I am developing a asp.net mvc project with Web API. Web API will be consumed by Website, mobile apps and third party. Now, on some APIs will be called on Home page only without any login and same APIs will be called after login only.
Now, considering my website scenario, I have called APIs from AngularJs. We called an api which will generate a token on session_start. Then from NG we called a mvc controller method which will simply get that token and then the token will passed in HTTP-Header in All requests.
On API side, we fetch the token, decrypt it and show result.
Problem is, when I see Google Chrome's Network Tab (press F12) I can easily see API Calls and even Token in headers. I feel security vulnerability. For Open APIs, we thought of having some expiry time and request counts. But some APIs will be sensitive, like adding data in DB(POST APIs, based on data passed as parameters) and they also will be available to Guest Users. We don't want someone to misuse it and do harmful things.
How can we achieve maximum security in this scenario? What will be ideal security process?
To further explain Marco Sandrini's comment...
The security does not rely on hiding the API structure (method names, data format, etc...), but on giving access to those APIs only to authorized clients, which is what your tokens should do. In other words if your tokens are cryptographically sound (cannot be spoofed or faked), your connection is protected (nobody can intercept your tokens) and your backend correctly authenticates and authorizes your clients, you should be fine.
The token should not be subject to replay attacks. The server should already be expecting a different permutation of the token for subsequent requests, and you shouldn't know how to produce that by reading the token.
Proper SSL/TLS will protect the content of the connection from prying eyes. If your guest users can see other's sensitive information in their Chrome network tab, then you should worry because something has gone wrong with your implementation strategy.
Related
I am building a system with an ASP.NET Core web app (incidentally, in Blazor), which let's call "Site", and some domain web services (which might someday be used by other sites), one of which let's call "CustomerService".
Following various guides and articles on how to set up authentication with Open ID Connect and Azure Active Directory for this system, I see the following possible different approaches to authentication and authorization, especially with regard to AJAX requests:
Site-only auth, passthrough: Service trusts the site; site authenticates user.
Service-only auth, passthrough: Service authenticates user; site passes through all AJAX requests.
Service-only auth, CORS Service provides site client data via CORS, with authentication; site doesn't handle AJAX requests at all.
Service and site auth, passthrough: Service and site both authenticate user; site passes through some AJAX requests.
These all seem to have significant practical problems. Is there a fifth approach, or a variation I should be considering?
Here's my elaboration of these approaches.
(1) Service trusts the site; site authenticates user:
(1a) Set up Site.Server to use Open ID Connect for users to authenticate, implement all necessary authorization on Site.Server, pass through web API calls to CustomerService, and set up CustomerService to trust requests that come from Site.Server. This looks like a bad idea because then any user can spoof Site.Server and have full access to operations that should be secured on CustomerService. Also, CustomerService would not be able to enforce authorization; we'd be trusting Site.Server to get it right, which seems suboptimal.
(1b) Same as (1a), but Site.Server would know a secret API key that would be passed to CustomerService, either in headers or the API call's querystring or body. This doesn't seem so great because the API key would never change and then could be discovered and spoofed by any user. Still, this could work, as the API key could stay secret, and we could use our secret server for both sides to retrieve it. But still CustomerService would not be able to enforce authorization; we'd be trusting Site.Server to get it right, which seems suboptimal.
(1c) Same as (1b), but we come up with a mechanism for rotating the API key occasionally. This doesn't seem so great because the API key would change and then could be discovered and spoofed by any user. Still, this could work, as the API key could stay secret, and we could use our secret server for both sides to retrieve it. But still CustomerService would not be able to enforce authorization; we'd be trusting Site.Server to get it right, which seems suboptimal.
(2) Service authenticates user; site passes through all AJAX requests: Avoid any authentication on Site.Server and instead enforce authorization/authentication on CustomerService only through Open ID Connect+Azure AD. Site.Server would have to pass through requests including headers to CustomerService. This has the benefit of putting the security in the right place, but it seems unworkable, as the user has no way to authenticate on CustomerService since the user isn't using CustomerService directly; their AJAX requests still go to Site.Server.
