I've got a Mule application that listens for requests from one application, then responds by calling a JSON API multiple times to authenticate and then retrieve several data, doing some transformation, and returning the results. The API requires HTTP basic authentication. When an account authenticates, the application that provides the API 1) returns a session/authentication cookie that can be used to identify the current user in subsequent calls, and 2) updates the database to record the last authentication timestamp for the current user. The API also has a call to check to see if the session/authentication cookie is still valid.
I currently have a flow that invokes the authentication method, then goes on to make a bunch of calls with the session/authentication cookie.
The issue is when the Mule application gets many requests at once, the application that provides the API deadlocks trying to update the authentication timestamp, since the flow will authenticate once for each request. Is there a way (possibly using the object store) to store the session/authentication cookie for use by subsequent requests to the Mule flow? Basically, I want the flow to suspend all other requests to the same flow, check to see if there are stored cookies, check to see if they are still valid, authenticate (again or for the first time) to get a new session/authentication cookie if needed, store the new cookie, then continue.
Is that a reasonable way of doing that, and is it even possible? If not, I think you can get the gist of what I'm trying to accomplish. What better way is there? Thanks!
edit: I've done a little experimentation, and I can definitely use the object store to hold on to the cookie. The part I'm stuck on now is how I get the only first request to re-authenticate if there is no valid cookie while any near-simultaneous requests wait. I'm looking into VM queues and the Mule Requester, but I'm not sure that that will work. I will post the code for a fully functional test when I'm done.
Related
I tried auth0 and I face a problem where I can't block or force logout a user.
After i blocked a user from auth0 console, The user who was logged in could still access the routes.
I used express-openid-connect middleware and requiresAuth()
I suppose this is a common problem with JWT based service ? and should I implement a statefull session to manage user for these kind of use cases ?
In JWT based services it’s common practice to make the access token lifetime a short one, e.g. 10-15 minutes. That way user can still access the api inside a short window but soon the token needs to be refreshed. And when token refresh takes place the authentication service gets called and can reject granting a new token.
So you can make sure your access token lifetime is short enough and that should be enough to satisfy the security requirements.
It’s of course technically possible that you implement stateful session to check user info on each request but you should not call Auth0 api in this case cause you are going to hit their rate limiter and it slows down your api requests. Some sort of sync to your server side fast read database/cache would be needed.
I'm working on a client-server application using WCF. The first client will be a desktop app (WPF) but I plan to add Xamarin (Android and iOS) and web client. I want this to be an internet service, and to potentially support a large number of clients, so I'm using http, a stateless service to conserve server resources.
I am having difficulties implementing authentication logic.
I found this great example that implements forms authentication:
http://www.dotnetspeak.com/wcf/securing-wcf-with-forms-authentication/
It allows me to handle authentication how I want - compare username and password against the database, create an authentication cookie and return it. Subsequent calls using this cookie will be authenticated automatically.
But the problem is, I don't know which user called the service. If GetMyData() is called by user1, I want to make sure he only gets his own data. I obviously don't want to have the client send their ID separately with each request, because that can be easily tampered with - just switch "user1" for "user2" and hey presto, you're getting someone else's data.
I can get to the authentication cookie inside the service method by calling
WebOperationContext.Current.IncomingRequest.Headers[HttpRequestHeader.Cookie]
(I can also see there's one other header called "Host")
The cookie is generated from a FormsAuthenticationTicket, which contains the username and password, but it's encrypted. I'm not sure whether it's possible for me to decrypt the cookie in my code, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the correct approach. My method was called AFTER the underlying system authenticated the caller, so presumably the cookie was decrypted and the ticket was found to be valid. So why can't I get to the data?
Sadly, every article I've found only deals with authenticating the user, but nobody seems to care about which user is using the service afterwards, as long as he's authorized.
I suppose I could store the cookies server-side, along with mapping to the specific user, and find the user that way. But I want the service to be as stateless as possible for performance reasons. Also, this would involve doing fulltext matching on a 300 character long string - for every single request! Yikes!
It seems to me that what I need is a very common use case, so there must be a proper way to do it. I just can't seem to find it. Can anyone help me out?
If you have Forms authentication setup correctly then you can get the logged-in username via Thread.CurrentPrincipal.Identity.Name and send it to your service method for data access validation. Get the user id from username and validate ownership.
Thread.CurrentPrincipal.Identity.Name decrypts the cookie ticket and returns the logged-in username.
I know this is not the first time the topic is treated in StackOverflow, however, I have some questions I couldn't find an answer to or other questions have opposed answers.
