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.
Related
I have a set of APIs purely for my own app, so I just have a simple API to create access token, when user provided the email and password
/api/access_token (return access_token when email and password matched)
The access_token was saved and matched against in the database sessions table with the expiry field, for now, the expiry is one week, so user need to re-login after one week.
So far it worked fine, but if I want to have the remember me functions as those Facebook / Twitter app, which mean user don't need to re-login so often, which I assume they are using something like the OAuth refresh access tokens approach.
Since I am not using those OAuth stuffs, given my current design and setup, what would be the simplest and secure way to achieve the same functionalities?
You have a few options to choose from, I'll try provide an overview. There is a significant difference depending on whether the client is a browser or a mobile app.
First, for browsers, plain old session tokens are generally more secure than JWT or other structured tokens. If your requirements don't force you to store stuff on or flow stuff through the client, then don't.
The most secure option for a browser client (single page javascript app or plain old rendered app) is the following:
When the user hits the login endpoint with their username and password, the endpoint creates a random session id, and stores it in a database.
The server sends back the session token as a httpOnly cookie, thus it protects it from potential XSS.
The client then automatically includes the session token in all subsequent requests.
Additional data can be stored server-side for the session.
This above is basically plain old stateful session management. The length of such a session should be limited, but if your requirements and threat model allows, you can make this a very long session, like months even if you want, but be aware of the associated risk. These tokens can be inspected in the browser and stolen from a user if not else then by physical access to the client, so a very long expiry has its risks.
Note that mobile apps can pretty much just do the same. The difference is that mobile apps do have a way to store secrets more securely on current mobile platforms. As the storage is protected by user login, and also segregated by app, a session id stored correctly in a mobile app has a lot less chance to be compromised, meaning a longer expiry presents lower risk than in case of a plain browser.
You can also implement a refresh token. However, the point in refresh tokens is that you want to store them in a different way than the other token. If they are stored the same way, a refresh token provides very little benefit (sure, it won't be sent with every request, but that's not where it will get compromised anyway, TLS / HTTPS is secure for transport). In case of OAuth / OpenID, the authentication server can for example set the refresh token on its own origin (like login.example.com), and then forward the user to the app with an authorization code for example, which can be exchanged by the application (service provider) for an access token, that is set for the application domain (like app.example.com). This way, the two tokens have different access models, a compromised app will not leak the refresh token, even if the current access token is leaked, and the access token can be refreshed relatively seamlessly.
If you don't have a separate login endpoint, all this doesn't make a lot of sense, except in one very specific case. Thinking about browser clients, you can set a refresh token in a httpOnly cookie, so it's protected from XSS, and you can store an access token in something like localStorage. However, why would you do this? Pretty much the only reason you would do this is if you need to send the access token to some other origin, which is the whole point in OAuth and OpenID.
You could also argue that statelessness is a benefit of such tokens. In reality, the vast majority of services don't actually benefit from statelessness, but it makes some features technically impossible (like for example forcing logout, as in terminating existing user sessions - for that, you would have to store and check revoked tokens, which is not stateless at all).
Ok so to provide "remember me" as in auto-login, you basically have two options. You can either just make your sessions very long (like months, years, forever), which is more ok for mobile apps as they can store the token more securely than a browser, or you can implement some kind of a refresh mechanism. As discussed above, this only makes sense if the refresh token is stored and accessed differently than the session token.
In case of a browser app with a single origin (no auth/login service), this is not really possible, there is no real separation, and a refresh token doesn't make a lot of sense. If you want an auth service, you should be looking into OpenID Connect (OIDC).
For a mobile app, what you could do is store a refresh token in secure storage, and use access tokens from the localStorage of something like a webview, but unless there are very specific requirements, this would likely not be worth the complexity, as you could just store a longer lived session token in the secure storage.
As for remember me, you can just implement it in a way that users that choose to be remembered will have a sessino token with a longer expiry - as you already store expiry for each token in your database, everything is already set up for that, and in many usecases this is fine. There is some additional risk for users that choose this, but there is also some additional benefit in terms of convenience - it's always a compromise.
What you can consider doing to make such very long sessions more secure is check and store some kind of a device fingerprint (there are Javascript libs for this). If you have a very long lived session, but only valid for a specific fingerprint (ie. it only works from the same device), that mitigates the risk somewhat. However, almost everything that is used for a device fingerprint can be spoofed by an attacker, but it still makes it significantly harder for an attacker to steal a session, and you can have approrpiate monitoring in place for attempts. There will be UX considerations too, like the fingerprint might change with browser/app updates and so on, but it's still worth it sometimes.