(3) Service provides site client data via CORS, with authentication; site doesn't handle AJAX requests at all: Avoid any authentication on Site.Server and instead use CORS to allow the user's browser to connect directly to CustomerService, requiring authentication only through Open ID Connect+Azure AD. This has the benefit of putting the security in the right place, but how can a user authenticate on a AJAX request without having done so in a human-browsable way first? My AJAX request can't redirect to microsoftonline and prompt the user, can it? Plus CORS seems like a bad idea in general--we want to move away from cross-site anything; to the user, it should appear that Site.Server is serving up both AJAX calls and HTML page requests, right?
(4) Service and site both authenticate user; site passes through some AJAX requests. Put authentication on both Site.Server and CustomerService, with the same app ID, making them appear as one and the same site as far as Azure AD knows. Site.Server could do its own authentication and restrict certain service calls from getting to CustomerService, or it could pass through requests, including headers, to CustomerService, which could then deny or grant access as well. This is what we decided to do, but I question it now, as if I add a
second service, now it has to have again the same app ID to keep this approach.
None of these approaches seem to hit the mark. Am I missing another approach that I should be considering? Or is there a variation I am missing?
Here are my thoughts on what an option 5 is:
WEB UI
Code runs in the browser and interacts with the Authorization Server to authenticate the user. A library such as OIDC Client does the security work for you.
Provides best usability and simplest code. The UI uses access tokens to call cross domain APIs. Renewing tokens is tricky though, and browser security requires some due diligence.
WEB BACK END
Is static content only, deployed around the world close to end users - perhaps via Azure CDN. Must execute zero code. Provides best performance.
WEB UI SAME AS MOBILE UI
Your Web UI in effect operates in an identical manner to a mobile UI and is quite a bit simpler, with less need for cookies + double hops.
ENTRY POINT API
The browser UI interacts with an entry point API tailored to UI consumers. This API validates tokens by downloading Azure AD token signing keys. It is also has first say in authorizing requests.
The entry point API orchestrates calls to Core APIs and Azure APIs such as Graph. The Web UI uses a single token scoped to the entry point API and you can strictly control the UI's privileges. Meanwhile the API can use Azure AD's 'on behalf of' feature to get tokens for downstream APIs so that the UI does not need to deal with this.
DOMAIN APIs
These typically run in a locked down private cloud and are not called directly by the outside world. This allows you closer control over which types of caller can invoke which high privilege operations.
BLOG POSTS OF MINE
My blog's index page has further info on these patterns and the goals behind them. Maybe have a browse of the SPA Goals and API Platform Architecture posts.
There are some working code samples on this page. In my case the hosting uses AWS instead of Azure, though concepts are the same.
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.
Goal: My server needs to direct non-users to a landing/home page, and logged in users to the actual app. When the app is loaded, it will make authenticated HTTP requests to a RESTful API (via Ajax).
I have a RESTful API that needs authentication. On another server I have my website, which also needs authentication, so I can determine whether to display the landing/home page for non-users or the app for logged in users.
Initially I thought it would be enough to implement HTTP Basic Auth for the RESTful API. However, in order to get authentication running for my website too, I would also need to setup authentication there, which would mean duplicating the low-level code to check the credentials in the database in both the REST API and the website servers.
Alternatively, I wondered if the website could authenticate via the RESTful API. For example, in my request handler for POST /login, I could make a GET request to my API, passing along the user credentials from the request body. If the request returns 200 OK, I could sign the user’s session, thus authenticating them. From there onwards, the Ajax requests to the REST API need to be authenticated with the same credentials, so I could:
set a cookie containing the credentials, thus allowing the JavaScript to retrieve the credentials before doing the request (OK with SSL?)
dump the credentials in the served HTML for the web app thus allowing the JavaScript to retrieve the credentials before doing the request (OK with SSL?)
proxy the API through the web app server, where I could retrieve the credentials from the session and add them to the Authorization header of the proxied request?
Alternatively, I imagine I could just share a session between the two servers, although I’ve heard that’s bad practice for RESTful design.
What would be wrong with doing it like this? Is there a better way to meet my goal?
I recently implemented something similar to this (assuming I understand you correctly), and there seemed to be a few viable options.
