Alright, I've spent several days looking for a proper solution on how to properly authenticate users when working with SPAs.
I have my own website.
I have my own API.
I have my own Single Page Application.
I have my own database of users.
The Goal: I need to get an access_token by providing a username and a password.
I looked at OAuth2 Implicit Grant, but it requires users to Approve/Decline the app after successful authentication. It doesn't work in my case since I own both the app and the API.
I looked at OAuth2 Password Grant, which is not perfect since I need to expose client_id/client_secret.
The reason I'm looking at OAuth2 is because the API will eventually be public.
Is there a standard way of doing this? My current options:
Forget about OAuth2 and manually generate access_token when user POSTs username/password (in this case I'd have to introduce OAuth2 when API goes public)
Use OAuth2 Password Grant and inject client_id/client_secret on the server, so just to keep client app very simple (also avoid all of those dev/staging/prod client_id/client_secret pairs)
Implicit Grant
You are right that Implicit grant type does not look appropriate. But I think your reason for not favoring it is incorrect because the approval step is not mandatory and in Spring OAuth 2 implementation (I don't know which implementation you are using) you can configure the Authorization server to auto approve authorization requests so that the approval step is skipped.
The reasons I think the "Implicit flow" is not suitable are
The client authentication step by providing client secret and authorization code is missing. So less security.
The access token is sent back as a URL fragment (so that the token doesn't go to the server) which will continue to stay in browser history
If XSS attack occurs, the malicious script can very well send the token to the remote server
Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant
If the authorization server and the resource server are the same, I think this is a quick way of getting up and running. RFC 6749 in Section 4.3.2 says:
If the client type is confidential or the client was issued client credentials (or assigned other authentication requirements), the client MUST authenticate with the authorization server as described in Section 3.2.1.
This means that the client authentication with client secret is not mandatory here. Now, for authorization code grant type, we need the client secret because the user provides his/her credentials directly to the authorization server and then when the client requests for the access token, it doesn;t have anything else other than the client secret to prove to the authorization server that this is a genuine request.
But in case of resource owner password credential grant type, the user has provided its credentials to the client itself and the client will then send these same user credentials for requesting access token. Therefore, the access-token request can be authenticated with the user credentials only and if we don't provide a client secret here, I don't think we are losing anything in terms of security.
So, you can definitely use password credential grant type in your SPA.
Authorization Code Grant
I think this should be the preferred option provided the client secret is not stored in the browser. After user authentication (and optionally user approval), the authorization server can redirect the browser to a server side endpoint with the authorization code in the URL. The server side end point will the request for the access token using the authorization code, client id and client secret (which is stored in the server side only). Once the access token is available, the server side endpoint can redirect (HTTP response code 302) the user to the SPA URL with appropriate cookies for CSRF protection and access token. Thus we are not storing the client secret in the browser.
By using authorization code grant type, you are basically making the solution more secured and generic. In future, if you want to do a single sign-on with a different SPA, you can do that easily by reusing the same authorization server with its integration with the authentication database (preferably an LDAP server).
For further details, refer to my StackOverflow answer here.
Building off what has been said already, I would recommend the 'Authorization Code Grant' but with the addition of the PKCE (Proof Key for Code Exchange / 'pixie') extension - for added security, regardless of whether you're implementing a 'public' or 'confidential' type client.
With PKCE, you don't need a client-secret for public clients (/it's kind of like generating a temporary client-secret at the very outset/beginning of each authentication attempt/instance - although even with PKCE for confidential clients you should ideally still use a client secret).
Related
I know how OAuth2 and OpenID Connect works. But there is still some confusion bothering me.
We develop our own Auth Server, service API and mobile app. So, the client app is trusted and we use "password" grant type. The app user repository follows the same user database in auth server.
Our customers login to the app by username/password. The app then submits the user credential to the Auth Server token endpoint, which will return the (bearer) access token and ID token (JWT) to the client.
The ID token contains basic user information so that the app can greet user like "Welcome Tony Stark!".
The access token can be used to access API (e.g. update user profile).
OAuth by design is not a tool for authentication. Ref: https://www.scottbrady91.com/OAuth/OAuth-is-Not-Authentication
My questions are
1) Do we need to verify the signature of the ID token if the client only is only interested to get the user information? Also note that the ID token is coming from the token endpoint via https connection.
