within Cumulocity (hosted) we have our own application with plugins written using AngularJS.
From this application we want to send a request to a microservice that we have running as well.
However, the microservice ask for authorization information when sending a get request. (How) Can we overcome this?
The reason we have decided to do it like this is so that we do not have to expose critical information.
Thanks
All microservice invocations require authentication with a valid user in the tenant.
If you really want to expose something without authentication, you can create a dummy user with no other permissions in the tenant and hardcode the credentials of that user in your AngularJS code. However, this is a risk for you, as it makes it easy for malicious users to bombard your tenant with potentially charged API requests (depending on your service provider pricing model).
If the information that you want to expose is not dynamic (maybe tenant configuration or so), you could upload such information as part of a web application. E.g., you upload a "config" application with a single file "config.json" and load that from your AngularJS application using the URL /apps/config/config.json. Not sure if that is your case.
All requests to Cumulocity including those to microservices must be authenticated fully. There is no way to access a microservice without valid credentials.
The platform needs this information to determine if the user and tenant have sufficient access rights to perform the requested action. Even if your microservice does not require special permissions to access. Cumulocity will at least need to check if the originating tenant is allowed to use the microservice.
Related
We are looking to implement a Micro Services architecture in the future. We don't want permissions at the API gateway to be very clunky and restricted to GET, PUT, POST etc.
We want granular application permissions to be stored and managed centrally, so apps only have to fetch them and not manage them.
I have included a picture of the draft architecture I have in my head as well as logic flow below.
My Question
Can this design pattern be implemented using any of the existing authentication/authorisation specifications such as OAuth2? If not, is it acceptable to create your own Authentication / Authorisation pattern for use with in a private network?
App Life cycle
A developer creates WebApp1
WebApp1 is registered in the Web App Registry Server by the developer. He/She also registers the custom permissions that the App exposes.
Users can have access granted or revoked to the granular permissions exposed by the App by an IT Administrator.
In the example above WebApp1 exposes two permissions CreatePost & DeletePost user1 only has permission to CreatePost
User Process Flow
An unauthenticated user accesses WebApp1 and is redirect to the Login screen.
The user's credentials are validated against LDAP and a UUID Authorisation token is generated. The token is stored in a Security Token Server and the user redirected back to WebApp1 with the token included in an Authorization Header.
WebApp1 requests the permissions this user has from the Web App Registry server, this can be done every x minutes and stores them in local state. The Web App Registry Server also checks the Authorization token is still valid.
WebApp1 checks every x minutes that the users token is still valid, if not the user is requested to login again (or a refresh token could be included with the original token that was sent to the app when the user Authenticated).
Interesting question - some thoughts below on achieving your goals via OAuth based design patterns:
AUTHORIZATION GOAL
The desired end state is usually to give yourself choices:
Use a pattern that enables any API component to do authorization
Sometimes you need to be close to the data source to enforce permissions.
Other times you may want some types of rule to be enforced via a dedicated service
MAPPING TOKENS TO PERMISSIONS
I like this way of doing things. In effect it is a Claims Based Architecture, and the information you need for authorization won't come solely from tokens.
My API Authorization Post describes an extensible pattern that starts with defining a claims / principal object in each API. Here is some sample code, where the Authorizer class provides an overview of behaviour on each API request.
WEB APP REGISTRY
I would be careful about creating components that could come under heavy load and become a bottleneck for your whole software platform - should you need one of these?
CLAIMS AND MICROSERVICES
A pattern that can work well is to design 2 levels of API. Interestingly, both of these can use claims and you can put authorization responsibilities anywhere you want - and give yourself choices:
Entry point APIs: exposed to the internet, do OAuth validation and naturally lock down what clients can do with access tokens:
Microservices: run in a locked down network and can freely call each other without OAuth plumbing
My API Platform Architecture
post explores this option, where claims are passed between microservices via headers.
ACCESS TOKEN VALIDITY
You can often simplify code by following the below rules, since there can be multiple reasons for tokens becoming invalid:
Keep access tokens short lived ~60 minutes
Handle 401 errors in the client as in this code
We have an application that has frontend UI(Which is a web application) which communicates with a resource server. Our frontend will be using some APIs from a resource server to get data.
