I have to deal with such type of auth flows:
Create auth flows for Web users;
In the same way deal with service to service authentication
Briefly following diagram can depict main components that we'll have:
For users Authentication we'd like to use OAuth2 (the Implicit Flow) and in general it looks more or less clear.
The question about service to service authorization can it be OAuth2 Authorization Code Flow used?
The main problem there that inside of datacenter1 it will be plenty of backend services that's why it will be good as services will work on the similar permission model as a users (at least some some functionality might be retracted ).
And additional question: what is the general recommendation for this use case if Authorization Server is inside of Datacenter1 or outside?
First of all: OAuth 2.0 is not an authentication protocol, it is a delegated access protocol. It is clearly stated here: https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/
Although widely adopted, the OAuth 2.0 "authentication framework" left many details open for interpretations - which commonly leads to security flaws of the implementation.
Check here for the 10 most common implementation vulnerabilities in OAuth 2.0: http://blog.intothesymmetry.com/2015/12/top-10-oauth-2-implementation.html
Therefore, the actual best practice is to use OpenID Connect, a similar protocol (built on top of OAuth 2.0), well defined, that mitigate most of the shortcomings of OAuth 2.0.
OpenID Connect is the best practice to authenticate end-users (mostly web).
If you want to authenticate within the datacenter, the variety of used solutions is somewhat wider - but overall I think the most common best practices are:
"Leaner" implementation: clear HTTP when you appropriate network security (e.g. well-configured VPC, so access from the internet to any of these servers is very unlikely)
"Safter" implementation: Server to Server Basic Authentication (or similar) over HTTPS, while rotating the key every now and then. The keys should be stored in a secure storage, such as Vault
In any case, it is best the service will delegate the request for the user (i.e. by providing user_id as part of the request) - and permissions will be enforced for this user:
You probably don't want to allow a bug allowing one user to access the data of another user.
In any case, it is much better logs / audit will be done with link to user originating the request, and not some generic "system user".
Related
There is a lot of discussion about microservice architecture. What I am missing - or maybe what I did not yet understand is, how to solve the issue of security and user authentication?
For example: I develop a microservice which provides a Rest Service interface to a workflow engine. The engine is based on JEE and runs on application servers like GlassFish or Wildfly.
One of the core concepts of the workflow engine is, that each call is user centric. This means depending of the role and access level of the current user, the workflow engine produces individual results (e.g. a user-centric tasklist or processing an open task which depends on the users role in the process).
In my eyes, thus a service is not accessible from everywhere. For example if someone plans to implement a modern Ajax based JavaScript application which should use the workflow microservice there are two problems:
1) to avoid the cross-scripting problem from JavaScript/Ajax the JavaScript Web application needs to be deployed under the same domain as the microservice runs
2) if the microservice forces a user authentication (which is the case in my scenario) the application need to provide a transparent authentication mechanism.
The situation becomes more complex if the client need to access more than one user-centric microservices forcing user authentication.
I always end up with an architecture where all services and the client application running on the same application server under the same domain.
How can these problems be solved? What is the best practice for such an architecture?
Short answer: check OAUTH, and manage caches of credentials in each microservice that needs to access other microservices. By "manage" I mean, be careful with security. Specially, mind who can access those credentials and let the network topology be your friend. Create a DMZ layer and other internal layers reflecting the dependency graph of your microservices.
Long answer, keep reading. Your question is a good one because there is no simple silver bullet to do what you need although your problem is quite recurrent.
As with everything related with microservices that I saw so far, nothing is really new. Whenever you need to have a distributed system doing things on behalf of a certain user, you need distributed credentials to enable such solution. This is true since mainframe times. There is no way to violate that.
Auto SSH is, in a sense, such a thing. Perhaps it may sound like a glorified way to describe something simple, but in the end, it enables processes in one machine to use services in another machine.
In the Grid world, the Globus Toolkit, for instance, bases its distributed security using the following:
X.509 certificates;
MyProxy - manages a repository of credentials and helps you define a chain of certificate authorities up to finding the root one, which should be trusted by default;
An extension of OpenSSH, which is the de facto standard SSH implementation for Linux distributions.
