I am reading about oauth2 now, and trying to understand its purpose. From all the resouces I read, it seems like oauth2 is only used when a webapp (say a game app) that has some users and the app wants to access a user's Facebook or Google data (some sort of data such as name or email, etc). This part is clear to me. However, things that remain unclear to me are the following:
For example: If I have a webapp, and I want the users of my webapp to log into the webapp with their login and passwords (just like how you do it with gmail) without using any third party. Does oauth2 also serve this type of authorization?
I have seen webapps, where they just let users sign up with IDs and passwords, then they salt the passwords and store the salts in the database. So when a user logs in later, they salt the password the user entered, and compare this salt to the salt in the database (created during the signup). If equal, then the user logged in. This does NOT seem like oath at all to me. So if this is not oauth, what standard is this? And are there any other standards for "direct login" like this?
Assume that I want to allow users to sign up and log in to my website, but let them log in via a third party (like Facebook or Google). This is just for authorization purposes and assume that my app has no plan to post on their facebook or request their facebook data except that I may want to use their facebook email as the user ID for my webapp. Does oauth2 serve this type of authorization?
Sorry for the naive questions, because I only read about oauth recently.
For sign-up/login without 3rd-party, as Kevin pointed out, each programming/web framework usually comes with a popular library that once, it will generate all the sign-up/login pages, database tables, flow, etc., for you. The only thing you then do is call a method provided by the library that returns the current signed in user, in your backend code when you need to figure out who the user is.
Using salted password scheme is NOT related you OAuth2 at all as you pointed out. It is a widely used scheme for local authentication because it has many benefits but I will just highlight 2 here:
a. A password when transmitted from user to server for authentication over the Internet is not sent in cleartext but rather in hashed format. Thus even if it were eavesdropped, the password will not be divulged.
b. Since each password is salted, even 2 same passwords will not have the same hash because each have different salt. Thus even if a password hash was eavesdropped, it cannot be reused at another service that the user uses the same password because the other service expected a password hash generated with a different salt.
OAuth2 is all about Authorization (asking a user for permission to perform something on her behalf at another web service, e.g., ask a user for permission to access her email address registered on Facebook). Using it for Authentication can be insecure (for OAuth2 implicit flow). Why? The end result of OAuth2 is an access key associated with a permission, e.g., 'permission to access email address'. When you use the OAuth2 result (access key) for authentication, it means that you are making the assumption that 'permission to access email address' means the user successfully authenticated with Facebook, which she did, so it seems fine. However, imagine if another site also uses OAuth2 for authentication as you did; if it receives an access key with 'permission to access email address' it will assume that you have authenticated with Facebook so it will grant you access to the account belonging to the email address. You could actually use the access key you got from a user, and login as her in the other site, and vice versa.
To use OAuth2 for authentication, you need to use it with OpenID Connect (OIDC), because the end result of OAuth2-OIDC contains an id_token with the aud (audience) field identifying who the access key is for (https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#IDToken), which prevents the access key from being reused where it is not intended. The full explanation with easy-to-understand diagrams is here: https://www.slideshare.net/KhorSoonHin/the-many-flavors-of-oauth/36?src=clipshare
Another very simple but perhaps unnerving to a security-conscious way to do use OAuth2 for login is to use the Resource Owner Password Credential, where your website acts as a middle-man between the user, and OAuth2 provider (Facebook).
Show 'Login with Facebook' button
When user clicks on button, prompt user for Facebook username/password
Use the username/password to login to Facebook to confirm authentication and get access token.
If you don't have to time to read in-depth about OAuth2, perhaps this side-by-side comparison of all the OAuth2 flow can help.
This is courtesy of https://blog.oauth.io/introduction-oauth2-flow-diagrams/
You could use OAuth for local logins like this, but you don't have to. It might be easier, depending on available libraries, and it might make sense if you anticipate making your service available to third-parties in the future. For many sites, though, using OAuth for local logins would be overkill.
Standards are most useful when different actors need to speak a common language so they can interoperate. For local logins you don't need a standard because you're not interacting with any third parties. Many web frameworks include their own variation on the same basic flow.
I think you're asking whether OAuth makes sense for authentication (establishing identity) when you don't actually need any authorization (permission to access third-party resources). It can indeed be used that way, but lots of people will warn against it since it wasn't designed for that and has some security weaknesses in that context. See, for example, Common pitfalls for authentication using OAuth.
Related
In section 1.1 of RFC 6749, there are four roles: resource owner, resource server, client, and authorization server.
Does OAuth become redundant or unnecessary if the client and the resource owner are the same entity?
For example, I have a closed API and a front-facing web server. (The front-facing web server would be both the client and the resource owner.) I am trying to decide whether to switch to OAuth 2 authentication instead of using the current username/password authentication method. Is there any added security for moving to OAuth 2 if the API remains closed to third-party applications? (That is, no third-parties will ever have access to the API.)
Thanks!
