn't that scary?
Q5) Please note user may have multiple devices, logged in with same user credential. That means, in user_token table, we would have to store multiple utokens for those logged-in session, while all of them will belong to the same user. Does that sound right?
A design proposal somewhat smiliar to mine REST API for website which uses Facebook for authentication
Q1.1: No!. Client credentials is not intended to be used that way. If your client is a Single Page App or a Mobile App, you will be forced to store your client credentials in an insecure environment, the user's machine. You should be using OAuth's Implicit flow
Q1.2: Assuming the token is short lived, no problem caching it. The key of OAuth, apart from ensuring that you can rely on other application to authenticate your users, is that you effectively substitute user or application credentials, which are long lived, with a short lived token. So if someone gains access to the token,at least, their access to the system will be limited in time.
Q1.3: Check out that facebook documentation:
Graph API calls can be made from clients or from your server on behalf of clients. Calls from a server can be better secured by adding a parameter called appsecret_proof.
It states that appsecret_proof is to be used for calls from the server on behalf of the user. The point here has to do with Q1.1. If you were storing your client_secret in your user's device, they could generate the appsecret_proof.
Q1.4: Again, No! You should have a good read of OAuth Specification and understand the different flow types and when to use each. Also bear in mind, that if you provide an API for your App the API is public for any one to abuse. The only difference is that it is not documented. The same will happen with a Web App. Once it is in the internet, I could write a scraper and abuse the Web App. This is perfectly normal, just bear in mind that anything on the internet is not private, it is just undocumented.
Q1.5: Again, tokens should be short lived. If their lifespan is the same of the credentials, which live until the user change them, then tokens lose their purpose.
Q2.1: You should save that token A ReST architecture uses a client cache constraint.
Q2.2: I don't think so. Facebook is just telling you that the user that obtained that token has some identity (an email, for example) that you can associate to a user in your system. Once you know that association you should't care much about the Facebook token but to make calls to Facebook API. But as you say, you are using it just for login.
Q2.3: Seems not bad but check again the Oauth Specification as you seem to be building an Implicit flow and using JWT tokens. As per what you want to store in your token, seems fine.
Q2.4: JWT tokens must be cached by the client. Nothing scary, because they are opaque to the client as they are encrypted. The client sends the JWT token with each request and the API server decrypts the token with a private key (that has never been exposed outside the server) and can check the identity of the user.
Q2.5: Remember short lived tokens. Tokens must expire!.
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.
I have done a lot of research and I can't work out if this is the best way to achieve what I need.
I have a generic web app and I want to create a generic mobile app to go with it. In order for users to save data/access user specific data/etc they have to log in and the login has to be authenticated over my web app's REST api.
So the api has a private and a public key for the mobile app. The public key tells me where the request is coming from (the mobile app) and the private key is used as a "salt" to hash the query string which can then be rehashed on the web server when the request comes in and compared for validity.
To log in the user enters their username and password which is then sent as query string vars as per the method above. The query is checked for validity at the other end and the username+password pair is checked against the database. If the login is correct a random "auth token" is generated for that user and the public key and sent back to the mobile app for storage locally on the device.
When the next request comes in from the mobile app one of the query string variables is the "auth token" from earlier which is checked for validity (with the app's public key) against the "auth tokens" table in the database. If it is valid then do the request.
My question here is, have I got this right? Is this the best way to achieve what I need? The last step seems really insecure as both the public key and the auth token will be visible if the request is intercepted. Obviously the request will be checked against the hash of the query string and the private key at the other end and this will make sure the request isn't coming from anywhere malicious.
Are there any other steps, or things I've missed which would be useful? For instance I was reading that there should also be a timestamp variable which should be checked against a 5/10min time frame in the request. Any timestamps older than 5/10 mins and the request should be rejected. Is this important?
Thank you.
What you are describing is basically a homebrew version of 2-legged OAuth. There are many implementations out there that you can basically use. Whenever it comes to security related stuff, I go by: If others have already done it, don't reinvent the wheel. OAuath is used by many big sites out there (Twitter, Facebook, GitHub, Google, ...) and they have done a lot of research that went into the OAuth standards. So I'd suggest to use those.
If you are concerned that messages you send may be intercepted, you should use HTTPS... Which is a good idea in general, if you are passing around username and password combinations over the wire.