Let's say that users X and Y authenticate themselves (separately) on a service's REST API, and that JSON web tokens are used for authorization between the client and server. We want to send user-specific data to each user.
Should we ask the user to specify who they are, or should the server detect it based on the authentication method (in this case the payload on the JWT)?
In other words -
Should the API have endpoints that look like this:
GET /:user/resource (for example) /user_x/resource used by user X and /user_y/resource used by Y,
or would it be better to have
GET /resource and then, in the route handler, check the user id (as part of the JWT payload) return data based on the user id?
I'm not sure which of these (if either) is the best approach, or if there might be another way to do it, such as using query strings. It would be great to hear any opinions about this.
Thanks.
The server can identify the user based on either a session cookie, or an access-token. In your case, if you use a JWT, the user-information is usually already included in the token.
So the server should just fetch the information out of this token.
Just make sure, that you check the tokens signature on the backend.
Otherwise, an attacker could just modify the JWT and send a different user-id to the server.
Related
I have an Identity Server 4.0 implementation at my workplace. On top of Implicit and Auth Code flow, we are planning to use Client Credential flow for API to API call authentication.
There are few API that need to keep a log of who called it (the name of calling API). I have done a lot of digging but could not find a convincing (and secure) way of doing this.
In my understanding, in Client Cred flow, the client is going to IDS with just client secret. And obviously, this will make it practically impossible for IDS to know who is calling it. Am I right? Is there any way of knowing the client (so that some id claims can be added to the token)?
Any suggestions welcome.
EDIT: To elaborate my question and better explain my understanding of this particular OAuth flow:
Ok, so let me be clear. Let us say API X has to call API Y.
It follows the below order:
(1) X goes to IDS with Client-Id and Client-Secret for Y.
(2) IDS validates the Client-Id and Secret and issues an access-token to X
(3) X calls Y with the given access token
In step (2) above, as per OAuth 2.0's client credential flow, there is nothing except Client-ID and Client-Secret that X is required to supply. Now, if API Z wants to talk to Y, it is going to go to IDS with the same Client-ID and the same Secret.
If IDS has no way of identifying if the authentication call is from X or Z, how can it add any additional claim in the issued token?
So the only other way for Y to know if the call is from X or Z is that X or Z telling themselves (in header or url or post data) who they are (which invalidates the entire purpose of authorizing through client-cred flow). Remember that my question doesn't talk about authentication.
There are two approaches: either use unique client credentials per instance (API X, API Z are seperate clients), or use the same clientid and / or leave it to the client to provide information.
With unique clientid's you can add information about the client as a claim in the ClientClaims table, e.g. Claim('ApiName', 'apiname').
This claim is added to the access token and is available in the receiving API.
In this scenario client credentials are used as id/password, allowing the client to 'login'.
The alternative is to use the same clientid for all API's. Now it's up to the client to provide information.
One scenario can be to issue apikey's that can be used to identify the client, e.g. a guid. You can send it along with each call.
In addition there is an alternative, add a custom endpoint. Don't use client credentials but implement your own endpoint.
With extension grants you can request the information you need and translate that to a valid access token.
Through the ExtensionGrantValidationContext object you have access to the incoming token request - both the well-known validated values, as well as any custom values (via the Raw collection)
Perhaps it's an idea to 'extend' the client credentials flow with an APIKEY.
I have been reading about securing REST APIs and have read about oAuth and JWTs. Both are really great approaches, but from what I have understood, they both work after a user is authenticated or in other words "logged in". That is based on user credentials oAuth and JWTs are generated and once the oAuth token or JWT is obtained the user can perform all actions it is authorized for.
But my question is, what about the login and sign up apis? How does one secure them? If somebody reads my javascript files to see my ajax calls, they can easily find out the end points and the parameters passed, and they could hit it multiple times through some REST Client, more severely they could code a program that hits my sign up api say a thousand times, which would be create a thousand spam users, or they could even brute force the login api. So how does one secures them?
I am writing my API in yii2.
The Yii 2.0 framework has a buil-in filter called yii\filters\RateLimiter that implements a rate limiting algorithm based on the leaky bucket algorithm. It will allow you to limit the maximum number of accepted requests in a certain interval of time. As example you may limit both login and signup endpoints to accept at most 100 API calls within a 10 minutes interval of time. When that limit is exceeded a yii\web\TooManyRequestsHttpException exception (429 status code) will be thrown.
You can read more about it in the Yii2 RESTful API related documentation or within this SO post.
I didn't use it myself so far but from what I did read about it in official docs, and I mean this:
Note that RateLimiter requires
$user
to implement the
yii\filters\RateLimitInterface.
RateLimiter will do nothing if
$user
is not set or does not implement
yii\filters\RateLimitInterface.
I guess it was designed to work with logged in users only maybe by using the user related database table, the default one introduced within the advanced template. I'm not sure about it but I know it needs to store the number of allowed requests and the related timestamp to some persistent storage within the saveAllowance method that you'll need to define in the user class. So I think you will have to track your guest users by IP addresses as #LajosArpad did suggest then maybe redesigning your user class to hold their identities so you can enable it.
A quick google search let me to this extension:yii2-ip-ratelimiter to which you may also have a look.
