I want to make a web application that's a Single-Page client that interacts with a REST API in the server. I need to authenticate users of my app as opposed to authenticate third party-apps (the latter being the focus of most tradional REST bibliography).
After googling a lot, I found there are many options (Basic HTTP Auth, HTTP digest, OAuth, etc) and several desirable properties one might get depending on the one chosen. For example, Basic Auth is simple but sends plain passwords unencrypted, which is not a good idea unless you guarantee that your app will run under TLS. Digest on the contrary doesn't send the credentials on every request, but prevents strong password encryption and is vulnerable to man in the middle attacks[1]. Meteor introduced SRP which avoids storing and sending passwords[2].
It appears to me that the consensus is to use OAuth, particulary the OAuth2 credentials flow, since I want to authorize access to my resources on my own server[3][4][5]. What I don't get is what are the benefits of this particular approach. I do get the benefits of using OAuth as a form of delegate authentication, much like those of using OpenID for federated authentication: you don't handle authentication data at all in your server. But in the case you apply the credentials flow for authorization (or OAuth1 2-legged flow for that matter), not introducing a third party, it looks like you still have to handle authentication by some other means, like HTTP basic or digest. So if you're doing that why not stick to that only method, and send the credentials on every request, instead of the token?
It's just to reduce the amount of requests where you have to actually send the credentials? It's just to stick to the OAuth convention? Those don't sound like strong arguments over the other methods. So, I'm I missing some other aspects or did I misunderstood something?
If you are not federating, there is not really a good case for using OAuth.
If you just want to authenticate to your own service, basic or forms authentication is the way to go. The catch, as you've pointed out, is that you must use HTTPS. However, that applies to all authentication methods.
As long as you're using HTTPS, you can leave protection of credentials while in transit to the transport level security. That's what it's there for and (for the most part) that's what it's good at. If you're using plain HTTP (anywhere in your application, not just for authentication), you're done. There are all manner of very clever MitM attacks that totally break the security of any system that employs HTTP anywhere (Moxie Marlinspike gave an interesting presentation on the subject at Black Hat back in 2009).
A typical recommendation for securing a REST API is to use HTTP Basic Authentication over SSL. My question is, should HTTP Basic Authentication only be used to authenticate the client (ie. the app accessing the API), or can it also be used to authenticate the user (the consumer of the app)?
It seems most APIs have to deal with both, as almost all web services employ some sort of user accounts. Just consider Twitter or Vimeo—there are public resources, and there are private (user specific) resources.
It seems logical that a simple REST API could do both client and user authentication at the same time using using HTTP Basic Authentication (over SSL).
Is this a good design?
By authenticate the client you probably mean the usage of API Key, this mechanism is used to track the concrete application/client. The second thing is that it gives you the possibility to disable the application by disabling the key, for example when client's author removes his account from the service. If you want to make your API public then it is a good idea.
But you need to remember that it gives you no real protection, everybody can download the client and extract that key.
I would not recommend to use Basic Authentication for API authentication. When it comes to authentication then you should consider that the application (client) developer has to implement its side of the authentication, too. Part of that is not only authentication itself but also how to get credentials and even much more than that.
I recommend to make use of an established authentication standard that ships with client libraries for the most popular programming languages. Those libraries make it much more likely that developers are going to adapt your API, because they reduce implementation effort on the client side.
Another important reason for using authentication standards is that they make developers (and others) more confident in the security of your authentication system. Those standards have been audited by experts and their weaknesses and strengths are well known and documented. It is unlikely that you are going to develop a nearly as solid authentication flow unless you are a security expert :-).
The most established standard in this field is OAuth but you can find alternatives by searching for "oauth alternatives".
How does OAuth help you with your problem setting?
In OAuth 2, the application client has to obtain an access token for a user before accessing any protected resource. To get an access token, the application must authenticate itself with its application credentials. Depending on the use-case (e.g. 3rd party, mobile) this is done in different ways that are defined by the OAuth standard.
