We have a system with three layer includes API Server (Backend), Client Web Site, and End User. Now, the Authentication occurs on API Server, which be done in two case. In one case, Client Web Site call API directly using a token (Client Token) which get from a service based on user/pass and in another case, besides End User login into API Server using Client Web Site, but authentication occurred on API Server other than Client Web Site. Client Site get another token which named as Auth Token (for end user calling), then call API that End User requested by sending two mentioned tokens. By using Client and Auth Tokens, API Server checks whether client and end User are logged in respectively or not. Entities and their relations are illustrated in here
I want to use API Manager as a gateway between API Server and Client Site and manage authentication process with it.
How can I implement this scenario using WSO2 API Manger?
thanks for your response!
Extending the previous answer..
If the backend is behind the API manager (adviced), the API maanger can pass the client/user/application information to the backend as JWT token. So indeed, that's a good use case to use the API Manager
Edit: extending answer based on comments
in one scenario when a user login to client website, it pass the user
& pass to API server. therefore, API server checks the validity of U&P
Indeed, using the default OAuth (code or password profile) will work.
and creates a Auth token as well creates a session for user.
Almost good. A token is returned, there's no user session in API Manager. All authorization is based on the token provided.
of session, that whether Client web site and end user
are logged in or not. the checking process performed by two tokens
Nope. The APIM doesn't check for any session. It checks only the OAuth (Bearer) token.
and in another scenario client web site call API directly without any
request from end user.in this scenario auth token is not exist
The web site (lets call it Application) can authenticate using its own credentials (so called client_credentials profile). It may receive its own OAuth application token.
The same feature is supported in APIM. You can simply get rid of authentication login from your backend (or replace with a simple one) and use APIM Authentication.
APIM uses OAuth2. To cater your requirement, you can use different grant types. For client website, you can use client credentials grant type, and for end users, you can use other grant types such as password or authorization code.
For more details read:
https://docs.wso2.com/display/AM210/Quick+Start+Guide
https://docs.wso2.com/display/AM210/Token+API
Related
Suppose that I have a mobile app with a frontend and a backend server.
My understanding is that -- when a user logs in the app with "Login with google", the frontend sends a request to the google auth server, and gets back an ID token. The documentation says that the frontend can then send the token to the backend server to establish a session. I imagine that means the token can be used in session-based authentication?
If I were to use token-based authentication (as opposed to session-based), do I just attach the ID token in every server request, and have the backend verifies it each time when processing a request? this page suggests the ID token should not be sent to the backend API. Which leaves me wonder what the correct procedure is for token-based authentication when using log in with Google.
So my question is: Does my server need to create an access token from the ID token from Google, and send it to the frontend, so the frontend can attach that access token in the API requests for authentication?
Thanks
Login with Google is an identity provider (IDP) operation. A full OAuth solution, including an authorization server (AS) looks like this:
Mobile app uses system browser to redirect to AS
AS returns a redirect response to the system browser, which routes to the IDP
User signs in at the IDP
IDP returns an authorization code to AS
AS swaps it for IDP tokens and carries out validations
AS issues a set of tokens to the app. This includes an access token (AT) with whatever scopes and claims are needed for business authorization to work.
Mobile app sends AT in API requests
API authorizes using scopes and claims from the access token
So ideally plug in an authorization server, to get this out-of-the-box behaviour. Another option is to implement your own token service, and issue your own tokens. That is less recommended though, since it requires more detailed understanding of the underlying security.
We are currently analyzing the API gateway for our microservices and Kong is one of the possible candidate. We discovered that Kong support several plugins for authentication but the all based on users stored in Kong database itself. We need to delegate this responsibility to our custom auth HTTP service and don't want to add these users in API gateway database.
It's possible to do this with some code around, instead of using the OpenID connect plugin; in effect you need to implement an Authorization Server which talks to Kong via the Admin (8001) port and authorizes the use of an API with externally given User Ids.