Your URLs will easily be determined. You should have a black list of IP addresses and when an IP address acts suspiciously, just add it to the black list. You define what suspicious is, but if you are not sure, you can start with the following:
Create something like a database table with this schema:
ip_addresses(ip, is_suspicious, login_attempts, register_attempts)
Where is_suspicious means it is blacklisted. login_attemtps and register_attempts should be json values, showing the history of that ip address trying to log in/register. If the last 20 attempts were unsuccessful and were within a minute, then the ip address should be blacklisted. Blacklisted ip addresses should receive a response that they are blacklisted whatever their request was. So if they deny your services or try to hack things, then you deny your services from them.
Secure passwords using sha1, for example. That algorithm is secure-enough and it is quicker than sha256, for instance, which might be an overkill. If your API involves bank accounts or something extremely important like that, important-enough for the bad guys to use server parks to hack it, then force the users to create very long passwords, including numbers, special characters, big and small letters.
For javascript you should use OAuth 2.0 Implicit Grant flow like Google or Facebook.
Login and Signup use 2 basic web page. Don't forget add captcha for them.
For some special client such as mobile app or webServer:
If you sure that your binary file is secure, You can create a custom login API for it. In this API you must try to verify your client.
A simple solution, you can refer:
use an encryption algorithm such as AES or 3DES to encrypt password
from client use a secret key (only client and server knows about it)
use a hash algorithm such as sha256 to hash (username + client time + an other
secret key). Client will send both client time and hash string to
server. Server will reject request if client time is too different
from server or hash string is not correct.
Eg:
api/login?user=user1&password=AES('password',$secret_key1)&time=1449570208&hash=sha256('user1'+'|'+'1449570208'+'|'+$secret_key2)
Note: In any case, server should use captcha to avoid brute force attack, Do not believe in any other filter
About captcha for REST APIs, we can create captcha base on token.
Eg.
For sign up action: you must call 2 api
/getSignupToken : to get image captcha url and a signup token
respectively.
/signup : to post sign up data (include signup token and
captcha typed by user)
For login action: we can require captcha by count failed logins base on username
Folow my api module here for reference. I manager user authentication by access token. When login, i generate token, then access again, client need send token and server will check.
Yii2 Starter Kit lite
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 some general/how-does-it-work-inside questions about WebAPI and OWIN (specifically, the default configuration which is set up when you create new WebAPI project in VS2013 and select Individual user account authentication). I did that, then I registered (using jQuery post) and even logged in (received token which I included in Authorization header, receiving access to protected resource. I just have some more questions about it:
Are my data stored inside authentication token? I know my password isn't, but is token containing encrypted data, or is just a random string? These are the only 2 options that I can think of: either token contains encrypted data (userId, expiration date, etc.) and server app deciphers it and grants me access to resources, or token is a random string and all user data are stored on server (token is used as a key to obtain correct user data entry). If the second theory is right, the token <-> userData lookup must be stored somewhere - is it session, cache or database maybe?
If i wanted to make a RESTful API, what about Roles, etc. (in general - data beyond simple who-are-you identification that I need for every request)? Again: first thing that comes to mind is to store them inside token. But if the data grows large isn't that too much overhead to send with each request (plus headers themselves probably are limited in size)? Second thing is using external OAuth service (like Facebook or Twitter) - if the user authenticates using external token, I can't control what information does it contain. Alternative is to get the data I need from the database each time, but isn't it bad practice? Every single request would need an extra database call to collect user's role and check if he even has access to this particular part of application. I could store it in session, but RESTful API is supposed to be stateless.
Thanks for any help as I'm just starting to dig into OAuth and WebAPI authentication. I know that I can customize everything to work as I want (so use session to store user data, etc.), but I wanted to know what the good practices are and which of them are provided out of the box with default WebAPI project in VS2013 and which need to be implemented manually.
(1) the latter is correct. The server verify token by machine key and can decipher and validate its contents.
(2) You got that correct. Its best to keep the token size min. tbh I am looking to see what others are doing about this. (+1 for the question.)
I am working on a web app. Front-end only interacts with back-end through RESTful API(it's called SOA architecture), and back-end only sends data to front-end in JSON.
My question is:
1) is it the best practice to design the authorization through RESTful API? or it is best to check authorization (user-> role -> privilege) at back-end code?
e.g.: do we ask user /checkPrivilege/{...} every time before executing other API?
2) How it is usually to implement 3 plans with different features & UI in RESTful API?
e.g.: do we use api to limits 5 users for this plan? or we do it at back-end code?
This is an old question, but I'll answer this anyway just in case some looks it up.
The short answer is you do it through the backend. The URI you are requesting should not contain any information about the user. Any session/identifying data should be sent in HTTP Headers.
Your RESTful API is always going to be loaded through a front controller like index.php. This is where you will want to bootstrap an authorization tool to check every single page request for credentials before executing the rest of your code.
Those credentials, at a MINIMUM, should contain a unique authorization token for the user who is making the request, and this token needs to be sent in every request (again, I recommend via an HTTP header). Bonus points if you grant a temporary access token that will expire, so as to prevent unauthorized access at a later date.
But for simplicity, let's say you are just using a permanent unique token per user. You would then store this token along with all the other data about the user, that other data should include an account_id for the account that user is a part of.
So for each request you would:
grab the user token from the HTTP Header
Look up the user based on that token.
If the user is found, then use their account_id to look up the master account their personal account is associated with
If it matches, grant them access
But remember, your URL should never contain this information in anyway. RESTful URLs are stateless.