Suppose I have a working REST API for my product.
I want to give access only to developers who sign up to this product. Also, there will be several plans available so certain parts of the API are not accessible on the free plan.
From the grant types I've seen only the client-credentials one seems to be the closest solution. However that won't authenticate the developer account stored in my product db, it will only get an access token for that client. The user won't actually be 'logged in' per se. Add to that the fact that a single client can be reused by everyone, according to implementations I've seen.
The only way I see is creating a custom grant type, by adding an extra api_key to the client credentials type, which pertains to the developer account.
Is there a way to do this with the existing grant types? Introducing custom types will not work with many oAuth2 libraries out there out of the box and I don't want to give the developers the hassle of modifying them.
I don't think you have to invent a custom grant type.
A single client can be reused by everyone only if everyone knows the client secret.
So, it seems that what you have to do is (1) to authenticate a developer when you issue a pair of client ID and client secret to the developer and (2) to motivate the developer not to reveal the client secret to others.
Related
I'm designing a system with REST API. REST API will be implemented using Spring Boot. The system should manage employee, product, orders information. It can be used as a standalone or as a part of some existing product ecosystem. I'm looking for some resource (book, blog, online course, etc.) to help me decide how to implement authentication and authorisation.
It's quite obvious how to do it if the system is used as a standalone product. User credentials/authorisation data can be stored in the same database next to product/employee and other data.
I'm not sure how to handle everything when the application is a part of some existing ecosystem. What if:
Someone wants to reuse existing User data store for authentication or third party service like Okta or Auth0.
Use existing data to build authorisation rules. For example authorise a person to modify product data if the person belongs to some User group.
I'm thinking about Oauth2+OIDC solution. For example Okta allows add a Claim based on Expression. User groups can be provided as Claims too. It seems Okta could be a source of both Authentication and Authorisation information. I'm not sure if it's a correct way to use Oauth2 and OIDC? What are potential pitfalls storing the authorisation data this way?
I've checked Keycloak and it seems authorisation data. can be stored there. So it's not an unusual practice to manage such a data in an authorisation server.
Maybe I should use Oauth2/OIDC for authentication only? Authorisation data (assigned roles, groups, etc.) can be stored in my application database. The application should provide means to manage the information.
I'd like to get some advice or source of information for this topic.
Thank you.
I would aim to keep OAuth data fairly small - the Authorization Server (AS) typically only needs a few fields to manage login such as Name / Email and a generated user id.
When data becomes domain specific it can become a burden to manage it in the AS, whereas in your product data it is easier to spin up custom UIs etc.
Instead the AS can reach out during token issuing to an API to include important claims in access tokens - such as roles etc. Meanwhile you don't want to expose detailed access tokens to internet clients.
The Curity web site has some good resources on patterns to meet the above requirements - here are a couple of links:
IAM Primer
Claims Best Practices
I am working on a project that allows a user to create a user to create app keys or secrets so that specific services can be used by external clients. A user can create multiple secrets that they can choose to use across multiple clients.
For this I am planning to create a decoupled auth server that will use identityserver4.
What really holding me back is that I am not sure whether or not I should create an API layer at the auth server. The reason I am considering API at auth server is so that I can create sort of an admin portal client that will give the users a front-end for creating, renewing, and accessing their app keys/secrets. Even the admin portal is going to be a de-coupled angular application.
There are two things that are holding me back at the moment:
I am not sure if it's a good or safe idea to serve this data via
an api layer. From what I understand, identityserver will not be able to provide functionality that allows me to access a list of a user's clients through an endpoint but please correct me if I'm wrong and there's a better way to approach this.
I know we can easily create new clients and persist it into the database with identityserver4 and I am planning to use ClientCredentials grant types for user clients, but is there a link at the database and identity level between a user and a client? Or will I need to create that functionality by myself?
So far I've looked but I have not bee able to find examples that are similar to my situation with identityserver4
Sorry for the noob question, I am just getting into identityserver and web security in general so many of these concepts are still very new to me.
For number 1, I would say yes you can create an API layer to server data. If you check the IdenttiyServer4 AdminUI, Rock Solid has also use the admin API behind the UI. But you must consider encryption, TLS and other security mechanism to keep this safe.
AFIK for number 2, there are no links at identity level between a user and a client. You have to create that by yourselves.
Basically, you need a system that supports Multitenancy. I have achieved that by adding a TenantId field in the AspNetIdentity user table. And also added the tenant Id to claim list.
Please do not hesitate to correct me if i am wrong.
Call me a newbie, call me dumb, rate down this topic. Do as you like, I'm just here to ask a question and hopefully learn something from it.
So I've been making an API for my website today (well attempting to) and I've noticed this "thing" on most popular sites API's such as Twitter, Foursquare, Tumblr called "OAuth". From my research today I have gathered that it's basically a way of giving the consumer a token to access restricted data from the provider depending on what the user chose without the user handing over their password and username.
But why do I have to use OAuth, why can't I just give out an API to the consumer key and they just use that? I will then see if the user has allowed access for the application, and they will have to grant access for the app to take information from their account, such as photos.
Something that also confused me is why the Tumblr API uses both. It seams on reading blog details they use a simple api key but posting on blogs you need an OAuth Signature.
OAuth is a protocol and has a set of specification defined by some expert group to define how to share data.
Basically what you are seeing is just a part of the OAuth mechanism,and there is a lot of communication and hand shaking mechanism to ensure the security of user data as well avoiding unauthorized access to data.
