Question: Does using cookies for user session handling hinder the scalability of your backend because all the API's have to live on the same domain. Basically if one API starts to get a lot of request and you want to add another server to off balance the load you would have to add an entire webserver rather than just a small micro webserver with the API running on it mainly because cookies are used to authenticate user request and cookies don't survive CORS request. Am I right or don't know what the hell i'm talking about lol need some opinions I suggested we make all API's micro services and use JWT for user sessions
Cookies have almost nothing to do with scalability, as you may use subdomains. You can continue using them, as long as you have a common session store for all your services.
JWT is mainly good for server-to-server authentication, I using it as your main authentication flow is a big overkill, in my opinion.
When using the OAuth protocol, you need a secret string obtained from the service you want to delegate to. If you are doing this in a web app, you can simply store the secret in your data base or on the file system, but what is the best way to handle it in a mobile app (or a desktop app for that matter)?
Storing the string in the app is obviously not good, as someone could easily find it and abuse it.
Another approach would be to store it on your server, and have the app fetch it on every run, never storing it on the phone. This is almost as bad, because you have to include the URL in the app.
The only workable solution I can come up with is to first obtain the Access Token as normal (preferably using a web view inside the app), and then route all further communication through our server, which would append the secret to the request data and communicate with the provider. Then again, I'm a security noob, so I'd really like to hear some knowledgeable peoples' opinions on this. It doesn't seem to me that most apps are going to these lengths to guarantee security (for example, Facebook Connect seems to assume that you put the secret into a string right in your app).
Another thing: I don't believe the secret is involved in initially requesting the Access Token, so that could be done without involving our own server. Am I correct?
Yes, this is an issue with the OAuth design that we are facing ourselves. We opted to proxy all calls through our own server. OAuth wasn't entirely flushed out in respect of desktop apps. There is no prefect solution to the issue that I've found without changing OAuth.
If you think about it and ask the question why we have secrets, is mostly for provision and disabling apps. If our secret is compromised, then the provider can only really revoke the entire app. Since we have to embed our secret in the desktop app, we are sorta screwed.
The solution is to have a different secret for each desktop app. OAuth doesn't make this concept easy. One way is have the user go and create an secret on their own and enter the key on their own into your desktop app (some facebook apps did something similar for a long time, having the user go and create facebook to setup their custom quizes and crap). It's not a great experience for the user.
I'm working on proposal for a delegation system for OAuth. The concept is that using our own secret key we get from our provider, we could issue our own delegated secret to our own desktop clients (one for each desktop app basically) and then during the auth process we send that key over to the top level provider that calls back to us and re-validates with us. That way we can revoke on own secrets we issue to each desktop client. (Borrowing a lot of how this works from SSL). This entire system would be prefect for value-add webservices as well that pass on calls to a third party webservice.
The process could also be done without delegation verification callbacks if the top level provider provides an API to generate and revoke new delegated secrets. Facebook is doing something similar by allowing facebook apps to allow users to create sub-apps.
There are some talks about the issue online:
http://blog.atebits.com/2009/02/fixing-oauth/
http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/629b03475a3d78a1/de1071bf4b820c14#de1071bf4b820c14
Twitter and Yammer's solution is a authentication pin solution:
https://dev.twitter.com/oauth/pin-based
https://www.yammer.com/api_oauth_security_addendum.html
With OAUth 2.0, you can store the secret on the server. Use the server to acquire an access token that you then move to the app and you can make calls from the app to the resource directly.
With OAuth 1.0 (Twitter), the secret is required to make API calls. Proxying calls through the server is the only way to ensure the secret is not compromised.
Both require some mechanism that your server component knows it is your client calling it. This tends to be done on installation and using a platform specific mechanism to get an app id of some kind in the call to your server.
(I am the editor of the OAuth 2.0 spec)
One solution could be to hard code the OAuth secret into the code, but not as a plain string. Obfuscate it in some way - split it into segments, shift characters by an offset, rotate it - do any or all of these things. A cracker can analyse your byte code and find strings, but the obfuscation code might be hard to figure out.
It's not a foolproof solution, but a cheap one.
Depending on the value of the exploit, some genius crackers can go to greater lengths to find your secret code. You need to weigh the factors - cost of previously mentioned server side solution, incentive for crackers to spend more efforts on finding your secret code, and the complexity of the obfuscation you can implement.
Do not store the secret inside the application.
You need to have a server that can be accessed by the application over https (obviously) and you store the secret on it.
When someone want to login via your mobile/desktop application, your application will simply forward the request to the server that will then append the secret and send it to the service provider. Your server can then tell your application if it was successful or not.
Then if you need to get any sensitive information from the service (facebook, google, twitter, etc), the application ask your server and your server will give it to the application only if it is correctly connected.