I am doing a rather simple REST API (Silex-PHP) to be consumed initially by just one SPA (backbone app). I don't want to comment all the several authentication methods in this question as that topic is already fully covered on SO. I'll basically create a token for each user, and this token will be attached in every request that requires authentication by the SPA. All the SPA-Server transactions will run under HTTPS. For now, my decision is that the token doesn't expire. Tokens that expire/tokens per session are not complying with the statelessness of REST, right? I understand there's a lot of room for security improvement but that's my scope for now.
I have a model for Tokens, and thus a table in the database for tokens with a FK to user_id. By this I mean the token is not part of my user model.
REGISTER
I have a POST /users (requires no authentication) that creates a user in the database and returns the new user. This complies with the one request one resource rule. However, this brings me certain doubts:
My idea is that at the time to create a new user, create a new token for the user, to immediately return it with the Response, and thus, improving the UX. The user will immediately be able to start using the web app. However, returning the token for such response would break the rule of returning just the resource. Should I instead make two requests together? One to create the user and one to retrieve the token without the user needing to reenter credentials?
If I decided to return the token together with the user, then I believe POST /users would be confusing for the API consumer, and then something like POST /auth/register appears. Once more, I dislike this idea because involves a verb. I really like the simplicity offered in this answer. But then again, I'd need to do two requests together, a POST /users and a POST /tokens. How wrong is it to do two requests together and also, how would I exactly send the relevant information for the token to be attached to a certain user if both requests are sent together?
For now my flow works like follows:
1. Register form makes a POST /users request
2. Server creates a new user and a new token, returns both in the response (break REST rule)
3. Client now attaches token to every Request that needs Authorization
The token never expires, preserving REST statelessness.
EMAIL VALIDATION
Most of the current webapps require email validation without breaking the UX for the users, i.e the users can immediately use the webapp after registering. On the other side, if I return the token with the register request as suggested above, users will immediately have access to every resource without validating emails.
Normally I'd go for the following workflow:
1. Register form sends POST /users request.
2. Server creates a new user with validated_email set to false and stores an email_validation_token. Additionally, the server sends an email generating an URL that contains the email_validation_token.
3. The user clicks on the URL that makes a request: For example POST /users/email_validation/{email_validation_token}
4. Server validates email, sets validated_email to true, generates a token and returns it in the response, redirecting the user to his home page at the same time.
This looks overcomplicated and totally ruins the UX. How'd you go about it?
LOGIN
This is quite simple, for now I am doing it this way so please correct me if wrong:
1. User fills a log in form which makes a request to POST /login sending Basic Auth credentials.
2. Server checks Basic Auth credentials and returns token for the given user.
3. Web app attached the given token to every future request.
login is a verb and thus breaks a REST rule, everyone seems to agree on doing it this way though.
LOGOUT
Why does everyone seem to need a /auth/logout endpoint? From my point of view clicking on "logout" in the web app should basically remove the token from the application and not send it in further requests. The server plays no role in this.
As it is possible that the token is kept in localStorage to prevent losing the token on a possible page refresh, logout would also imply removing the token from the localStorage. But still, this doesn't affect the server. I understand people who need to have a POST /logout are basically working with session tokens, which again break the statelessness of REST.
REMEMBER ME
I understand the remember me basically refers to saving the returned token to the localStorage or not in my case. Is this right?
If you'd recommend any further reading on this topic I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks!
REGISTER
Tokens that expire/tokens per session are not complying with the statelessness of REST, right?
No, there's nothing wrong with that. Many HTTP authentication schemes do have expiring tokens. OAuth2 is super popular for REST services, and many OAuth2 implementations force the client to refresh the access token from time to time.
My idea is that at the time to create a new user, create a new token for the user, to immediately return it with the Response, and thus, improving the UX. The user will immediately be able to start using the web app. However, returning the token for such response would break the rule of returning just the resource. Should I instead make two requests together? One to create the user and one to retrieve the token without the user needing to reenter credentials?
Typically, if you create a new resource following REST best practices, you don't return something in response to a POST like this. Doing this would make the call more RPC-like, so I would agree with you here... it's not perfectly RESTful. I'll offer two solutions to this:
Ignore this, break the best practices. Maybe it's for the best in this case, and making exceptions if they make a lot more sense is sometimes the best thing to do (after careful consideration).
If you want be more RESTful, I'll offer an alternative.
Lets assume you want to use OAuth2 (not a bad idea!). The OAuth2 API is not really RESTful for a number of reasons. I'm my mind it is still better to use a well-defined authentication API, over rolling your own for the sake of being RESTful.
That still leaves you with the problem of creating a user on your API, and in response to this (POST) call, returning a secret which can be used as an access/refresh token.
My alternative is as follows:
You don't need to have a user in order to start a session.
What you can do instead is start the session before you create the user. This guarantees that for any future call, you know you are talking to the same client.