OAuth mechanism exits at 2 levels
three-legged authentication
Two-legged authentication
Both have their positives and negatives and there are a set of procedure which needs to be taken care for security and data integrity.
Allowing access only based on access_token/consumer key is really a very weak security mechanism and can easily be hacked by any one who happens to get access to your consumer key while OAuth system make sure by sharing a time bound access_token.
For details refer to this thread oauth-2-0-benefits-and-use-cases-why
Background: I am trying to create an SMS API service. The developers have a Dev ID, and an API secret key assigned to their developer account. The developers will be creating apps which will issue calls to my API. But the application issuing the call must be verified first.
Issue: The main issue i have is with authentication. I read up on OAuth and pretty much uderstood it. I read through this presentation (Slide 71-82). All OAuth articles talk about the OAuth 'dance' or the 'love triangle'. My problem seems to be, that i dont see a proper triangle in my case. Or, a better way to put it would be, the triangle doesn't seem to be complete.
What i mean by that is, in the case of lets say, LinkedIn, trying to make some app which helps users associate their LinkedIn acc with twitter, OAuth makes complete sense. Because LinkedIn needs to get resources from twitter ON THE USERS BEHALF (Cuz the user HAS A TWITTER ACCOUNT). In my case, only the consumer has a developer account registered with my service. The end-user doesn't have any credentials for the consumer to ask on behalf of. So how can i implement Oauth? So what will the consumer ask the provider? Will it only state that "watch out, here i come?". Cuz that seems pretty pointless unless its asking for a request token in exchange for an access token. But in this case since the end user doesnt even have an account, the steps seem useless.
So, i cant figure out how to go about this authentication issue. Ive tried thinking about using php sessions so it can help me associate a token with the particular client who is using the API. But the REST/OAUTH purists seem to disagree on the usage of sessions in authentication. They claim that OAuth is a standard which has proven itself and that is what I should use instead of coming up with my own obscure schemes.
From your description it seem that you're in a two party scenario only (developers write code which accesses your API on their own behalf, not on behalf of an end-user), so that means indeed that doing the full 3-legged oAuth scenario isn't needed.
You could use pretty much any authentication scheme and that would work (API Keys, other oAuth grant types [see below] or even ID/Secret combinations. In the oAuth world:
Look at the other oAuth 2.0 Grant types: especially resource owner PW grants - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-26#section-4.3. It's slightly better than username-password because the PW isn't passed across the channel all the time (it passes once though) and it assumes the developer writing the code is the owner of the credentials.
Look at oAuth v1.0: this different in various ways to v2.0 but one feature it does have which some people like is the way tokens are used - which is rather than being passed across the wire they are used to generate a hash in the client and then the hash is verified on the server side. It's more expensive and complex than checking a key but it's less prone to attack.
In the non-oAuth world, if it's primarily a server resource used by developers directly, an ID/Secret or API-Key pattern is probably more than sufficient and it's much easier to implement for your developers.
Re: oAuth - if you're doing any type of user auth then definitely stick with the standard - the stuff is complex and having libraries out there really helps. If it's developer-api you likely don't need to go that far.
If you want the API to be secure in an ideal world anything which requires the security token to pass across the gaps should be secured using SSL, especially if that client code could be running on a mobile device or laptop which might communicate over wireless. If this isn't the case, someone could jump in an copy a token from one of the devs.
The only one of the protocols above that avoids this is the oAuth 1.0 variation since the secret never leaves the client but is used to hash instead. But it's complex. Last one to look at is the Amazon AWS pattern which does hashing similar to oAuth 1.0 http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html and people emulate quite a bit.
Why use the proposed OpenID OAuth Extension over another OAuth-based protocol?
Discovery doesn't seem to be a feature. Although the consumer only needs a claimed identifier to start the authentication process, any authorization will still require that the consumer knows the access token URL, signature methods, and have a shared key/secret with the provider.
One benefit is that there's a specified way to ask for specific authorizations, the openid.oauth.scope argument to the authentication request. And one specific benefit for this is that authentication only - for the benefit of the consumer only, with no verifiable token - is defined for free and can be performed without worrying about keeping track of outstanding tokens or the resources they might require.
Are there examples of alternative ways in use to specify the scopes to be requested, perhaps with something in OpenID discovery? Or could this be handled effectively with some kind of REST navigation before the OAuth process, where one of several request token URLs specific to the desired scopes is discovered by interpreting hypertext starting from a well-known URL?
I am researching a delegated authentication and authorization system with several authorization scopes, where the scopes are relevant for different interactions. In other words, the consumer needs to tell the provider which scopes should be presented to the user for authorization.
The OpenID+OAuth extension really has only one significant advantage over standard OAuth:
If you need to authenticate the user and access the user's private data, and the OpenID Provider happens to also be the OAuth Service Provider (the user authenticates with the same service that holds his private data), then the extension will help the user have just one redirect to the OP+SP instead of two separate ones. For the user, this is a huge usability win -- if he happens to be authenticating with his SP.
The risks of supporting the extension is adequately supporting users whose OP and SP are not the same entity (you don't want to say you'll support the extension and then inadvertently lock out users whose OP is not also their SP).
Keep in mind what you really need to know. If you only want to access the user's private data, but don't really care who the user is that you're interacting with, use just OAuth. No reason for the user to give up his identity via OpenID if you're only downloading his photos to offer a photo printing service, for example, or if you already have a non-OpenID account for this user.