An access token should not only represent a user but also which operations may be used on what resources (permissions). A user may grant different permissions to different applications so this information must somehow be linked to the token.
How to achieve such a semantic for access tokens however is not part of OAuth - it just defines the flow of how to obtain access tokens. Therefor, the implementation of the access token semantic is usually application specific.
You can implement such token semantic by storing a link between an access tokens and its permissions in your backend when you create the access token. The permissions may either be stored for every user-application combination or just for every application, depending on how fine-granular you want things to be.
Then, each time that an access token is processed by the API, you fetch this information and check whether the user has sufficient permissions to access the resource and to perform the desired operation.
Another option is to put the permission information into the access token and to sign or encrypt the token. When you receive the access token, you verify or decrypt it and use the permissions that are stored in the access token to make your decision. You may want to have a look on Json Web Tokens (JWT) on how to accomplish that.
The benefit of the later solution is better scalability and less effort during backend implementation. The downside of it are potentially larger requests (especially with RSA encryption) and less control over tokens.
Suppose I have a front-end application that wants to fetch some data from a back-end service. (I do.) The service will need to verify that the end-user is authenticated, that it is authorized to use the service and possibly filter the returned data based on the user's privileges. In my case, both the front-end app and the back-end service relies on Azure ACS for authentication.
Ideally the front-end would like to act on the behalf of the authenticated user, which sounds like a good fit for using an ActAs token (as specified in WS-Trust). However, it turns out that ACS does not currently support ActAs.
A workaround could be to use the actual bearer token (the bootstrap token in the front-end app) to authenticate to the back-end service. It's not hard to do, but would it be a bad idea for some reason?
From your front-end app, you could certainly pass along the identity data of the end user by either sending the token as is or sending the attributes from it. Both have issues. For the former, if it's also encrypted, the front- and back-ends will have to share the private key needed to decrypt it; they will also have to share audience restrictions, etc. in order for the back-end to consider the token valid for it. In other words, the front- and back-ends will be ONE relying party, not two. Might not be a problem, but be aware. In the latter case, you end up sending user data in a proprietay way which could increase integration and maintenance costs over time. In both cases, you can authenticate the front-end app to the back-end using some other type of credential, e.g., a certificate used at the transport level and, thus, forming a trusted subsystem between them.
One thing that I would suggest you consider instead is OAuth 2. From this blog post, it seems to me that ACS supports it (though I don't have any first hand experience w/ it). The truely wonderful thing about OAuth 2 is that it bakes delegation in, and is NO WHERE near as complex as ActAs in WS-Trust. The net result is the same, i.e., the back-end service will have info about the calling service and the end user, but the amount of effort to get it setup in incomparable. The tokens will still be bearer tokens, but you can mitigate that to a degree by using SSL. Beyond SSL, you can put some additional measures in place, but the best, IMO, would be if Microsoft did something in ACS like Google has done w/ their Access Tokens for service accounts which uses asymmetric keys that are chained up to a PKI. (BTW, for all I know, Microsoft may have already done something like that; if so, you're set.)
Anyway, HTH!
I'm currently creating an authentication system on front of a public web API for a web application. Given that each user account has an API key and each request must be authenticated, I have two alternatives:
Using an HTTP Basic Authentication, like GitHub does.
Requests must be sent to the URL
http://api.example.com/resource/id
with basic authentication
username: token
password: the api key
Passing the API Token as querystring parameter.
Requests must be sent to the URL
http://api.example.com/resource/id?token=api_key
There's also a third option which is passing the token within the URI, but I honestly don't like that solution.
Which solution would you adopt and why?
Best bet might be using an API key in the header (e.g. 'Authorization: Token MY_API_KEY') instead of as a url param:
Advantages over HTTP Basic Auth:
More convenient, as you can easily expire or regenerate tokens without affecting the user's account password.
If compromised, vulnerability limited to API, not the user's master account
You can have multiple keys per account (e.g. users can have "test" and "production" keys side by side.)