If you start your OAuth2 process and receive your access/refresh token, you can simply do an authenticated POST request on /users. What this means is that your system needs to be aware of 2 types of authenticated users:
Users that logged in with a username/password (`grant_type = passsword1).
Users that logged in 'anonymously' and intend to create a user after the fact. (grant_type = client_credentials).
Once the user is created, you can assign your previously anonymous session with the newly created user entity, thus you don't need to do any access/refresh token exchanges after creation.
EMAIL VALIDATION
Both your suggestions to either:
Prevent the user from using the application until email validation is completed.
Allow the user to use the application immediately
Are done by applications. Which one is more appropriate really depends on your application and what's best for you. Is there any risk associated with a user starting to use an account with an email they don't own? If no, then maybe it's fine to allow the user in right away.
Here's an example where you don't want to do this: Say if the email address is used by other members of your system to add a user as a friend, the email address is a type of identity. If you don't force users to validate their emails, it means I can act on behalf of someone with a different email address. This is similar to being able to receive invitations, etc. Is this an attack vector? Then you might want to consider blocking the user from using the application until the email is validated.
You might also consider only blocking certain features in your application for which the email address might be sensitive. In the previous example, you could prevent people from seeing invitations from other users until the email is validated.
There's no right answer here, it just depends on how you intend to use the email address.
LOGIN
Please just use OAuth2. The flow you describe is already fairly close to how OAuth2 works. Take it one step further an actually use OAuth2. It's pretty great and once you get over the initial hurdle of understanding the protocol, you'll find that it's easier than you thought and fairly straightforward to just implement the bits you specifically need for your API.
Most of the PHP OAuth2 server implementations are not great. They do too much and are somewhat hard to integrate with. Rolling your own is not that hard and you're already fairly close to building something similar.
LOGOUT
The two reasons you might want a logout endpoint are:
If you use cookie/session based authentication and want to tell the server to forget the session. It sounds like this is not an issue for you.
If you want to tell the server to expire the access/refresh token earlier. Yes, you can just remove them from localstorage, and that might be good enough. Forcing to expire them server-side might give you that little extra confidence. What if someone was able to MITM your browser and now has access to your tokens? I might want to quickly logout and expire all existing tokens. It's an edge case, and I personally have never done this, but that could be a reason why you would want it.
REMEMBER ME
Yea, implementing "remember me" with local storage sounds like a good idea.
I originally took the /LOGON and /LOGOUT approach. I'm starting to explore /PRESENCE. It seems it would help me combine both knowing someone's status and authentication.
0 = Offline
1 = Available
2 = Busy
Going from Offline to anything else should include initial validation (aka require username/password). You could use PATCH or PUT for this (depending how you see it).
You are right, SESSION is not allowed in REST, hence there is no need to login or logout in REST service and /login, /logout are not nouns.
For authentication you could use
Basic authentication over SSL
Digest authentication
OAuth 2
HMAC, etc.
I prefer to use PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY [HMAC]
Private key will never be transmitted over web and I don't care about public key. The public key will be used to make the user specific actions [Who is holding the api key]
Private key will be know by client app and the server. The private key will be used to create signature. You generate a signature token using private key and add the key into the header. The server will also generate the signature and validate the request for handshake.
Authorization: Token 9944b09199c62bcf9418ad846dd0e4bbdfc6ee4b
Now how you will get private key? you have to do it manually like you put facebook, twitter or google api key on you app.
However, in some case you can also return [not recommended] the key only for once like Amazon S3 does. They provide "AWS secret access key" at the registration response.
I'm building some RESTful API for my project based on Play Framework 2.X.
My focus is on the authentication mechanism that I implemented.
Currently, I make use of SecureSocial.
The workflow is:
An anonymous user calls a secured API
Server grabs any cookie Id (kind of authentication token) and checks for matching in the Play 2 cache. (cache contains an association between cookie Id (randomly generated) and the user Id, accessible from database.
If any matched, user is authorized to process its expected service.
If none matched, user is redirected to a login page, and when filled with valid credentials (email/password), server stores its corresponding authentication data on Play 2 cache, and sends the newly created Cookie containing only a custom Id (authentication token) to user and of course, secured through SSL.
While the cookie/token doesn't expire, the user can call secured api (of course, if authorized)
The whole works great.
However, after some search, I came across this post, and ...I wonder if I'm in the right way.
Indeed, dealing with cookies ("sessions" in Play's term), would break the rule Restfulness.
Because an api really considered as stateless should be called with ALL the needed data at once (credentials/tokens etc..). The solution I implemented needs both calls: one to authenticate, the other to call the secured API.
I want to make things well, and I wonder some things:
What about the use of Api keys? Should I implement a solution using them instead of this SecureSocial workflow? Api Keys would be sent at EVERY API CALL, in order to keep restfulness.