There is not really any option except storing it on a server. Nothing on the client side is secure.
Note
That said, this will only protect you against malicious client but not client against malicious you and not client against other malicious clients (phising)...
OAuth is a much better protocol in browser than on desktop/mobile.
There is a new extension to the Authorization Code Grant Type called Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE). With it, you don't need a client secret.
PKCE (RFC 7636) is a technique to secure public clients that don't use
a client secret.
It is primarily used by native and mobile apps, but the technique can
be applied to any public client as well. It requires additional
support by the authorization server, so it is only supported on
certain providers.
from https://oauth.net/2/pkce/
For more information, you can read the full RFC 7636 or this short introduction.
Here's something to think about. Google offers two methods of OAuth... for web apps, where you register the domain and generate a unique key, and for installed apps where you use the key "anonymous".
Maybe I glossed over something in the reading, but it seems that sharing your webapp's unique key with an installed app is probably more secure than using "anonymous" in the official installed apps method.
With OAuth 2.0 you can simply use the client side flow to obtain an access token and use then this access token to authenticate all further requests. Then you don't need a secret at all.
A nice description of how to implement this can be found here: https://aaronparecki.com/articles/2012/07/29/1/oauth2-simplified#mobile-apps
I don't have a ton of experience with OAuth - but doesn't every request require not only the user's access token, but an application consumer key and secret as well? So, even if somebody steals a mobile device and tries to pull data off of it, they would need an application key and secret as well to be able to actually do anything.
I always thought the intention behind OAuth was so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that had a mashup didn't have to store your Twitter credentials in the clear. I think it solves that problem pretty well despite it's limitations. Also, it wasn't really designed with the iPhone in mind.
I agree with Felixyz. OAuth whilst better than Basic Auth, still has a long way to go to be a good solution for mobile apps. I've been playing with using OAuth to authenticate a mobile phone app to a Google App Engine app. The fact that you can't reliably manage the consumer secret on the mobile device means that the default is to use the 'anonymous' access.
The Google App Engine OAuth implementation's browser authorization step takes you to a page where it contains text like:
"The site <some-site> is requesting access to your Google Account for the product(s) listed below"
YourApp(yourapp.appspot.com) - not affiliated with Google
etc
It takes <some-site> from the domain/host name used in the callback url that you supply which can be anything on the Android if you use a custom scheme to intercept the callback.
So if you use 'anonymous' access or your consumer secret is compromised, then anyone could write a consumer that fools the user into giving access to your gae app.
The Google OAuth authorization page also does contain lots of warnings which have 3 levels of severity depending on whether you're using 'anonymous', consumer secret, or public keys.
Pretty scary stuff for the average user who isn't technically savvy. I don't expect to have a high signup completion percentage with that kind of stuff in the way.
This blog post clarifies how consumer secret's don't really work with installed apps.
http://hueniverse.com/2009/02/should-twitter-discontinue-their-basic-auth-api/
Here I have answer the secure way to storing your oAuth information in mobile application
https://stackoverflow.com/a/17359809/998483
https://sites.google.com/site/greateindiaclub/mobil-apps/ios/securelystoringoauthkeysiniosapplication
Facebook doesn't implement OAuth strictly speaking (yet), but they have implemented a way for you not to embed your secret in your iPhone app: https://web.archive.org/web/20091223092924/http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Session_Proxy
As for OAuth, yeah, the more I think about it, we are a bit stuffed. Maybe this will fix it.
None of these solutions prevent a determined hacker from sniffing packets sent from their mobile device (or emulator) to view the client secret in the http headers.
One solution could be to have a dynamic secret which is made up of a timestamp encrypted with a private 2-way encryption key & algorithm. The service then decrypts the secret and determines if the time stamp is +/- 5 minutes.
In this way, even if the secret is compromised, the hacker will only be able to use it for a maximum of 5 minutes.
I'm also trying to come up with a solution for mobile OAuth authentication, and storing secrets within the application bundle in general.
And a crazy idea just hit me: The simplest idea is to store the secret inside the binary, but obfuscated somehow, or, in other words, you store an encrypted secret. So, that means you've got to store a key to decrypt your secret, which seems to have taken us full circle. However, why not just use a key which is already in the OS, i.e. it's defined by the OS not by your application.
So, to clarify my idea is that you pick a string defined by the OS, it doesn't matter which one. Then encrypt your secret using this string as the key, and store that in your app. Then during runtime, decrypt the variable using the key, which is just an OS constant. Any hacker peeking into your binary will see an encrypted string, but no key.
Will that work?
As others have mentioned, there should be no real issue with storing the secret locally on the device.