In the case where the Resource Owner and Client/Resource Server roles coincide OAuth 2.0 may become less relevant from a security point of view, since one of the primary objectives of OAuth not to expose primary credentials of the user to the client becomes moot. That is also the reason why the so-called Resource Owner Password Credentials grant is considered to be a legacy/deprecated flow.
However, it may still make sense to follow the OAuth 2.0 pattern for a number of reasons:
the ability to leverage a standardized protocol through stock libraries and
frameworks without relying on custom code
the fact that in your case the Resource Server is still made strictly OAuth 2.0 compliant, dealing with Clients presenting access tokens, irrespective of what the Client/Resource Owner relationship/implementation is; this would make it easier to allow for 3rd-party client access in a future scenario
the fact that you concentrate verification of user credentials on a single path between Client and Authorization Server so each of your Resource Servers don't need to be bothered by checking user credentials individually, possibly dealing with different authentication mechanisms
and perhaps most importantly, also security-wise: once the user has authenticated through the Client using his primary credentials, the Authorization Server can issue a refresh token as well as an access token; the Client can store and use the refresh token to a new access token when the old one expires; this frees the Client from storing the primary user credentials if it wants to keep accessing the API for a long period of time without requiring explicit user interaction and authentication and makes the resulting system less vulnerable for leakage/loss of user credentials since the user credentials (password) are not stored in the Clients
If you have the following issue then you should use OAuth;
Let's say you a Gmail like web mail provider. Some of your users are using a third party app which logs in into your user's account and auto replies certain emails for you. Or you are Facebook like social network web site where some of your users use a third party app which analyzes your friend networks and prints a 2D graph for you. In this case your users are giving away their usernames and passwords. How would they prevent a certain third party app accessing their account after they gave away their username and password? Simply by changing their password. Now you have another problem; other third party apps won't be able to access the user's account. Then the user have to re-give away his password to other apps he trusts. Now this is problem too because it is not user friendly. OAuth is simply a temporary password that your user gives away to a third party app developer. He can revoke it whenever he wants without changing his own password.
Other than that OAuth is unnecessary. Just use a session cookie if you are not going to have third party app developers. It is a random string stored in user side. And on the server side will have whatever you want. Just look how PHP sessions are used and stored on server side. You can define their lifespan and refresh time automatically from php.ini.
I'm developing an application where Google Drive will be used to manage some documents. The idea is to create a document with some initial template data and provide the users access by adding them as collaborators of the document.
I'm familiar with the OAuth authentication process, I used it in another part of the system to manage the users Calendar...
But in this case these documents will be stored in a generic account of the company, so I can't have the approval prompt for authentication, since users won't have the password of the account.
I'd like to directly authenticate in this account, could be with the username and password hardcoded in the Java code.
Problem that this method of authentication was depreacated and I didn't found a relpacement.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance,
Phillip
There are 2 ways that comes to mind:
Service accounts: best suited for server side OAuth with traditional backend
Regular Account owned by the application : similar to the process already in place for client side Oauth that you are already familiar with; Auth, store the refresh, ask new token if the AuthCode is expired, and so on.
I personally use and prefer the second solution more as I feel is more flexible to adapt in the future for Oauth Client Side get the tokens and use them server side.
We are developing an SPA - full client base javascript application and need to authenticate our users to get access to the internals.
As I found from the search we can outsource our authentication mechanism and use Google accounts for that. I learned from this site
https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2Login -
How to deal with Google API and mechanism for authentication.
In the short word, we need:
send request to google url with params to ask user to allow SPA use their personal data
in case of success we get a token from Google
we may use this token to get access to API we were asked and work with it.
This is described well and I understand it and have some JS code to make it happen.
What I do not understand.
I have an application with it's private data. I want use user's e-mail as the login, or user id (doesn't matter how to call it) to access app's internals, such as user's created tasks, user's profile, etc. So, to display user's created tasks in my SPA I need query database with the user's e-mail.
I imagine the next scenario:
user click Login with Google button
we obtain an token - this means user was authenticated successfully
we persist user and his e-mail to work with SPA
when user click Logout we clear all access data
Where should I persist this data?
In case of Forms Authentication I understand that we pass login/password to server and if they match the database we create Forms Ticket and store it in cookie.
Is there any similar case with Google's auth? If I'll store user's email in cookie I think that's not very good from security reason. If I'll save a token - I'm not sure why I need it and how to use it in my SPA, I'm not using any Google API after authentication.
Do you have any example case how do we build our process in similar cases?
Thank you.
If all you need is the user's email address, then you would be better off using OpenID instead of OAuth. OAuth provides access to a user's account and services, scoped to a specific resource or set of resources. OpendID is designed just for logging into a third-party service. You can then extract the user's ID and email address from the OpenID login. Note: The ID will always be sent but the email address has to be explicitly requested during authentication.
Google also supports a hybrid OpenID+OAuth scheme that lets you piggyback OAuth requests on top of an OpenID login if there is some resource you need to authenticate to. Take a look at the authentication document to get an idea of how both protocols work and which is better for your scenario.