In short, it goes as follows (here for the Authorization Code grant):
Instead of asking Kong directly for tokens, hit the Authorization Server with a request to get a token for a specific API (either hard coded or parameterized, depending on what you need), and include the client ID of the application which needs access in the call (you implement the /authorize end point in fact)
The Authorization Server now needs to authenticate with whatever IdP you need, so that you have the authenticated user inside your Authorization Server
Now get the provision code for your API via the Kong Admin API, and hit the /oauth2/authorize end point of your Kong Gateway (port 8443), including the provision key; note that you may need to look up the client secret for the application client id also via the Admin API to make this work
Include client id, client secret, authenticated user id (from your custom IdP) and optinally scope in the POST to /oauth2/authorize; these values will be added to backend calls to your API using the access token the application can now claim using the authorization code
Kong will give you an Authorization Code back, which you pass back to the application via an 302 redirect (you will need to read the OAuth2 spec for this)
The application uses its client and secret, with the authorization code, to get the access token (and refresh token) from Kong's port 8443, URL /oauth2/token.
It sounds more involved than it is in the end. I did this for wicked.haufe.io, which is based on Kong and node.js, and adds an open source developer portal to Kong. There's a lot of code in the following two projects which show what can be done to integrate with any IdP:
https://github.com/apim-haufe-io/wicked.portal-kong-adapter
https://github.com/Haufe-Lexware/wicked.auth-passport
https://github.com/Haufe-Lexware/wicked.auth-saml
We're currently investigating to see whether we can also add a default authorization server to wicked, but right now you'd have to roll/fork your own.
Maybe this helps, Martin
Check out Kong's OpenID Connect plugin getkong.org/plugins/openid-connect-rp - it connects to external identity and auth systems.
I'm integrating several web sites/services into my application. I use iframes (or webview for Vue Electron) for UI integration and I also use API to implement cross-communication between those services.
At the moment I have to go through OAuth 2 authentication twice for each service: once as part of natural authentication in iframe and another when I ask the user to give me access to this service (for api reasons).
Is there any way to streamline this process?
The state of the art response would be to modify your application completely.
You should have 1 SPA application and not iframe
This application would authenticate to get OAuth2 token
This application would then call the backend (access multiple backend, or access on api management layer that call backends).
Thing is, with this you can have 2 strategies :
give all permission (scope) at 1st authentication
give the smalled scope possible at 1st authentication, then when needed "reauthenticate" (in fact validate new scope) to get new access token
When an API want to call another API, you have also 3 strategies:
you simply use the same client token the API receive to the service your API call (no human interaction needed)
your API generate a token from a service account (using ROPC authentication scheme) or via a client credential scheme (the access token will be valid but usually not be bind to a real user), (no human interaction needed). (the API will be the client of the 2nd API)
your identity provider have an endpoint to transform access token : Your API can give the client access token, and authorization server will transform this with the client_id of your API. You send this token to 2ndAPI ( token will show subject of your UI application, but client ID will be the 1st API clientId) (no human interaction needed)
Now if you use IFrame with multiple sub-application on the same domain (the domain need to be exactly the same!), it is possible to share the same access token for instance via local storage. (security is not top notch)
You will probably need to authenticate with a bigger scope list sometime but it is your only option. You will simulate a single page application, but issue is that you will have potentially different client_id depending first application you authenticate to.
Edit: Multiple authorization server
From your comment, you have multiple authorization server. One strategy could be to ask user to authenticate, your application can then get an access_token and a refresh_token.
Depending on your authorization server, refresh_token can be used a lot / on a long period of time, so that if you store it somewhere, the next time the user visit your application, your application can silently get an access_token from this refresh token. Your application have then access to remove api without newer interaction from your user.
Of course, this means you have to save this token the most safely you can.
By using OpenID Connect you could combine authentication and authorization in a one step and get both an id_token to logon your user to your app as well as an access_token to access APIs in a single authentication response.
The model for our product is like this:
Api backend (headless)
I already have oauth set up and ready to use with a resource owner credentials grant. Anyone who wants to use our api can do so using either an API key or their username/password. Of course they also need their client ID and secret.