Advantages over API key in URL:
Provides extra measure of security by preventing users from inadvertently sharing URLs with their credentials embedded in them. (Also, URL can wind up in things like server logs)
Many times I had to think about how to authenticate users/requests onto APIs and after comparing more solutions I ended up with using the Amazon's solution where I don't need or I can't use OAuth. This solution is based on signatures that prevents from "man in the middle" problems as Basic Auth and passing a simple token are sending plain text data. Yes you can add ssl but this will add complexity to the system...
I think that HTTP Basic Auth should be OK but just for really simple needs.
The complete (and final) solution IMHO is to implement an OAuth provider.
It's not complex, it's a simple protocol and gives you lots of flexibility.
In addition it seems to be the current trend as many big players implement it and it's supported from many many libraries.
I would prefer using the token solution. If you don't have actual users with their own username and password, then it feels like you are using the Basic Auth construct not as intended. Not that that's necessarily wrong, but not as clean, IMO. It also removes the need to use custom headers and I think it makes implementation on both sides easier and cleaner. The next question I would be asking is if you should be using two-factor authentication or if you need to manage sessions at all.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
When designing a REST API or service are there any established best practices for dealing with security (Authentication, Authorization, Identity Management) ?
When building a SOAP API you have WS-Security as a guide and much literature exists on the topic. I have found less information about securing REST endpoints.
While I understand REST intentionally does not have specifications analogous to WS-* I am hoping best practices or recommended patterns have emerged.
Any discussion or links to relevant documents would be very much appreciated.
If it matters, we would be using WCF with POX/JSON serialized messages for our REST API's/Services built using v3.5 of the .NET Framework.
As tweakt said, Amazon S3 is a good model to work with. Their request signatures do have some features (such as incorporating a timestamp) that help guard against both accidental and malicious request replaying.
The nice thing about HTTP Basic is that virtually all HTTP libraries support it. You will, of course, need to require SSL in this case because sending plaintext passwords over the net is almost universally a bad thing. Basic is preferable to Digest when using SSL because even if the caller already knows that credentials are required, Digest requires an extra roundtrip to exchange the nonce value. With Basic, the callers simply sends the credentials the first time.
Once the identity of the client is established, authorization is really just an implementation problem. However, you could delegate the authorization to some other component with an existing authorization model. Again the nice thing about Basic here is your server ends up with a plaintext copy of the client's password that you can simply pass on to another component within your infrastructure as needed.
There are no standards for REST other than HTTP. There are established REST services out there. I suggest you take a peek at them and get a feel for how they work.
For example, we borrowed a lot of ideas from Amazon's S3 REST service when developing our own. But we opted not to use the more advanced security model based on request signatures. The simpler approach is HTTP Basic auth over SSL. You have to decide what works best in your situation.
Also, I highly recommend the book RESTful Web Services from O'reilly. It explains the core concepts and does provide some best practices. You can generally take the model they provide and map it to your own application.
You may also want to take a look at OAuth, an emerging open protocol for token-based authorization specifically targeting http apis.
It is very similar to the approach taken by flickr and remember the milk "rest" apis (not necessarily good examples of restful apis, but good examples of the token-based approach).
There is a great checklist found on Github:
Authentication
Don't reinvent the wheel in Authentication, token generation, password storage. Use the standards.
Use Max Retry and jail features in Login.
Use encryption on all sensitive data.
JWT (JSON Web Token)
Use a random complicated key (JWT Secret) to make brute forcing the token very hard.
Don't extract the algorithm from the payload. Force the algorithm in the backend (HS256 or RS256).
Make token expiration (TTL, RTTL) as short as possible.
Don't store sensitive data in the JWT payload, it can be decoded easily.
OAuth
Always validate redirect_uri server-side to allow only whitelisted URLs.
Always try to exchange for code and not tokens (don't allow response_type=token).
Use state parameter with a random hash to prevent CSRF on the OAuth authentication process.
Define the default scope, and validate scope parameters for each application.
Access
Limit requests (Throttling) to avoid DDoS / brute-force attacks.
