I understand JWT can be used to authenticate a user but not much info seems to available on how you can secure the connection between frontend and backend api to ensure the website is not a fake duplicated used to lure users and steal their creds.
Maybe I'm just not wording my searches properly or understanding the topic, but how would you ensure that the client trying to connect to your API backend is authorized to and denied if it's not, even if the correct creds are used? This is for JWT.
I know it can be secured using API keys but this question is specific to JWT.
There isn't a great deal you can do against social engineering attacks. If data is sensitive then giving users regular warnings about how people might try to trick them with fake websites is fairly common.
Wikipedia lists a number of techniques that can be used to customise the UI to make it easier for the user to recognise that they are on the right site.
2 factor authentication can also help. While incorrect credentials could result in a token being passed to the attacker (allowing them access to the site), it will expire after whatever time limit you put on it and they will need to refresh it or be unable to reuse the password (since they won't have the new 2FA code).
You can also monitor for logins from large numbers of different users from the same IP address.
When building SPA style applications using frameworks like Angular, Ember, React, etc. what do people believe to be some best practices for authentication and session management? I can think of a couple of ways of considering approaching the problem.
Treat it no differently than authentication with a regular web application assuming the API and and UI have the same origin domain.
This would likely involve having a session cookie, server side session storage and probably some session API endpoint that the authenticated web UI can hit to get current user information to help with personalization or possibly even determining roles/abilities on the client side. The server would still enforce rules protecting access to data of course, the UI would just use this information to customize the experience.
Treat it like any third-party client using a public API and authenticate with some sort of token system similar to OAuth. This token mechanism would used by the client UI to authenticate each and every request made to the server API.
I'm not really much of an expert here but #1 seems to be completely sufficient for the vast majority of cases, but I'd really like to hear some more experienced opinions.
This question has been addressed, in a slightly different form, at length, here:
RESTful Authentication
But this addresses it from the server-side. Let's look at this from the client-side. Before we do that, though, there's an important prelude:
Javascript Crypto is Hopeless
Matasano's article on this is famous, but the lessons contained therein are pretty important:
https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and-events/blog/2011/august/javascript-cryptography-considered-harmful/
To summarize:
A man-in-the-middle attack can trivially replace your crypto code with <script> function hash_algorithm(password){ lol_nope_send_it_to_me_instead(password); }</script>
A man-in-the-middle attack is trivial against a page that serves any resource over a non-SSL connection.
Once you have SSL, you're using real crypto anyways.
And to add a corollary of my own:
A successful XSS attack can result in an attacker executing code on your client's browser, even if you're using SSL - so even if you've got every hatch battened down, your browser crypto can still fail if your attacker finds a way to execute any javascript code on someone else's browser.
This renders a lot of RESTful authentication schemes impossible or silly if you're intending to use a JavaScript client. Let's look!
HTTP Basic Auth
First and foremost, HTTP Basic Auth. The simplest of schemes: simply pass a name and password with every request.
This, of course, absolutely requires SSL, because you're passing a Base64 (reversibly) encoded name and password with every request. Anybody listening on the line could extract username and password trivially. Most of the "Basic Auth is insecure" arguments come from a place of "Basic Auth over HTTP" which is an awful idea.
The browser provides baked-in HTTP Basic Auth support, but it is ugly as sin and you probably shouldn't use it for your app. The alternative, though, is to stash username and password in JavaScript.
This is the most RESTful solution. The server requires no knowledge of state whatsoever and authenticates every individual interaction with the user. Some REST enthusiasts (mostly strawmen) insist that maintaining any sort of state is heresy and will froth at the mouth if you think of any other authentication method. There are theoretical benefits to this sort of standards-compliance - it's supported by Apache out of the box - you could store your objects as files in folders protected by .htaccess files if your heart desired!
The problem? You are caching on the client-side a username and password. This gives evil.ru a better crack at it - even the most basic of XSS vulnerabilities could result in the client beaming his username and password to an evil server. You could try to alleviate this risk by hashing and salting the password, but remember: JavaScript Crypto is Hopeless. You could alleviate this risk by leaving it up to the Browser's Basic Auth support, but.. ugly as sin, as mentioned earlier.