Another new-ish feature you could consider is WebAuthn and Passkey, for passwordless authentication. These basically provide device authentication, a key will be seamlessly generated for the user on the specific device, and that will be used for logging in. UX is now getting better, but there are still challenges. The way device authentication translates into user authentication is that the key is associated with the user session (the user "unlocks" the keystore, ie. decrypts the stored keys upon login, with their login credentials). This can also provide "remember me" (seamless auto-login), but in my experience the technology is not fully ready yet, though it's getting there.
While I fully agree with the comments above, I would like to create a clear solution in the minds of other readers by giving a clear and directly understandable concrete answer to your problem.
Let's take an example for JWT;
RefreshToken is the structure that will be activated when the AccessToken expires and will complete the Authentication phase without the need for login. The logic is as follows: AccessToken has a very short lifespan compared to RefreshToken. This time is up to you. The purpose is this: AccessToken is destroyed in short time intervals so that it does not fall into the hands of anyone. However, for this reason, the need to login to the system again arises. To make it easier to login again; When you take the previous AccessToken, you will take another token (RefreshToken) that can be used for a longer period of time and keep it in your pocket. The part I call your pocket depends on the technology you use. For example, you can also keep it in the browser. Keeping it in a browser is not an ideal method (It would be DB, file, cache what you use), because it can create a security vulnerability when someone has access for browsers. So where to keep it depends on the situation and you decide, but; RefreshToken will be activated when AccessToken expires on your client Login functionality.
It has become customary to set a default period of 100 days for RefreshToken. however, this time is up to you, depending on your application business preference.
I found a very clear example when I googled, you can check it below.
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/jwt-authentication-with-refresh-tokens-in-net-6-0/
You can use the same functionality on your serverside code for all your clients (mobile or web not important)
I am implementing JWT Authentication for the first time on a Vue SPA (django rest framework on backend), and I am really struggling to come up with a good flow for managing my user data.
My question is simply this:
Should I make an API route to retrieve the authenticated user from the access token, or should I put user data needed by my frontend within the payload of the JWT and save it on local storage?
If I choose to put all user data needed by the frontend into the payload of the JWT, how am I supposed to maintain a strong user experience with user data that constantly changes? Aren't I at the mercy of my refresh token requesting an access token? Because only then will my frontend decode a new payload with the new user data that can be displayed on the pages.
On the flip side, if I make an API route that retrieves the currently authenticated user, I am ignoring the scalability benefit behind JWTs, and will need to make a db hit frequently.
Thanks.
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 built a simple test API for a CakePHP application that will let a user login from a mobile device (or any device for that matter) and get a JSON response. This API could be used for a mobile app built in PhoneGap.
The login method looks like so:
public function login()
{
if($this->request->is('post'))
{
// Use custom method in Model to find record with password params
$findUser = $this->User->findUser(
$_POST['username_or_email'],
AuthComponent::password($_POST['password'])
);
// If a user exists and matches params
if($findUser)
{
$this->User->id = $findUser['User']['id'];
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('authenticated'=>true,'message'=>__('You have been logged in successfully'))));
}
else
{
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('authenticated'=>false,'message'=>__('Username or password is incorrect'))));
}
}
else
{
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('message'=>'GET request not allowed!')));
}
}
The mobile device (or any API user) can send their login details and then they get the request as JSON as true or false for authenticated. This boolean is NOT used to give the user access, it instead tells the mobile app if they can see certain screens and they ONLY get the data or can send data if the session exists!
As just stated, they are also actually logged into the API itself on the device so if they visit the website directly (from that device) they will have a session and see the same response for the JSON.
So essentially a user remains logged in for the duration of the session on the device they communicated with the server on. This is different to a token which would need to be passed for every request, where as in this example they have a session.
Now the questions...
Is it bad practice for the user to be 'actually' logged into the API
with a session like shown above? It seems like the most secure way to handle authentication for a device as it's using the same logic as the direct web root.
I've seen some APIs use access tokens instead which I've also
implemented (user gets their token returned instead of the boolean
and no session is created). But from what I can tell, this seems
like more work as then I need to check for the access token against
a user record every time a request is made.
edit
For the sake of clarity, I am not a supporter of REST, I AM a supporter of RESTful/RESTlike services. If you look at all of the API's on the internet, very few actually stick to one standard. Whatever scheme you choose will depend on your specific problem-space. Just try to be secure and use intuitive design choices (ie dont name a service "cats" if it returns info about "dogs")
end edit
It is good practice in RESTful API's to manage some form of session/tokenizing scheme. Really the ideal (at least in my opinion, there are many schools of thought on this problem) setup involves rolling tokens.