SPA frontend that accesses the Api
I have built an SPA that will uses the api to provide a portal GUI for our clients. Given that this client-side app is owned and administrated by us (so it's a trusted app) how can I safely authenticate users using only username/password with oauth?
Originally it was using a JWT auth system that only required username/pass but now that we've implemented oauth I'd like to consolidate. It's unreasonable to make every user need to also have their client id and secret on hand to login, but I want users to have full access to the api from the GUI.
I've looking at using CSRF tokens but how would that work with my app when nothing is generated server-side?
I'm not sure how to proceed.
EDIT: very similar to the problem here.
I have decided to use the solution described here.
And here is a snippet of my implementation
The TL;DR version is
Create a proxy between the app and the api
Store the client ID and secret in the proxy
App logs in using password grant type -- proxy intercepts login request and inserts client id and secret
On login response proxy returns access token as an encrypted cookie
Client stores cookie and sends with api requests (to proxy)
Proxy decrypts cookie and inserts access token into Authorization header before forwarding to api endpoint
For me this has several advantages over implementing something custom on the api itself:
No need for custom grant on oauth server
ID/secret is hidden from app securely and can still use password grant
oauth server can identify client (no need for separate client ids for each user)
You should not use the resource owner credential grant from a JavaScript application. The fact that you own and administer the application does not make it a trusted application.
A trusted client is an application that can keep a secret. SPAs or any JavaScript app cannot keep a secret.
You should use the implicit grant for non-trusted clients.
I'm trying to wrap my head around 3-legged authentication to secure a restful API.
Currently I have a client application at app.host.com which needs to be accessed by multiple users with different account permissions and data, as well as the JSON RESTful api which holds all data at app_api.host.com
For 3-legged auth, I understand I first need a consumer key and secret belonging to the client app.host.com... I also understand an unauthorized request token must be provided by the service provider, which is given to the client, which is then redirected back to the service provider for authorization with a login dialog.
So does the login dialog then exist as a user interface on the API host at app_api.host.com? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of me building a purely JSON restful API separately to the client?
Or can I build the login dialog on the client which would then post the user/pwd details to another auth endpoint on the API and provide a 200 code when the request token is authorized? And then in turn the client would ask for permissions from the user which would again be posted to another endpoint which then responds with the appropriate access token for that user?
TL;DR: Am I able to have the login dialog exist on the client, which then posts data to the service provider? All guides I've read suggest having the dialog on the service provider, which in this case would defeat the purpose of having the api as a separate app altogether. How should I go about building this? Any available guides?
OAuth 2.0 defines different flows to use with different clients, depending on how much you trust the client.
Authorization code
The first and most secury flow is the authorization token flow. It is used with a traditional web application in which you can store secrets relatively securely (only people with admin privileges should have access to the client ID and secret stored in the configuration).
When the user (resource owner) wants to authenticate, the user-agent is redirected to the authorization server which belongs to the domain of the resource server (the data the client wants to consume, for example Facebook or Google). The authorization server presents the user with logon UI. When the user authenticates successfully, it presents the consent UI to ask if the user wants the client application to access the resource. If the user consents, the user-agent is redirected back to the client application with an authorization code. The client application can now use this code, its client ID and secret to talk to the authorization server directly and get an access token. In this flow, the access token is never in the hands of the user-agent.
Implicit flow
In the implicit flow, the user-agent (here typically a native (mobile) application or JavaScript client) redirects to the authorization server or opens a browser window to navigate to the authorization server. When the user authenticates successfully and grants permission to the client application, the access token itself is returned to the client. So the user-agent never sees the username and password the user enters (as this happens on a HTML page that is controlled by the resource server), but does have control over the access token.
Resource owner password credential flow
Here the user-agent is fully trusted and asks the user for username and password. It then communicates with the authorization server to get a access token. Even though the user-agent knows the credentials of the user, it only uses them once to get an access token. It does not need to send them along each request to the resource server.
So to answer your question, you can build the login dialog in your app if you think your users will trust your application enough to give you their credentials. Otherwise you should probably go for one of the other flows. You can read more on OAuth 2 here and here.