On top of that, you can always rely on the UNIX-based security model of Android: only your application can access what you write to the file system. Just write the info to your app's default SharedPreferences object.
In order to obtain the secret, one would have to obtain root access to the Android phone.
I would like to secure my mobile app ( hybrid app, build with ionic framework). On backend site I use the play framework. I would implement the following case. The user of the app should authenticate to rest backend by email and password, if the credentials correct the backend generates an token return ok with the generate token to client, otherwise the backend return bad request. If the user would try to login with incorrect credentials more then 10 times the user would deactivated for 1 hour.
The mobile app would load json data from backend with ajax calls, on each call in header would set the field 'X-AUTH-TOKEN' and the generate token. The backend check the token and if the token is correct the client get data from server with status ok else the client get none data and the status unauthorized. If the user logged out the token would destroyed on server and client side. The token would not change as long as the user is logged in, in worst case the token would not changed over more than many days. I could implement, that on each call the date of last call can saved and if the last call is more than x days in past the server return unauthorized and destroy the token. So the user should logged in. Is the case secure enough, or should I implement more logic?
What you are describing is very similar, if not identical to the many, many implementations of OAuth2. For more information on these types of flows, including diagrams, check out how Google describes their OAuth2 processes here: https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2
I'm not familiar with the play framework but you should speak with framework experts to see if there is a well-tested, battle-hardened oauth2 implementation out there for the Play Framework. If so, you want to use that. You really don't want to (and shouldn't) roll your own implementation unless you know what you're doing and are willing to pay for people to pentest it. Really, please don't do this if unsure.
On the Ionic Framework / Angular / Cordova side, you've basically got it correct, but should always consider some basic security considerations:
My guess is that you'd use local storage to store the access token. In REST we don't have sessions like in a traditional web server scenario so we use the token in lieu of the session. Of course the downside is that local storage can easily be inspected to obtain the access key if someone had either root access on the device and was able to work their way into the app sandbox and knew exactly what api key to grab from local storage, but if someone has root or physical access to the device then you've got a bigger problem, so this isn't a design flaw per-say. To a certain extent, using this method you're relying upon the OS/browser's local storage sandbox to prevent other apps from accessing the local storage in your ionic app. This is a bet I would be willing to make, but you'll need to judge that based on your security vs usability needs.
What you should really be focusing on is protecting the token from people who may be listening on the wire (think coffee shop wifi). This means setting up your auth rest servers to use exclusively HTTPS (don't fail back to HTTP). This may have downsides, but will be worth it to protect your user's data. You also correctly identified using the token header. You should never pass auth tokens in anything but the header or POST data.
Generally speaking, what you are describing should be safe for use in a consumer level app. This assumes you don't unwittingly use any malicious third party code in your app. As always, you should be especially wary of third party code and only use code that you absolutely trust. Any code run from inside your app can access local storage in the Cordova/browser local storage sandbox and could theoretically export the api token for use in other software to access your api. With that said, you asked about authentication and not authorization. Keep in mind that your users need to only have access to do certain things in the app based on user-roles or some sort of ACL. This authorization outside the scope of this answer but you need to ensure that this is done on the server side and has rate limiting or soft-deletes for shared resources to prevent a malicious user from deleting everything.
Good luck with ionic and have fun.
I am developing a web application that runs on Google App Engine. It has some HTTP GET methods to request data. I do not want any random web request to be able to receive data from the server. Only my web app (i.e., requests originating from my website) plus any mobile or desktop clients I develop should be able to request data from the server. How is this done? Note I am not talking about username/password authorization here. I am asking how to make sure that the client app who is making the request is authorized. Otherwise, anyone can make their client (e.g., a C# console app) and start using my data. I think the question is similar to this one: How to authenticate client application for trust of messages sent from it
Short answer is, you can't.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/826/how-can-i-securely-authenticate-the-client-application-sending-me-data
Long answer is, you can make it difficult for hackers. Usually this works by embedding a key in the application, obfuscating it, and obfuscating the code for getting the key. This doesn't make it impossible for someone to find the key, just harder.
One of the stronger consumer systems out there is Microsoft's Silverlight DRM, you might want to investigate how that work: http://www.iis.net/learn/media/iis-media-services/content-protection-in-silverlight
You can use 3scale. It provides authorization , stats, control of the requests made to your GAE application
https://code.google.com/p/appspotimage/wiki/APICreationArticle
Encrypt the request via your client. Decrypt at the server level. If decryption is successful and the request is well-formed, its authorized.
Otherwise, its an unauthorized client.
The catch?
Someone will be able to make an unauthorized client after they solve your method of encryption. This would most likely be after decompiling your program and trudging through obfuscated code, making it harder/time consuming, but it is still possible.
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.