Have the server side of your web-app always authenticate with a specific username/password when accessing the REST API, ensuring that your web-app is always trusted and assuming that users are properly logged in on the web-app if a request is authenticated as the app.
Pros: Easy to implement, easy to understand, easy to extend for other applications as well (we had a CLI that accessed the same REST API as well).
Cons: It's impossible for the REST API to know which user is actually accessing it. If a trusted client is compromised the whole system is compromised.
Have the server side of your web-app keep user details in the session and authenticate using the users credentials every time you access the REST API.
Pros: Fairly easy to implement (although some authentication mechanisms make it hard to keep hold of the user password - for good reason). The whole procedure is transparent to the REST API.
Cons: You're now storing (for all intents and purposes in clear-text) the username and password of a user in the session of the web-server - one of the most prime targets for attack in the system.
Create an authentication system on the REST API that authenticates a request with a username/password authorization and returns a token that is valid for a limited time.
Pros: More secure, if your web-app is compromised you're not providing the attacker with your users username/passwords, but instead only allowing them a limited time access.
Cons: Much harder to implement. You might need to deal with token timeouts specifically. For purists it also means that your REST implementation (or at least the authentication system) will be arguably "stateful".
What you should implement would depend on your situation. Personally I'd definitely go with the more secure option (the last one), but due to external constraints we were forced to implement the first option in our specific case (with the promise we'd revisit it and upgrade later - unfortunately later never comes).
I think your approach with using Basic HTTP Authentication in REST service and having your app authenticate with the service is perfectly fine. The only caveat here (which I am sure you are aware of), is that your REST service should run over SSL, as Basic HTTP authentication is not very secure - username and password are just Base64 encoded.
I am currently developing a web application that is right now comprised of a front end which displays and interacts with the data using a REST API we have written. The only thing that will ever use the API is our front end website, and at some point a mobile app that we will develop.
I have done a lot of reading about how OAuth is the ideal mechanism for securing an API and at this point I am starting to have a good understanding of how it works.
My question is -- since I am never granting access to my API to a third-party client, is OAuth really necessary? Is there any reason it is advantageous? Furthermore, because the back end is simply the API, there is no gateway for a user to authenticate from (like if you were writing an app using the Twitter API, when a user authenticates they would be directed to the Twitter page to grant to access then redirected back to the client).
I am not really sure which direction to go in. It seems like there must be some approach halfway between http authentication and OAuth that would be appropriate for this situation but I'm just not getting it.
From my point of view, one of the scenarios that favor OAuth over other options is to work with untrusted clients, no matter if these are developed by you or a third party.
What's an untrusted client? Think from the point of who handles the credentials that grant access to your API.
For example, your web application could interact with your API in two falvors:
Your web app server side talks to your API. Your web app server is a trusted client because the credentials to access your API can only be access by whom have access to the server...You and your team. You could authenticate your web app server with a client_id and a client_secret.
You may want to make calls directly to your API from your Web app client, which runs on the end user's browser using JavaScript. The end user's browser is an untrusted client. If you were to deliver the credentials to your API down to the browser, anyone could check the JavaScript code and steal your credentials.
A third party Native App is also untrusted. A malicious developer that uses your API could save the credentials of and end user of your platform.
Your Native App is a trusted client and could manage the authentication with a simple username , password and a client id identifying your App.
How can OAuth help? OAuth Authorization code and Implicit grants can help you with this issue. These flows only work with clients that support a redirect, like a browser. And let you authenticate an untrusted client and a user against your Authorization Server to gain access to your Resource Server, your API, without exposing the credentials. Take a look at the RFC to see how it is done.
The good thing of OAuth is that it not only supports these redirect based authentication flows, but it also supports client credentials grant and user credentials grant. So an OAuth Authorization Server would cover all cases.
OAuth 2.0 originally seems like a PITA if you think about having to build a lot of it yourself, but most languages have some really solid OAuth 2.0 setups which you can just bolt in with varying amounts of fiddling. If you're using a framework like Laravel or RoR then it's barely any work.