2) Let's forget about the ID token. Can we treat the user has passed the authentication check (i.e. login success) if the client obtains an access token from the Auth Server? This flow is very similar to simple password login without OAuth.
3) The client can access protected APIs with the access token. Without access token, the client can only invoke some public APIs. Is it equivalent to what can be done with and without login? It seems the access token can be treated as "login session cookie".
4) There is no 3rd party involvement in my case. Everything (client, auth server, service API) is developed and owned by the same organization. Does it still make sense to use OAuth?
Typically a mobile app is considered a public client. Unless you're limiting who has access to the mobile app, it can't be considered trusted as someone could mess with the app outside of your control even if you developed it.
Also, the resource credentials grant type is generally not a good idea.
One thing is that the OpenID Connect spec requires authorization code, id token, or a hybrid flow:
Authentication can follow one of three paths: the Authorization Code
Flow (response_type=code), the Implicit Flow (response_type=id_token
token or response_type=id_token), or the Hybrid Flow (using other
Response Type values defined in OAuth 2.0 Multiple Response Type
Encoding Practices [OAuth.Responses]).
Some other reasons:
Why the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant Type is not Authentication nor Suitable for Modern Applications
The OpenID Connect RFC says you MUST verify the ID token:
When using the Implicit Flow, the contents of the ID Token MUST be validated in the same manner as for the Authorization Code Flow, as defined in Section 3.1.3.7, with the exception of the differences specified in this section.
Although, you may qualify for this exception from 3.1.3.7 if using TLS:
If the ID Token is received via direct communication between the Client and the Token Endpoint (which it is in this flow), the TLS server validation MAY be used to validate the issuer in place of checking the token signature. The Client MUST validate the signature of all other ID Tokens according to JWS [JWS] using the algorithm specified in the JWT alg Header Parameter. The Client MUST use the keys provided by the Issuer.
If you're able to trust the client, and the user/pass check you've implemented, then you should be able to trust that an access token has been granted to an authenticated identity according to the OAuth 2.0 spec.
The access token in OAuth 2.0 also contains scopes and should limit what can be done with that access token. A login without OAuth doesn't necessarily.
It's a good idea to use OAuth to protect the credentials of the resource owner. If you were to use the resource owner credentials grant type, this still provides some benefits as the user could enter the password only when the client doesn't have a valid access token, ie, the user can enter her password once for an access token and validate the user using that instead of entering the password again or storing it somewhere.
Even though this grant type requires direct client access to the
resource owner credentials, the resource owner credentials are used
for a single request and are exchanged for an access token. This
grant type can eliminate the need for the client to store the
resource owner credentials for future use, by exchanging the
credentials with a long-lived access token or refresh token.
OAuth 2.0 RFC6749
1) Do we need to verify the signature of the ID token if the client
only is only interested to get the user information? Also note that
the ID token is coming from the token endpoint via https connection.
YES.
2) Let's forget about the ID token. Can we treat the user has passed
the authentication check (i.e. login success) if the client obtains an
access token from the Auth Server? This flow is very similar to simple
password login without OAuth.
If I understand the premise. Yes..There is no requirement for using the ID Token.
3) The client can access protected APIs with the access token. Without
access token, the client can only invoke some public APIs. Is it
equivalent to what can be done with and without login? It seems the
access token can be treated as "login session cookie".
The access token is a access (like a key) that for the OAuth Client to use that was delegated permissions from the resource owner.
4) There is no 3rd party involvement in my case. Everything (client,
auth server, service API) is developed and owned by the same
organization. Does it still make sense to use OAuth?
Yes. OAuth and OpenID Connect are used by many, many organizations and is a test solution.
You should not try to re-invent the "wheel". Use known trusted libraries for Authentication, Authorization and cryptographic operations. OpenID Connect has some certified Implementations
Let’s consider a single page client side application, developed using HTML and Javascript.
In this case, even if the implicit or authentication code flow is being used to request Access Tokes, still the clientID and Secret would still be found in some Javascript, which might be making the token requests. Plus, passing the Access Token in the request header (or query parameter) are still visible in the network trace. Moreover the Access Token needs to be stored locally in a browser.