HTTP Digest Auth
Is Digest authentication possible with jQuery?
A more "secure" auth, this is a request/response hash challenge. Except JavaScript Crypto is Hopeless, so it only works over SSL and you still have to cache the username and password on the client side, making it more complicated than HTTP Basic Auth but no more secure.
Query Authentication with Additional Signature Parameters.
Another more "secure" auth, where you encrypt your parameters with nonce and timing data (to protect against repeat and timing attacks) and send the. One of the best examples of this is the OAuth 1.0 protocol, which is, as far as I know, a pretty stonking way to implement authentication on a REST server.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5849
Oh, but there aren't any OAuth 1.0 clients for JavaScript. Why?
JavaScript Crypto is Hopeless, remember. JavaScript can't participate in OAuth 1.0 without SSL, and you still have to store the client's username and password locally - which puts this in the same category as Digest Auth - it's more complicated than HTTP Basic Auth but it's no more secure.
Token
The user sends a username and password, and in exchange gets a token that can be used to authenticate requests.
This is marginally more secure than HTTP Basic Auth, because as soon as the username/password transaction is complete you can discard the sensitive data. It's also less RESTful, as tokens constitute "state" and make the server implementation more complicated.
SSL Still
The rub though, is that you still have to send that initial username and password to get a token. Sensitive information still touches your compromisable JavaScript.
To protect your user's credentials, you still need to keep attackers out of your JavaScript, and you still need to send a username and password over the wire. SSL Required.
Token Expiry
It's common to enforce token policies like "hey, when this token has been around too long, discard it and make the user authenticate again." or "I'm pretty sure that the only IP address allowed to use this token is XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX". Many of these policies are pretty good ideas.
Firesheeping
However, using a token Without SSL is still vulnerable to an attack called 'sidejacking': http://codebutler.github.io/firesheep/
The attacker doesn't get your user's credentials, but they can still pretend to be your user, which can be pretty bad.
tl;dr: Sending unencrypted tokens over the wire means that attackers can easily nab those tokens and pretend to be your user. FireSheep is a program that makes this very easy.
A Separate, More Secure Zone
The larger the application that you're running, the harder it is to absolutely ensure that they won't be able to inject some code that changes how you process sensitive data. Do you absolutely trust your CDN? Your advertisers? Your own code base?
Common for credit card details and less common for username and password - some implementers keep 'sensitive data entry' on a separate page from the rest of their application, a page that can be tightly controlled and locked down as best as possible, preferably one that is difficult to phish users with.
Cookie (just means Token)
It is possible (and common) to put the authentication token in a cookie. This doesn't change any of the properties of auth with the token, it's more of a convenience thing. All of the previous arguments still apply.
Session (still just means Token)
Session Auth is just Token authentication, but with a few differences that make it seem like a slightly different thing:
Users start with an unauthenticated token.
The backend maintains a 'state' object that is tied to a user's token.
The token is provided in a cookie.
The application environment abstracts the details away from you.
Aside from that, though, it's no different from Token Auth, really.
This wanders even further from a RESTful implementation - with state objects you're going further and further down the path of plain ol' RPC on a stateful server.
OAuth 2.0
OAuth 2.0 looks at the problem of "How does Software A give Software B access to User X's data without Software B having access to User X's login credentials."
The implementation is very much just a standard way for a user to get a token, and then for a third party service to go "yep, this user and this token match, and you can get some of their data from us now."
Fundamentally, though, OAuth 2.0 is just a token protocol. It exhibits the same properties as other token protocols - you still need SSL to protect those tokens - it just changes up how those tokens are generated.
There are two ways that OAuth 2.0 can help you:
Providing Authentication/Information to Others
Getting Authentication/Information from Others
But when it comes down to it, you're just... using tokens.
Back to your question
So, the question that you're asking is "should I store my token in a cookie and have my environment's automatic session management take care of the details, or should I store my token in Javascript and handle those details myself?"
And the answer is: do whatever makes you happy.
The thing about automatic session management, though, is that there's a lot of magic happening behind the scenes for you. Often it's nicer to be in control of those details yourself.