Use HTTPS on server side to avoid MITM (Man In The Middle Attack)
Use HSTS header with SSL to avoid SSL Strip attack.
Input
Use the proper HTTP method according to the operation: GET (read), POST (create), PUT/PATCH (replace/update), and DELETE (to delete a record), and respond with 405 Method Not Allowed if the requested method isn't appropriate for the requested resource.
Validate content-type on request Accept header (Content Negotiation) to allow only your supported format (e.g. application/xml, application/json, etc) and respond with 406 Not Acceptable response if not matched.
Validate content-type of posted data as you accept (e.g. application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data, application/json, etc).
Validate User input to avoid common vulnerabilities (e.g. XSS, SQL-Injection, Remote Code Execution, etc).
Don't use any sensitive data (credentials, Passwords, security tokens, or API keys) in the URL, but use standard Authorization header.
Use an API Gateway service to enable caching, Rate Limit policies (e.g. Quota, Spike Arrest, Concurrent Rate Limit) and deploy APIs resources dynamically.
Processing
Check if all the endpoints are protected behind authentication to avoid broken authentication process.
User own resource ID should be avoided. Use /me/orders instead of /user/654321/orders.
Don't auto-increment IDs. Use UUID instead.
If you are parsing XML files, make sure entity parsing is not enabled to avoid XXE (XML external entity attack).
If you are parsing XML files, make sure entity expansion is not enabled to avoid Billion Laughs/XML bomb via exponential entity expansion attack.
Use a CDN for file uploads.
If you are dealing with huge amount of data, use Workers and Queues to process as much as possible in background and return response fast to avoid HTTP Blocking.
Do not forget to turn the DEBUG mode OFF.
Output
Send X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff header.
Send X-Frame-Options: deny header.
Send Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none' header.
Remove fingerprinting headers - X-Powered-By, Server, X-AspNet-Version etc.
Force content-type for your response, if you return application/json then your response content-type is application/json.
Don't return sensitive data like credentials, Passwords, security tokens.
Return the proper status code according to the operation completed. (e.g. 200 OK, 400 Bad Request, 401 Unauthorized, 405 Method Not Allowed, etc).
I'm kind of surprised SSL with client certificates hasn't been mentioned yet. Granted, this approach is only really useful if you can count on the community of users being identified by certificates. But a number of governments/companies do issue them to their users. The user doesn't have to worry about creating yet another username/password combination, and the identity is established on each and every connection so communication with the server can be entirely stateless, no user sessions required. (Not to imply that any/all of the other solutions mentioned require sessions)
Everyone in these answers has overlooked true access control / authorization.
If for instance your REST APIs / web services are about POSTing / GETing medical records, you may want to define access control policie about who can access the data and under which circumstances. For instance:
doctors can GET the medical record of a patient they have a care relationship with
no one can POST medical data outside practice hours (e.g. 9 to 5)
end-users can GET medical records they own or medical records of patients for whom they are the guardian
nurses can UPDATE the medical record of a patient that belongs to the same unit as the nurse.
In order to define and implement those fine-grained authorizations, you will need to use an attribute-based access control language called XACML, the eXtensible Access Control Markup Language.
The other standards here are for the following:
OAuth: id. federation and delegation of authorization e.g. letting a service act on my behalf on another service (Facebook can post to my Twitter)
SAML: identity federation / web SSO. SAML is very much about who the user is.
WS-Security / WS-* standards: these focus on the communication between SOAP services. They are specific to the application-level messaging format (SOAP) and they deal with aspects of messaging e.g. reliability, security, confidentiality, integrity, atomicity, eventing... None cover access control and all are specific to SOAP.
XACML is technology-agnostic. It can be applied to java apps, .NET, Python, Ruby... web services, REST APIs, and more.