How secure it is to use OAuth2 for web based applications??
How the user information can be protected, if the client (browser) is compromised.
Thanks.
For implicit OAuth, you don't use a Client Secret in the browser javascript. You only need the Client ID. The Client ID is not a secret and is considered public information. The Client ID and Scopes identify what permissions to services you wish to authorize.
How secure it is to use OAuth2 for web based applications??
OAuth itself is very secure. However, as with any security implementation, it is only as strong as the weakest component. For implicit grant flow, such as your single page web application, the authentication occurs between the user and the Identity provider. Once the flow completes your app has an Access Token and optionally a Client ID Token. The assumption with implicit grant flow is that the user is present at the browser and that no confidential information will be stored.
How the user information can be protected, if the client (browser) is
compromised?
If the user's browser is compromised, nothing can be protected. Once an OAuth token has been generated that has permissions to do X, the compromised browser can continue to do X until the token expires.
If your question is about protecting the user's login and password, or other type of authentication information then this information is also at risk if the browser is compromised.
In summary a compromised browser potentially has no security no matter what technology is used for authentication and authorization.
I am using identity server 4, I followed the tutorial, so I have an api, mvc client, console client, and js client.
I saw this blog too, which is probably close to what I need:
https://medium.com/all-technology-feeds/testing-your-asp-net-core-webapi-secured-with-identityserver4-in-postman-97eee976aa16
what I need is an api, where clients can access data, but first, they need authenticate.
we also have the console client, which is also close to what I need.
The only issue with this examples is that in both cases client knows the secret. But in our case multiple clients should use the same api, and if they all have the same secret, they can log in on behalf of each other, but I don't want to have different secrets.
So what I think I could do is to create an api which takes username and password, and returns the token. But I am not sure if this is the right way to do things? This feels like a resource owner flow, which is not supposed to be used for client facing APIs if I am correct. But in that case, how should I go it?
thanks
It seems that there is some confusion. Allow me to give a short summary. First the terminology:
A user is a human that is using a registered client to access resources.
A client is a piece of software that requests tokens from IdentityServer - either for authenticating a user (requesting an identity token) or for accessing a resource (requesting an access token). A client must be first registered with IdentityServer before it can request tokens.
Resources are something you want to protect with IdentityServer - either identity data of your users, or APIs.
Client credentials: The simplest grant type and is used for server to server communication - tokens are always requested on behalf of a client, not a user.
Now about authentication. The client requests tokens at the IdentityServer endpoint. When you use a client in combination with the client credentials flow, then you'll need a clientid + secret. Where secret is really secret and should be known to the client only. You can't use the same secret here. Seems logical when compared to users, they don't share the same password either.
This is close to the resource owner flow, however a client cannot login as a user. For that you'll need another flow, like the hybrid flow. In that case the client logs in on behalf of the user. The difference is the presence of the "sub" claim (the id of the user) in the token.
The client in this case is your app: console or mvc. The first only supports client credentials where the secret is mandatory, the second supports a hybrid flow, where secret may be omitted:
In certain situations, clients need to authenticate with
identityserver, e.g.
confidential applications (aka clients) requesting tokens at the token endpoint
APIs validating reference tokens at the introspection endpoint
The Api is your resource, that you want to protect. The Api never authenticates a user or client. This is done by IdentityServer. It only verifies the token (using the IdentityServer4.AccessTokenValidation package). For that it has its own secret that should only be known to the Api.
In order to grant the client access to the resource you'll need to add the scope to the client in the configuration of IdentityServer. The client is then allowed, not required, to request a token that grants access to the resource.
Again, the Api has nothing to do with authentication. It is also not bound to one client. Multiple clients can access the resource. All you have to do is add the scope to each client that should have access to the resource.
So there is really nothing against it that clients and resources know their secret. You don't have to change anything. All you have to do is choose the appropriate flow.
In OAuth 2 the client app exchanges an authorization code for an access token. And with the access token, the app can make API calls. However, I don't really get why OAuth 2 has this step; it seems like an extra step.