I am 21 so SSL is yes
The other answer is: Use https for everything or brigands will steal your users' passwords and tokens.
You can increase security in authentication process by using JWT (JSON Web Tokens) and SSL/HTTPS.
The Basic Auth / Session ID can be stolen via:
MITM attack (Man-In-The-Middle) - without SSL/HTTPS
An intruder gaining access to a user's computer
XSS
By using JWT you're encrypting the user's authentication details and storing in the client, and sending it along with every request to the API, where the server/API validates the token. It can't be decrypted/read without the private key (which the server/API stores secretly) Read update.
The new (more secure) flow would be:
Login
User logs in and sends login credentials to API (over SSL/HTTPS)
API receives login credentials
If valid:
Register a new session in the database Read update
Encrypt User ID, Session ID, IP address, timestamp, etc. in a JWT with a private key.
API sends the JWT token back to the client (over SSL/HTTPS)
Client receives the JWT token and stores in localStorage/cookie
Every request to API
User sends a HTTP request to API (over SSL/HTTPS) with the stored JWT token in the HTTP header
API reads HTTP header and decrypts JWT token with its private key
API validates the JWT token, matches the IP address from the HTTP request with the one in the JWT token and checks if session has expired
If valid:
Return response with requested content
If invalid:
Throw exception (403 / 401)
Flag intrusion in the system
Send a warning email to the user.
Updated 30.07.15:
JWT payload/claims can actually be read without the private key (secret) and it's not secure to store it in localStorage. I'm sorry about these false statements. However they seem to be working on a JWE standard (JSON Web Encryption).
I implemented this by storing claims (userID, exp) in a JWT, signed it with a private key (secret) the API/backend only knows about and stored it as a secure HttpOnly cookie on the client. That way it cannot be read via XSS and cannot be manipulated, otherwise the JWT fails signature verification. Also by using a secure HttpOnly cookie, you're making sure that the cookie is sent only via HTTP requests (not accessible to script) and only sent via secure connection (HTTPS).
Updated 17.07.16:
JWTs are by nature stateless. That means they invalidate/expire themselves. By adding the SessionID in the token's claims you're making it stateful, because its validity doesn't now only depend on signature verification and expiry date, it also depends on the session state on the server. However the upside is you can invalidate tokens/sessions easily, which you couldn't before with stateless JWTs.
I would go for the second, the token system.
Did you know about ember-auth or ember-simple-auth? They both use the token based system, like ember-simple-auth states:
A lightweight and unobtrusive library for implementing token based
authentication in Ember.js applications.
http://ember-simple-auth.simplabs.com
They have session management, and are easy to plug into existing projects too.
There is also an Ember App Kit example version of ember-simple-auth: Working example of ember-app-kit using ember-simple-auth for OAuth2 authentication.
I have been reading around using tokens for authentication. I, however, fail to understand how tokens (JWT) are different from cookies. Both will store the user info (as claims in tokens), have persistence defined and will be sent with each client request to the server.
Few questions that come to mind, in addition to the above -
Are JWT tokens not prone to Man in the Middle attack? If someone steals a token (on an unencrypted channel), can't they pose as the original user? (unless we add the user's IP etc in the claims)
I've read a few rants that cookies are not good for new-age mobile apps and tokens are the answer. Why?
Why are tokens considered more secure than cookies? What makes them more invulnerable to attacks?
Does a token needs to be issued by the server only, or one can receive a token from another OAuth provider and customize (add/remove claims) and reuse it?
Performance wise, cookies are 'bad' as they have a size limitation, that is why they just store the session ID (typically) with session data in server. This reduces cookie size. But JWT, the whole token needs to be sent, so if the token contains the session data as claims, then we'll be essentially sending this ever increasing token every time. If am getting that correct, isn't that bad performance of JWT as compared to Cookies?
Thanks
Are JWT tokens not prone to Man in the Middle attack?
Yes, you should use HTTPS to ensure that no one can see the JWT in the HTTP request headers. If someone gets the token, they can pose as the original user. The same thing is possible with cookies.
I've read a few rants that cookies are not good for new-age mobile apps and tokens are the answer. Why?