PHP: http://oauth2.thephpleague.com/
Ruby (Rails or Grape): https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper
If you don't want to redirect users as suggested in your post then ignore other comments and answers that talk about two legged flows. You can use the client_credentials grant type to have apps just provide their client id and secret in return for an access token, which is nice and easy.
I would ask how private are we talking, because if the only systems talking to it are within the backend and have no interaction with the outside world you could probably leave it wide open and just rely on the network to keep it safe (VPN/Firewall).
But if it's private in the sense of "our iPhone app uses it" then you definitely want to go with OAuth 2.0, or something like it.
2 legged OAuth is probably what you want to use. It's basically hashing a shared key, but you have the advantage of not having to write the code yourself.
Here's a related question: Two-legged OAuth - looking for information
You should use Oauth for mobile device to API layer communication.
However, there is no benefit of Oauth in this web UI layer to middle-layer access (machine to machine).
On the other hand there are some potential issues
Managing the access token expiry becomes a pain. Consider that your UI has to cache the access token across multiple nodes in a cluster. Refresh it when expired, and the fact that UI layer is negotiating security with backend will just take extra time once in a while.
In two legged Oauth (OAuth Client Credential as in v2.0) does not support any encryption. So you still need to send key and secret both to the server for getting an access token.
Backend has to implement issuing access token, refresh token, validating access token etc, without any significant benefit
I'm building Pylons-based web application with RESTful API, which currently lacks any authentication. So I'm going to implement that and in order to avoid all the trouble and caution with storing user passwords, I'd like to use OpenID for authentication. What would be the best way to do this? Are these two things compatible? Are there existing REST APIs that use OpenID that I can take inspiration from?
I've now spent some time researching the options and would like to summarize the findings.
First, a little bit more context -- I develop and control both the service and API consumer. Consumer is Flash-based app that is served from the same host the API is now and is supposed to be used in browser. No third party clients in sight yet.
So the question can be divided in two parts,
how do I do the OpenID authentication via API
how do I maintain the "authenticated" state in subsequent requests
For first part, OpenID authentication almost always includes interactive steps. During the authentication process there will most likely be a step where user is in OpenID provider's web page, signing in and pressing some "I agree" button. So API cannot and shouldn't handle this transparently (no "tell me your OpenID provider and password and I'll do the rest"). Best it can do is pass forth and back HTTP links that client has to open and follow instructions.
Maintaining "authenticated" state
REST APIs should be stateless, each request should include all the information needed to handle it, right? It wouldn't make any sense to authenticate against OpenID provider for each request, so some kind of session is neccessary. Some of the options for communicating session key (or "access token" or username/password) are:
HTTPS + BASIC authentication ("Authorization: Basic ..." header in each request)
Signing requests Amazon-style ("Authorization: AWS ... " header in each request)
OAuth: acquire Access Token, include that and a bunch of other parameters in each request
Cookie that stores session key ("Cookie: ... " header in each request)
Signed cookie that stores session information in the cookie itself
There's just one API consumer right now, so I chose to go for simplest thing that could possibly work -- cookies. They are super-easy to use in Pylons, with help of Beaker. They also "just work" in the Flash app -- since it runs inside browser, browser will include relevant cookies in the requests that Flash app makes -- the app doesn't need to be changed at all with respect to that. Here's one StackOverflow question that also advocates using cookies: RESTful authentication for web applications
Beaker also has nice feature of cookie-only sessions where all session data is contained in the cookie itself. I guess this is about as stateless as it gets. There is no session store on server. Cookies are signed and optionally encrypted to avoid tampering with them in client side. The drawback is that cookie gets a bit bigger, since it now needs to store more than just session key. By removing some stuff I didn't really need in the session (leftovers from OpenID authentication) I got the cookie size down to about 200 bytes.
OAuth is a better fit for API usage. Here's an example of OAuth in use in Python: oauth-python-twitter. Leah Culver's python-oauth library is the canonical implementation of OAuth in Python, but python-oauth2 is a recent contender that is getting some buzz. As for inspiration, django-piston has support for using OAuth to do auth when creating RESTful APIs for Django, though the documentation isn't as nice as I'd like for that particular topic.
If you build API, you could check OAuth protocol. It's complementary to OpenID.