OAUTH is perhaps what you need. It is a way provide authorization with extra restrictions. For instance, imagine that a certain user has read and write permission on a certain service. When you issue an OAUTH authorization you do not necessarily give full user powers to the third party. You may only give read access.
CORS, mentioned in another answer, is useful when the end client (typically a web browser) needs single-sign-on across web sites. But it seems that your problem is closer to a cluster in which you have many microservices that are managed by you. Nevertheless, you can take advantage of solutions developed by the Grid field to ensure security in a cluster distributed across sites (for high availability reasons, for instance).
Complete security is something unattainable. So all this is of no use if credentials are valid forever or if you do not take enough care to keep them secret to whatever received them. For such purpose, I would recommend partitioning your network using layers. Each layer with a different degree of secrecy and exposure to the outside world.
If you do not want the burden to have the required infrastructure to allow for OAUTH, you can either use basic HTTP or create your own tokens.
When using basic HTTP authentication, the client needs to send credentials on each request, therefore eliminating the need to keep session state on the server side for the purpose of authorization.
If you want to create your own mechanism, then change your login requests such that a token is returned as the response to a successful login. Subsequent requests having the same token will act as the basic HTTP authentication with the advantage that this takes place at the application level (in contrast with the framework or app server level in basic HTTP authentication).
Your question is about two independent issues.
Making your service accessible from another origin is easily solved by implementing CORS. For non-browser clients, cross-origin is not an issue at all.
The second problem about service authentication is typically solved using token based authentication.
Any caller of one of your microservices would get an access token from the authorization server or STS for that specific service.
Your client authenticates with the authorization server or STS either through an established session (cookies) or by sending a valid token along with the request.
I'm struggling with these concepts and having trouble finding good resources on the web.
We are looking for ways to switch out custom implementations tightly integrated into our application for standards based authentication and authorization.
Our scenario is as follows:
A simple web site (may be an app in the nearby future)
A user must log in or otherwise gain access (i.e. there's no "guest" content or other things you can do as a guest)
The site uses its own web services (REST and/or SOAP) on the backend, but it might use 3rd party web services or exposes its own services as 3rd party services for other applications
Authentication may very well be done by an external provider: Users carry a smartcard and we'd like to have one simple identity provider which reads the smartcard information and sends it back to my simple web site (so I know who the user is and what his role is for instance)
Other sites might use other methods of authentication (simple username/password for instance), so we might need a configurable Service Provider??
I'm currently looking at OAuth (2) to implement for authorizing use of our REST Services (is it also useful for SOAP?) to our web site, perhaps with a simple "Client Credentials Grant" type.
But for authentication, I'm still none the wiser. There is OpenID, but is it easy enough to build your own OpenID Identity Provider? There is Shibboleth, but it seems to have a steep learning curve for doing custom stuff. And I've looked at just building something from scratch based on the SAML Authentication Request Protocol with an HTTP Post binding. Are there any other options?
Please keep in mind that we want to be flexible with our authentication. For a certain site, we might want to do the smartcard thing, but for another maybe simple username/password login with LDAP.
If it's helpful still, I personally thought about doing it myself, then discovered a bunch of third parties. I compared (5/18/2015):
Auth0
AuthRocket
UserApp
DailyCred
Conclusion for me was Auth0, because while all the features are very similar, it felt the most legitimate, as in it's not a start-up that might disappear in a few months. Now, the reason that was super important for me was because login is a foundational requirement, so I need to believe as a customer that the Authentication as a Service will be up for as long as I will be.
Here's the full comparison story:
https://medium.com/#bsemaj/authentication-as-a-service-comparison-5-quick-lessons-for-b2b-businesses-e7587275824c
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.
I am working on an internal authentication system for users of a set of of RESTful web applications. Our intention is that a user should be able to sign-on once via a web form and have appropriate access to all these RESTful applications in our domain, which may be distributed in a private cloud across many servers. (I understand already that having a single authenticated session is not aligned with a pure RESTful approach, but this is a usability requirement.)