Once you have the email address returned, you probably shouldn't persist it in a cookie. The normally recommended way to handle it is to add it as a session parameter. That way only the session cookie is stored on the client, and the server can use it find the values it needs. This answer has a good explanation of the differences and when you want to use sessions versus cookies.
I am exploring the possibilities of a banking mobile HTML5 application. It will be contacting with the main server via RESTful API. Very often I hear that people are using OAuth in their mobile apps to access APIs. For example, SpringSource's html5expense demo app.
So I don't fully understand why bother? Couldn't the user just login in a standard way, receive a cookie with session id (or in case of Play framework, session data), that will be used to identify user when the app makes requests to REST?
Oauth is usually a lot more secure than most BASIC AUTH, or "logging in in a standard way" approaches (and OAuth is becoming more and more of a standard).
When you login, through most "standard" ways, the user enters his username & password, into the application, and username/password are then often either stored locally, or transferred to the application, to then potentially be relayed to a "main server" that for example provides the API. So the user will have to enter his very secret login information (e.g. for banking?), into a client, app or system he doesn't know or trust...
With OAuth, the user is directed to a login page of the owner of that API .. e.g. his bank for example, where he logs into the secure login page that he knows and is asked for his consent that the application "xyz" would like to access his data.... The application that has requested that access, is then given a token with which it can access the API without needing to know the username and password. That way the username/password is only entered once, at a location the user trusts.
Furthermore, the user could later log into and admit page .. (the bank app? or and admin frontend), and delete the given access right to the API, and so stop an application accessing his information, without having to change his password.
Beyond the effect of being actually safe, using something like OAuth, for a banking app also makes sense as it will give people more confidence if modern security techniques are applied. It makes it also feel safer.
If you are not going to publish your API to third party developers; there really is no reason to bother with OAuth.
The biggest reason OAuth exists is to enable integrations with your API without your users having to give out their username and password to a third party. Other reasons is that it makes it possible to put a time frame on third party access to resources, or to scope access.
There will be login page via OpenID controlled by an extension. Can I ask for URL and pass in the extension and then pass it OP by use of extension? If no what kind of data can be transferred to OP from RP by an extension? If yes, how scalable it is, do I have to write separate code of each OP, or will the standard help me?
Also in unlikely case of XY problem - I need some sort of data that will allow me to authenticate OpenID user offline (after at least one successful online login). So if I was the one to provide login and password text fields I would be able to use user's password hash it and use for offline auth. And yes I need to use OpenID rather that other system, because this is the requirement. Sorry, It's kind of ugly problem.
I don't think you're supposed to pass a user id/password to the OpenID provider (or at least not password). The idea behind OpenID is that the provider takes care of the login, thus the web application utilizing OpenID will have no knowledge of the login credentials. OpenID provides you with some authorization information, such as the nickname, fullname, email, etc. This information, coupled with the OpenID of the user itself, should be enough provide you with unique authentication for that user without the need to have a password.
Your application needs to allow the user to go to the OpenID provider's page, enter their credentials there, and once authenticated you will get a response from OpenID indicating whether the authentication is successful and subsequently providing you with the user's information.
Update
Like I mentioned in my comments: the OpenID standard does not define a way in which you can send a password to an OpenID provider. So you can't use the OpenID standard in the manner you're envisioning it.
Update 2.0
Let's take myOpenID for example: in order to use myOpenID as an OpenID provider you have to register your domain with OpenID. Alternately, you can enable OpenID for your website by contacting Janrian (the owners of myOpenID), but I'm going to say you're still going to have to register a website with them. In either case, you must have a landing page on your domain, or on your website, which accepts an authentication response from the OpenID provider (in this case myOpenID). So let's look at what's required:
You must spoof a web browser when you're making the web request to the myOpenID provider.
In that web request, you have fill in the form which takes in the client's password (again, you have to spoof the client doing that).
You have to have a service of some sort running on a website registered with an OpenID provider (such as myOpenID).
You will have to send a message (HTTP) to the service that you're expecting an authentication response for a specific user (and provide it with a way to call you back when the user is authenticated).
That service will take any incoming authentication response from the OpenID provider.
The service will match that authentication with the user ID that you told it to expect in step 4.
The service will send your application the authentication response (callback).
You must accept the authentication response from that service.
The hardest part will probably be step 1 and 2, but there should be plenty of tutorials online that can show you how to do this (sorry I didn't have time to look up specific ones).
In any case, that's how I would imagine you may be able to do this, but it's far from trivial and I've never seen it done before.
Part of the reason why OpenID is so popular is exactly because people don't have to share their credentials with the service provider (i.e. your app), they only share it with the OpenID provider. The other thing you should think about is whether or not users will agree to use the OpenID in the manner that you want them to use it. In other words, one of the main reasons why people use OpenID providers is so that they avoid doing exactly what you're asking them to do: give you their password!
Update 3.0
You can register your domain with myOpenID by going to the new domain registration page: https://www.myopenid.com/new_domain