One reason I can think of is that the authorization code is given through a redirect call on the client side, so it has the potential to be compromised, thus it's short lived; whereas the access token is given server-to-server.
That is true, but there is also the secret API key that the app sends. Then why couldn't same be done with the authorization code?
Say there was no access token but just the authorization code. Then even if someone gets the authorization code, they wouldn't be able to do anything if the OAuth server also checked the secret key along with the authorization code.
It should allow the OAuth server to:
Make sure the request was made by the correct app (authenticate)
Determine what types of permission were granted (authorize)
Ability to get access_token directly (Implicit grant type) is required in the cases of JavaScript clients or web applications running in a browser. Because, these clients are not secure based on the options available for saving the client secret. The client id and secret are required to exchange authorization code for an access_token.
These two grant types exist to provide various levels of security when implementing authentication.
If the resource served by the API is extremely sensitive then you want at most security, which is provided by Authorization Code flow. In this grant type you validate the client (server side API or a mobile client) and the resource owner (user) before granting access to the resource. The access_token is not even exposed to the browser/ user (since a stolen token can give access to the resource), thus giving high degree of security. This flow is complex and involves more round trips to the authorization server, but, provides more security.
If you don't need that kind of security on a resource you can use Implicit grant type where the browser/ user has access to the token. This flow is simple with only one trip to authorization server. It will not validate the client. No need to save the client secret with the browser.
Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Soma.
When reading about securing an app with JWTs, it is often said that the client initially gets a token from the server and then sends this token along with every request to the API.
This approach works great, once you have a token. As far as I can see, the default way of transferring a token is using an HTTP header, namely Authentication with Bearer as the prefix of the token as value.
But - is there also a default way of how to get the token initially? In samples you often see that this is just a simple request to and HTTP endpoint, that then returns JSON. But I was wondering whether there is something more of a standard workflow that e.g. describes what should be the name of this endpoint, as in OAuth2?
Any hints?
JWT is a token format which is used in security protocols like OAuth2 and OpenID Connect.
How to get the token from the authorization server depends on the grant flow you are using.
There are 4 grant flows defined in OAuth 2.0 that are intended for different clients and uses.
Authorization code grant
This grant is intended for web applications. The user's browser is redirected (HTTP 302) to the authorization server. The authorization server takes care of authenticating the user (via username/password, smartcard, 2-factor auth whatever).
The authorization server then redirect the browser back to a preregistered endpoint in the web application with a code. The web application then uses it's own credentials (client id and client secret) and the authorization code to request an access token from the authorization server.
The authorization server returns an access token and a refresh token to the web application. Note that the browser (untrusted) never sees the access token. Only the web application (trusted) has access to the access token and refresh token.
This grant is difficult to use from other clients than web applications as it's based on HTTP redirection.
Implicit grant
This grant is used for untrusted clients like JavaScript applications or 3rd party mobile clients (the ones you download from the app-store).
It also redirects a browser (or browser control) to the authorization server, but instead of returning a code to the browser after successful authentication, it returns an access token directly. Because the client is not trusted, the grant does not return a refresh token. The access token needs to be stored somewhere and is vulnerable to XSS attacks.
Even though you do not get a refresh token, some implementations do provide a way to get a new access token by communicating to the authorization server in a hidden IFRAME and using cookies to authenticate with the authorization server itself.
Resource Owner Password Credentials grant
This grant is for trusted clients, for example a desktop application or a first party mobile app with secure storage capabilities. The client application asks the user (the resource owner) for their username/password and then sends this to the authorization server to acquire an access token and refresh token.
Once the client has the access token, it can discard the password as it can use the refresh tokens to get new access tokens. This makes it more secure than basic authentication.
This grant does not depend on browser redirects and can be easily used from any application that can execute HTTP requests.
Client Credentials grant
This grant is meant to authenticate the client (application) instead of the user of the client.
In this case, the client submits its client id and secret directly to the authorization server to acquire an access and refresh token.
So basically the first two grants depend on browser-like capabilities (HTTP redirects, HTML login pages), where the other two grants only need an HTTP stack to communicate with the authorization server.
Every OAuth2 server has its own endpoints. The client can discover the name of relevant endpoints using discovery protocols like http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html#ProviderMetadata.