I am planning to add frontend to Okta and provide access to okta registered users.
In the resource server, we have some APIs that we want to expose to our customers to integrate in their system(Programmatically). To use our APIs, we have to provide client credentials(client ID/secret) to them. Using clientId/Secret, they will get access_token and will use that in a subsequent request. We can display this clientId/Secret via frontend UI once the user logs in to it via Okta.
How should I authenticate requests to the resource server from the frontend? And how do I authenticate requests to resource server via customer using clientId/Secret? Should I use one or two different tokens for this purpose?
Does Okta provides per-user client Id/secret that user(customer) can use to get access_token and send it to access resource server and resource server validate token against Okta.
I just did something very similar. You can read about my experience here: How to pass/verify Open ID token between .net core web app and web api?
I don't know what application framework you are using (.net, node, etc), but if you're using .NET the steps are to (a) install the middleware in your web app, (b) install the middleware in your api app, and (c) make sure calls from your web app to the api app pass the id_token.
If you, in addition to that, need to secure it for external users - it should work the same way. The only difference is they will manually call the /authorize endpoint to get their token - but the middleware should take care of the token verification for you in both cases.
Note I did experience one odd thing which is that I needed to pass the id_token and not the access_token. It is also worth mentioning that the claims were interpreted differently in the app and the api (in that the name of the claims for say, userid, were different between them - the data was still the same).
You will have to use 2 different access tokens. There are 2 different flows going on here:
Web UI to API
Business partner system to API
Technically this means:
Authorization Code Flow (PKCE)
Client Credentials Flow
And in terms of tokens it means:
In the first case there is an end user represented in access tokens (the 'sub' claim)
In the second case there is only a Client Id claim in access tokens
I can advise on token validation techniques if needed - let me know.
To me though this feels like an architectural question - in particular around applying authorization after identifying the caller and versioning / upgrades.
Based on my experience I tend to prefer the following architecture these days, based on 2 levels of APIs: eg with these ones exposed to the internet:
User Experience API serves the UI
Partner API deals with B2B
And both entry point APIs call the same core services which are internal. Might be worth discussing with your stakeholders ..
I have used Auth0 for a while with success, I recently came across a new challenge: allowing external developers to access my API with credentials provided by my web app.
The current system comprises of:
a Web App (not a SPA currently) with Auth0 log in
a back end API with Auth0 api authentication
Currently there is a single client in Auth0. The user logs in on the website and when they call the API via the website the token is passed along in the headers.
My question is: what is the best way to allow developers to request direct access to the api, in a self service manner on my website?
I see two paths forward, either create a client for each developer application via the Auth0 management API (github style), or request a token on behalf of the developer with a VERY long lifespan (like AppVeyor).
I'm assuming that your API provides functionality and/or resources that are associated or owned by an end-user, and you want to allow other application to also access this data on behalf of each end-user. If this isn't the case, and you API is general-purpose and does not require the notion of an end-user identity then other approaches like API keys could also meet your requirements.
Considering the end-user delegation scenario, the approach I would recommend would be going with the creation of separate client applications within Auth0. Like you said, you could automate this process through the Management API so that this process could be handled in a self-service way. Despite being self-service, the application that enabled the registration could still apply constraints in order to make sure only eligible developers could obtain the necessary information to then obtain access tokens to access the API.
This has the benefit that if you wanted to stop an existing developer from using your API you could just remove the associated client application and they wouldn't be allowed to request access tokens anymore and the ones they already had would be short lived and soon expire. This requirement is more complex to implement when using long-lived tokens because they would need to be revoked/blacklisted.
A final note, if these applications don't require to act on behalf an end-user when calling your API and you would prefer to still accept access tokens instead of using a different approach like API keys, then you can consider registering client applications meant to use the client credentials grant.
I am creating a REST inspired API for a Learning Management System. It will expose data such as users, classes, grades, courses etc. I have defined all the resources I want to expose, given them each an endpoint URL, and defined the JSON resource structures that are returned.
I now want to understand how to secure the API using Oauth2 (I don't want to use Oauth1). Am I correct in the assumption that my API will play the part of both the Authorization Server & the Resource Server? Also, what grant type / flow should I be researching?