Most mobile apps don't use browsers to make HTTP requests. Browsers make dealing w/cookies seamless for web developers. For mobile developers, using JWT's can be less cumbersome than dealing w/cookies.
Why are tokens considered more secure than cookies? What makes them more invulnerable to attacks?
Tokens aren't necessarily more secure than cookies (a cookie could be signed, just like a JWT). The security benefits come from not being exposed to exploits which trick the browser into inadvertently using the cookies (CSRF attacks).
Does a token needs to be issued by the server only, or one can receive a token from another OAuth provider and customize (add/remove claims) and reuse it?
A JWT is signed with a secret that only the server/organization that generated it should know. So only servers that know the secret can verify the token is valid. While the server that generates the token doesn't have to be the same one that validates it, it doesn't make sense for you to customize and re-use someone else's token.
Reference
I may not be going about this in the best way possible, but as a school project, I'm in a group where we are developing a system to handle checking in and checking out of dorm rooms and handling any charges that may arise because of damages to items in the room. We are digitizing the project and putting in on the web and writing a native iPhone app (part of the assignment, I'd rather just make it a universal web app, but oh well). For the iPhone app, we're putting together a web API but I'm having some doubts about our attempts to keep the API secure.
Our process right now is a call to the API to log in with a username and a password hash, if it was a successful login, an Authentication Token is generated and returned to the iPhone in XML along with various other data. Each subsequent request requires this AuthToken. A user can either sign out, or if there's inactivity for 20 minutes, the AuthToken is destroyed server side. But this leaves the API open for the "Pass The Hash" attack where anybody listening in on the request can get the password hash out of the query string. Anybody with Wireshark and a simple filter can wait for somebody to sign in when everybody would be moving into the dorms and be able to manipulate just about anything.
Every single request is susceptible to the Pass The Hash attack. When logging in, the username and password can be repeated later to obtain a different AuthToken. Not only that, any already generated AuthTokens could be used and the session extended without the real user knowing.
I have thought of the idea of tying the AuthToken to an IP address and rejecting requests that use a valid AuthToken from an alternate IP address, is this reliable or will the iPhone be jumping IP addresses when on the cell network instead of Wifi? I want to give any malicious users a hard time, but obviously not legitimate users.
The project is still in the early stages so now would be the time to make drastic changes to the API like this. Any tips on securing a web API would be awesome.
Your best bet would be to send everything over SSL. That will prevent anyone listening to the wire and sniffing either the password hash or the authentication token.
You should also consider sending a nonce to the client that gets hashed along with the password to prevent replay attacks.
It's also pretty easy to change the authentication token on each request. This prevents both replay and session-fixation. Just make sure the tokens are good random numbers.
You need to use HTTPS.
Most anything on HTTP is susceptible if you include people using Wireshark. HTTPS encrypts all traffic between the client and the server and will prevent most packet sniffing attacks.
My understanding of token based authentication is that upon authentication (perhaps over ssl), a token is passed to the user for cheap user verification on the fly. One implementation of this would be to generate a cookie that is passed to the user for session management.
But, my understanding is that token based auth (at least through cookies) is susceptible to man in the middle attacks like firesheep.
Are there other methods of implementation that skirt this major security issue, or do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of tba?
Your understanding is good. Fundamentally, in terms of how the application sees it, a token may as well be a username and password. If someone has the token, they can authenticate themselves to your application. The main purpose in the case of a http cookie is to avoid leaking the username and password should someone obtain the cookie by means of a cross-site scripting vulnerability (XSS) or otherwise. Yes, given the right circumstances they can "replay" this token to the application as a "man in the middle" but they shouldn't be able to figure out the username/password pairing from it but again this is not guaranteed if the token generating algorithm is weak, say, like if you decided to BASE64 encode the username and password concatenated together and use that as the value.
Typically you keep the token -> user mapping secure on the server side. So ultimately your security is all based around keeping the token safe and ensuring that its lifetime is controlled (e.g. it expires and/or is only valid when given to you from the same IP as that used by the original provider of the credentials - again, just an example)
Hope this helps,
-Oisin