I want to design a web application which guarantees secure authentication and gives API access only to the authorised users. The basic idea is simply sending username and password to get the user authenticated. And user can make request to server with the session_id without authenticating himself again.
Definitely, it is very insecure. But as far as I could understand now, in order not to expose the user's credentials, we can apply TLS(https) to get it encrypted.
However, as I research around, I get acquainted with a lot of concepts, like Base64, HMAC_SHA1, API keys, OAuth1.0. But I could not understand why do we need those mechanism other than TLS. Can anyone help explain why TSL is not enough to ensure authentication and API access to be secure?
Secure sessions work fine if your web application authenticates the user, issues the session id and validates the id on each call. You can store the session id in a secure cookie that gets sent back on each request.
Things get more complicated when you have your API on a different domain. Now your cookies are not automatically sent to the service (same-origin policy). You could of course stick the session id in an Authorization header when you call your API. But now your API needs to talk to the same backend store maintaining your session state to verify the authorization. This backend store becomes a bottleneck in scalability and a single point of failure.
To get around this, modern protocols (like OAuth2) issue security tokens. These tokens are digitally signed (using HMAC) and the receiver trusts the token if the signature is validated successfully. No backend calls are needed to validate the token, just a simple cryptographic operation.
API keys are used to allow applications to get a security token without relying on a user to authenticate. Think of them as a password for an application.
Using security tokens also allows you to use a 3rd party authorization server (like Facebook or Google etc) and completely get out of the business of authenticating users, storing passwords, issuing tokens etc.
Related
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 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.
I'm having some trouble deciding how to implement authentication for a RESTful API that will be secure for consumption by both a web app and a mobile app.
Firstly, I thought to investigate HTTP Basic Authentication over HTTPS as an option. It would work well for a mobile app, where the username and password could be stored in the OS keychain securely and couldn't be intercepted in transit since the request would be over HTTPS. It's also elegant for the API since it'll be completely stateless. The problem with this is for the web app. There won't be access to such a keychain for storing the username and password, so I would need to use a cookie or localStorage, but then I'm storing the user's private details in a readily accessible place.
After more research, I found a lot of talk about HMAC authentication. The problem I see with this approach is there needs to be a shared secret that only the client and server knows. How can I get this per-user secret to a particular user in the web app, unless I have an api/login endpoint which takes username/password and gives the secret back to store in a cookie? to use in future requests. This is introducing state to the API however.
To throw another spanner into the works, I'd like to be able to restrict the API to certain applications (or, to be able to block certain apps from using the API). I can't see how this would be possible with the web app being completely public.
I don't really want to implement OAuth. It's probably overkill for my needs.
I feel as though I might not be understanding HMAC fully, so I'd welcome an explanation and how I could implement it securely with a web app and a mobile app.
Update
I ended up using HTTP Basic Auth, however instead of providing the actual username and password every request, an endpoint was implemented to exchange the username and password for an access key which is then provided for every authenticated request. Eliminates the problem of storing the username and password in the browser, but of course you could still fish out the token if you had access to the machine and use it. In hindsight, I would probably have looked at OAuth further, but it's pretty complicated for beginners.
You should use OAuth2. Here is how:
1) Mobile App
The mobile app store client credentials as you state yourself. It then uses "Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.3) to send those credentials. In turn it gets a (bearer) token it can use in the following requests.
2) Web site
The website uses "Authorization Code Grant" (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1):
Website sees unauthorized request and redirects browser to HTML-enabled autorization endpoint in the REST api.
User authenticates with REST service
REST site redirects user back to website with access token in URL.
Website calls REST site and swaps access token to authorization token.
Here after the website uses the authorization token for accessing the REST service (on behalf of the end-user) - usually by including the token as a "bearer" token in the HTTP Authorization header.
It is not rocket science but it does take some time to understand completely.
3) Restricting API access for certain applications
In OAuth2 each client is issued a client ID and client secret (here "client" is your mobile app or website). The client must send these credentials when authorizing. Your REST service can use this to validate the calling client
I resolved this for my own API quite easily and securely without the need to expose any client credentials.
I also split the problem into 2 parts. API authentication - is this a valid request from a recognised entity (website or native app). API authorisation, is that entity allowed to use this particular endpoint and HTTP verb.
Authorisation is coded into the API using an access control list and user permissions and settings that are set up within the API code, configuration and database as required. A simple if statement in the API can test for authorisation and return the appropriate response (not authorised or the results of processing the API call).
Authentication is now just about checking to see if the call is genuine. To do this I issue self signed certificates to clients. A call to the API is made from their server whenever they want - typically when they generate their first page (or when they are performing their own app login checks). This call uses the certificates I have previously provided. If on my side I am happy the certificate is valid I can return a nonce and a time limited generated API key. This key is used in all subsequent calls to other API endpoints, in the bearer header for example, and it can be stored quite openly in an HTML form field or javascript variable or a variable within an app.
The nonce will prevent replay attacks and the API key can be stolen if someone wants - they will not be able to continue using after it expires or if the nonce changes before they make the next call.
Each API response will contain the next nonce of if the nonce doesn't match it will return an authentication error. In fact of the nonce doesn't match I kill the API key too. This will then force a genuine API user to reauthenticate using the certificates.
As long as the end user keeps those certificates safe and doesn't expose the method they use to make the initial authentication call (like making it an ajax request that can be replayed) then the API's are nice and secure.
One way of addressing the issue of user authentication to the API is by requesting an authentication token from the API when the user logs in. This token can then be used for subsequent requests. You've already touched on this approach - it's pretty sound.
With respect to restricting certain web apps. You'll want to have each web app identify itself with each request and have this authentication carried out inside your API implementation. Pretty straight forward.
I have a couple security questions on the OAuth 2.0 User Credential Grant type and possible security attacks. So from what I understand so far, when I exchange my users username password client ID and client secret for an access token over HTTPS that is completely safe. Now say for an example if I have a first party mobile application for a service that is doing the user authentication and I keep the access token on the device.
If the access token is compromised some how the compromised access token can be used to make subsequent requests to say for example the API service. Is there any way to prevent this other than just not getting the access token out there?
If your doing all API requests over HTTPS I shouldn't have to be worried what so ever about the access token being compromised over the wire or have to worry about any replay attacks?
So basically my concerns about possible security flaws with this specific type of grant. I'm pretty sure if the access token doesn't get compromised and all traffic is over SSL it should be fine.
I'd love to hear someone's expert opinion not the biggest OAuth person.
If the access token is compromised, the app that now has it CAN misuse it. Since access tokens are short lived, and are mapped to certain permissions only - the damage would be limited to say 10 minutes access to a single resource! (tokens are generated for apps that are registered for a scope, the scopes are mapped to permissions.)
If you are working on a first party app, why do you want to store the token on device? You can think of using the authorization code flow and not the implicit grant flow. That way the access token is always with the server and not on the device locally.