A lot of the tutorials seem to focus on using Oauth2 to login using facebook credentials etc - but I just want to use it to secure my API and allow my users access to my API (either through a client, or directly). The access permissions for the API should follow the individual users access permissions that are already handled within our system.
Sorry for the scatter-gun questions - I just don't understand oauth2 enough to know where to direct my research. Any help would be greatly appreciated, and any pointers to simple tutorials for the correct use case would be great too.
FYI - The system is built on a LAMP stack using Drupal 6 (old, I know).
Well your assumption is correct the authorization server and the resource server can be on the same server or in the same API.
So how the OAuth2 basically works you have some kind of client(Server, Browser) Authorization API will authorize with Access Token to use your resource API which is then sent in the the Authorization HTTP header on every resource request.
So what I success is that when the user logs in, you identify the user and generate the Access Token immediately to the client. Now you can put some data inside the Access Token e.g. userId, permissions etc. Now when the Access Token hits your resource endpoint you can identify the user and check the permissions. Also you can just make the Access Token dumb so it doesn't contain any data then when you validate it from Authorization API(on Access Token creation you have to store info about the user to Authorization DB), you can get the info you need on the response e.g. userId, permissions etc.
What grant type flow to use, this is basically up to question what kind of clients are using your Authorization API and how secure you want the Authorization to be. E.g. implicit grant is for browser based clients which can handle redirections and e.g. Client Credentials grant is for (server-to-server) communication.
Reference here
To start with, you can use existing providers like WSO2 API Manager for supporting your system. It is well documented and has many REST APIs for this.
I am working on an internal authentication system for users of a set of of RESTful web applications. Our intention is that a user should be able to sign-on once via a web form and have appropriate access to all these RESTful applications in our domain, which may be distributed in a private cloud across many servers. (I understand already that having a single authenticated session is not aligned with a pure RESTful approach, but this is a usability requirement.)
The applications themselves will be written in a variety of programming languages so a language-neutral approach is required. It was suggested to me that we might use OpenID or OAuth or a similar framework to handle the authentication but my understanding is that these are intended for third-party services and not the first-party services that would share data on our internal system. In this case, we might have a central provider service with all the other applications treated as third parties (or relying parties).
Questions:
Are OpenID/OAuth suitable for authentication among first-party services?
If so, how would one be advised to set up authentication for this use case?
Wouldn't a user have to grant individual permission to each first-party server that they wanted to use, just as they would need to grant individual permission to any third-party server? I think this would violate the requirement of having a single sign-on for accessing all the first-party services.
Are there good examples of sites supporting this first-party use case?
What would be a good alternative framework for this first-party use case?
You do not need OAuth for SSO services.
The primary use/advantage of OAuth is, as you know already, granting access to a 3rd party app to access/use your resource in a controlled manner.
Rather than having an authentication/authorization server that you would need for OAuth, why not use a single log in service across all your APIs. An OAuth access token is totally different from what you need.
As far as I understand, what you can have is something like OAuth in a way that your server vends out tokens to the app. (I'm assuming that it's a totally internal system, so tokens cannot be misused).
So basically what I'm proposing is:
When an app tries to access the first API it's redirected to a web-form.
The user enters credentials and is taken to the DB for verification. Let there be a service that generates a token for the user/app
Next API access request would be made with that token - the token uniquely identifies the app
Depending on the level of security you need you can sign some text using HMAC and send it as token, or if its totally internal just generate a unique identifier for the app/user and send it to other API
On receiving the token, each service first calls the main server with the token and internally fetches the corresponding customer/user ID and performs the required function.
In short separate the login + token generation + token verification into a different module. All APIs should use this module for login/token verification.
What I have proposed here works like OAuth but all security aspects have been stripped down since you want to use it in a private cloud.
Oauth supports multiple different kinds of flows. You can use the client crendentials flow from Oauth 2.0 to avoid asking the user to grant permission for every app (this is intended for the cases where you control both the server and the app or where you want to preauthorize certain apps). This post does a good job explaining everything: http://tatiyants.com/using-oauth-to-protect-internal-rest-api/