The following are interesting resources:
the OASIS XACML website
the NIST ABAC standard
I've used OAuth a few times, and also used some other methods (BASIC/DIGEST). I wholeheartedly suggest OAuth. The following link is the best tutorial I've seen on using OAuth:
http://hueniverse.com/oauth/guide/
One of the best posts I've ever come across regarding Security as it relates to REST is over at 1 RainDrop. The MySpace API's use OAuth also for security and you have full access to their custom channels in the RestChess code, which I did a lot of exploration with. This was demo'd at Mix and you can find the posting here.
Thanks for the excellent advice. We ended up using a custom HTTP header to pass an identity token from the client to the service, in preparation for integrating our RESTful API with the the upcoming Zermatt Identity framework from Microsoft. I have described the problem here and our solution here. I also took tweakt's advice and bought RESTful Web Services - a very good book if you're building a RESTful API of any kind.
OWASP(Open Web Application Security Project) has some cheat sheets covering about all aspects of Web Application development. This Project is a very valuable and reliable source of information.
Regarding REST services you can check this: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/REST_Security_Cheat_Sheet
I would recommend OAuth 2/3. You can find more information at http://oauth.net/2/
I searched a lot about restful ws security and we also ended up with using token via cookie from client to server to authenticate the requests . I used spring security for authorization of requests in service because I had to authenticate and authorized each request based on specified security policies that has already been in DB.
The fact that the SOAP world is pretty well covered with security standards doesn't mean that it's secure by default. In the first place, the standards are very complex. Complexity is not a very good friend of security and implementation vulnerabilities such as XML signature wrapping attacks are endemic here.
As for the .NET environment I won't help much, but “Building web services with Java” (a brick with ~10 authors) did help me a lot in understanding the WS-* security architecture and, especially, its quirks.
REST itself offers no security standards, but things like OAuth and SAML are rapidly becoming the standards in this space. However, authentication and authorization are only a small part of what you need to consider. Many of the known vulnerabilities relating to web applications apply very much to REST apis. You have to consider input validation, session cracking, inappropriate error messages, internal employee vulnerabilities and so on. It is a big subject.
I want to add(in line with stinkeymatt), simplest solution would be to add SSL certificates to your site. In other words, make sure your url is HTTPS://. That will cover your transport security (bang for the buck). With RESTful url's, idea is to keep it simple (unlike WS* security/SAML), you can use oAuth2/openID connect or even Basic Auth (in simple cases). But you will still need SSL/HTTPS. Please check ASP.NET Web API 2 security here: http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/security (Articles and Videos)
As #Nathan ended up with which is a simple HTTP Header, and some had said OAuth2 and client side SSL certificates. The gist of it is this... your REST API shouldn't have to handle security as that should really be outside the scope of the API.
Instead a security layer should be put on top of it, whether it is an HTTP Header behind a web proxy (a common approach like SiteMinder, Zermatt or even Apache HTTPd), or as complicated as OAuth 2.
The key thing is the requests should work without any end-user interaction. All that is needed is to ensure that the connection to the REST API is authenticated. In Java EE we have the notion of a userPrincipal that can be obtained on an HttpServletRequest. It is also managed in the deployment descriptor that a URL pattern can be secure so the REST API code does not need to check anymore.
In the WCF world, I would use ServiceSecurityContext.Current to get the current security context. You need to configure you application to require authentication.
There is one exception to the statement I had above and that's the use of a nonce to prevent replays (which can be attacks or someone just submitting the same data twice). That part can only be handled in the application layer.
For Web Application Security, you should take a look at OWASP (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page) which provides cheatsheets for various security attacks. You can incorporate as many measures as possible to secure your Application.
With respect to API security (authorization, authentication, identity management), there are multiple ways as already mentioned (Basic,Digest and OAuth). There are loop holes in OAuth1.0, so you can use OAuth1.0a (OAuth2.0 is not widely adopted due to concerns with the specification)
It's been a while but the question is still relevant, though the answer might have changed a bit.
An API Gateway would be a flexible and highly configurable solution.
I tested and used KONG quite a bit and really liked what I saw. KONG provides an admin REST API of its own which you can use to manage users.
Express-gateway.io is more recent and is also an API Gateway.