If you are at all concerned with the security of your API, then permissions should be managed out of your database layer. Yes, this creates a bottleneck, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING. Needing to hit the database every single time to validate a client's token adds an extra step in the entire process. This slows down the API, which is actually desireable in a secure system. You don't want a malicious individual to be able to hit your API 3000 times a second, you want their requests to hang for a (somewhat) sizeable fraction of a second.
This is similar to MD5 hashing algorithms. Many of them recalculate the hash a few hundred times, with random pauses in between. This helps to keep a malicious client from attempting to brute force a password (by making it take more time to test each variation of the password string). The same applies to your API.
The other benefit, is that if you DO have a malicious user trying to log in over and over again, if you are managing them from the database layer, then you can red flag their IP Address/username/what-have-you and just drop their requests at step 1.
Anyway, for a suggested process (with rolling tokens, you can cut out parts of this if it seems overkill, but this is hella secure):
User hits a 'login' service, this requires a username/password, and returns two tokens, a Private Access Token and a Public Request Token (the server stores these tokens in the db).
The client stores these Tokens in a secure place
User accesses another endpoint to push/pull some data
Request includes a timestamp
Request includes the Public Request Token
Request includes an Access Token=> This token should be a MD5 hash of the string resulting from concatenating the timestamp string to the end of the Private Access Token string
The server takes the Public Request Token, uses that to lookup the Private Access Token that was stored
The server takes that Private Access Token, and concatenates on the Timestamp String, it then takes the MD5 of this string
If the new Access Token matches the one that the client sent the server, HURRAY, this client is validated, so push/pull the data
(Optional) The server generates new tokens on every request, and returns them to the client. This way every transaction invalidates the old tokens, and if there was some kind of man-in-the-middle attack occurring, if the VALID user has already completed their request, the malicious user now has invalid tokens and can't start messing with your API. This scheme tries to ensure that a malicious user can not expect to intercept a single communication between the server and the client, and still gain access to the system. If they do, then the REAL user should immediately get invalidated tokens. Which should then trigger their API client to hit the 'login' service AGAIN, getting new valid tokens. This once again kicks the malicious user out of the system.
This scheme is not 100% secure, no user access system ever will be. It can be made more secure by adding expiration dates on tokens. This scheme also has the added benefit that you can assign specific permissions to users/tokens (ie Read-Only access, only certain End-Points can be seen, etc)
This is not the only way you can do things, I would look up other Authentication Schemes and take what you want from each of them (OAUTH is a good place to start, then I'd look at Facebook/Twitter/Instagram)
Make your app login everytime, but not with login-pass pair as Swayok lastly suggested. When you login, server generates a token and returns it back to the client. Client then uses this token whenever it makes a request. On each request, server checks whether the token is valid and if so, executes the request.
This is very similar to how sessions work in that, server side frameworks manage it internally and these tokens expire from time to time. However, as Swayok rightuflly pointed out, you don't want session mainly because you're RESTful API should have no state. You get the same utility without storing any user specific data regarding user and logging user in with every request.
Here's a good article on this, or you can try the Facebook Graph API explorer to see it in action
Restful API restricts using sessions and saving system state at all. Each request must log-in user.
Access tokes are great but also require additional handling.
The easiest way is to send authorisation data via HTTP Basic Auth ("Authorization" HTTP header)
http://www.httpwatch.com/httpgallery/authentication/
Mobile Applications can easily do that and it is easy to add this header for each request to API.
On server side:
$username = env('PHP_AUTH_USER');
$password = env('PHP_AUTH_PW');
And process user log-in with this data in ApiAppController->beforeFilter()
To answer your questions
Its not a bad practice as long as you close their session on app close and recreate it when needed. it is same as if they were logged in on a browser they would know and have facility to log out however the same should be available on the app as well otherwise they might have closed the app but not actually ended their session. You can handle this in many ways by asking them to log out automatic checking when they close app
Tokens are an enhanced way of doing the above however you have to consider how secure the token is when transmitted and server need to verify the token on each request. You have said that it seems like more work so yes its more work and if you have time or money constrains and looking for an answer to say if the session style would harm your application in future it wont as long as you are in control of session and not leaving user without ending the session. If you have time then implement tokens and you would like that.