The applications themselves will be written in a variety of programming languages so a language-neutral approach is required. It was suggested to me that we might use OpenID or OAuth or a similar framework to handle the authentication but my understanding is that these are intended for third-party services and not the first-party services that would share data on our internal system. In this case, we might have a central provider service with all the other applications treated as third parties (or relying parties).
Questions:
Are OpenID/OAuth suitable for authentication among first-party services?
If so, how would one be advised to set up authentication for this use case?
Wouldn't a user have to grant individual permission to each first-party server that they wanted to use, just as they would need to grant individual permission to any third-party server? I think this would violate the requirement of having a single sign-on for accessing all the first-party services.
Are there good examples of sites supporting this first-party use case?
What would be a good alternative framework for this first-party use case?
You do not need OAuth for SSO services.
The primary use/advantage of OAuth is, as you know already, granting access to a 3rd party app to access/use your resource in a controlled manner.
Rather than having an authentication/authorization server that you would need for OAuth, why not use a single log in service across all your APIs. An OAuth access token is totally different from what you need.
As far as I understand, what you can have is something like OAuth in a way that your server vends out tokens to the app. (I'm assuming that it's a totally internal system, so tokens cannot be misused).
So basically what I'm proposing is:
When an app tries to access the first API it's redirected to a web-form.
The user enters credentials and is taken to the DB for verification. Let there be a service that generates a token for the user/app
Next API access request would be made with that token - the token uniquely identifies the app
Depending on the level of security you need you can sign some text using HMAC and send it as token, or if its totally internal just generate a unique identifier for the app/user and send it to other API
On receiving the token, each service first calls the main server with the token and internally fetches the corresponding customer/user ID and performs the required function.
In short separate the login + token generation + token verification into a different module. All APIs should use this module for login/token verification.
What I have proposed here works like OAuth but all security aspects have been stripped down since you want to use it in a private cloud.
Oauth supports multiple different kinds of flows. You can use the client crendentials flow from Oauth 2.0 to avoid asking the user to grant permission for every app (this is intended for the cases where you control both the server and the app or where you want to preauthorize certain apps). This post does a good job explaining everything: http://tatiyants.com/using-oauth-to-protect-internal-rest-api/
OAuth allows the you the User to grant access to his private resources on one site to another site. But how exactly does this happen. And if I want to provide OAuth features in my site, (both as Service Provider and consumer), how do I go about doing it. I'm using a Fedora 13 based server. And is it possible to configure Round Cube / Squirrel Mail to provide these Services. Like as of now all my users have mail account in the server, I want the credentials in the mail to be used to provide the OAuth Services.
If you want to be a provider of data, then you have to implement OAuth server at your site and if you want to be consumer, you will have to implement OAuth client at your site.
You should also read some articles and tutorials to gain a better understanding of the protocol, because it's a protocol that allows to protect APIs and that being said, everything connected with security should be well understood by the developer that is imeplementing it.
In case that you're a provider, the 1.0 version of the protocol works in the following way:
Consumer requires access to end-user's private data
Provider issues a token to the consumer
End-user authorizes the token
Consumer can make authorized requests with that token for end-users's private data
Good place to start is: http://hueniverse.com/oauth/
You can also read the RFC when you decide if you will implement 1.0a or 2.0 version of the protocol. I have implemented only 1.0a so far, so I cannot give advice to which is better. I guess the 2.0 version has more possibilities, and everyone says it's easier to implement. As far for the easier, 1.0a is not difficult to implement also, because there are good open source libraries both for clients and servers and you can set up and run server or client for 1 day, if you understand the mechanics of the protocol.
Of course, if you want to make a good server with different scopes of access, inheritance of scopes and if your API is complicated and extensible, you will have to do a lot more work there, no matter if you choose 1.0a or 2.0 OAuth version
A simple example to demonstrate oauth flow. Understanding the concept helps to design accordingly:
As for the "How will I do it?"
There are lots of good libraries out there. Here is an excellent list: http://oauth.net/code/