I think about it since I want my APIs to be reached by some webapps, mobiles and other kind of clients. None of all are forced to manage cookies.
What about OAuth? Should I really need it? Would it replace totally the usage of simple api keys? Always with this objective of several clients, this known protocol would be a great way to manage authentication and authorization.
In one word, should I implement another mechanism in order to be Restful compliant?
this is quite an old Q, but still worth answering as it may interest others.
REST does mandate statelessness, but authorization is a common exception when implementing.
The solution you described requires a single authorization process, followed by numerous service calls based on authorized cookie. This is analog to api keys or OAuth. There's nothing wrong with cookies as long as the service isn't of high-security nature and that you expire then after a reasonable time.
Integrating OAuth into your service sounds a bit of an overkill and is recommended only if you expose the API to 3rd parties (outside your organization).
I have built a simple test API for a CakePHP application that will let a user login from a mobile device (or any device for that matter) and get a JSON response. This API could be used for a mobile app built in PhoneGap.
The login method looks like so:
public function login()
{
if($this->request->is('post'))
{
// Use custom method in Model to find record with password params
$findUser = $this->User->findUser(
$_POST['username_or_email'],
AuthComponent::password($_POST['password'])
);
// If a user exists and matches params
if($findUser)
{
$this->User->id = $findUser['User']['id'];
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('authenticated'=>true,'message'=>__('You have been logged in successfully'))));
}
else
{
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('authenticated'=>false,'message'=>__('Username or password is incorrect'))));
}
}
else
{
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('message'=>'GET request not allowed!')));
}
}
The mobile device (or any API user) can send their login details and then they get the request as JSON as true or false for authenticated. This boolean is NOT used to give the user access, it instead tells the mobile app if they can see certain screens and they ONLY get the data or can send data if the session exists!
As just stated, they are also actually logged into the API itself on the device so if they visit the website directly (from that device) they will have a session and see the same response for the JSON.
So essentially a user remains logged in for the duration of the session on the device they communicated with the server on. This is different to a token which would need to be passed for every request, where as in this example they have a session.
Now the questions...
Is it bad practice for the user to be 'actually' logged into the API
with a session like shown above? It seems like the most secure way to handle authentication for a device as it's using the same logic as the direct web root.
I've seen some APIs use access tokens instead which I've also
implemented (user gets their token returned instead of the boolean
and no session is created). But from what I can tell, this seems
like more work as then I need to check for the access token against
a user record every time a request is made.
edit
For the sake of clarity, I am not a supporter of REST, I AM a supporter of RESTful/RESTlike services. If you look at all of the API's on the internet, very few actually stick to one standard. Whatever scheme you choose will depend on your specific problem-space. Just try to be secure and use intuitive design choices (ie dont name a service "cats" if it returns info about "dogs")
end edit
It is good practice in RESTful API's to manage some form of session/tokenizing scheme. Really the ideal (at least in my opinion, there are many schools of thought on this problem) setup involves rolling tokens.
If you are at all concerned with the security of your API, then permissions should be managed out of your database layer. Yes, this creates a bottleneck, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING. Needing to hit the database every single time to validate a client's token adds an extra step in the entire process. This slows down the API, which is actually desireable in a secure system. You don't want a malicious individual to be able to hit your API 3000 times a second, you want their requests to hang for a (somewhat) sizeable fraction of a second.
This is similar to MD5 hashing algorithms. Many of them recalculate the hash a few hundred times, with random pauses in between. This helps to keep a malicious client from attempting to brute force a password (by making it take more time to test each variation of the password string). The same applies to your API.
The other benefit, is that if you DO have a malicious user trying to log in over and over again, if you are managing them from the database layer, then you can red flag their IP Address/username/what-have-you and just drop their requests at step 1.
Anyway, for a suggested process (with rolling tokens, you can cut out parts of this if it seems overkill, but this is hella secure):
User hits a 'login' service, this requires a username/password, and returns two tokens, a Private Access Token and a Public Request Token (the server stores these tokens in the db).
The client stores these Tokens in a secure place
User accesses another endpoint to push/pull some data
Request includes a timestamp
Request includes the Public Request Token
Request includes an Access Token=> This token should be a MD5 hash of the string resulting from concatenating the timestamp string to the end of the Private Access Token string
The server takes the Public Request Token, uses that to lookup the Private Access Token that was stored
The server takes that Private Access Token, and concatenates on the Timestamp String, it then takes the MD5 of this string
If the new Access Token matches the one that the client sent the server, HURRAY, this client is validated, so push/pull the data
(Optional) The server generates new tokens on every request, and returns them to the client. This way every transaction invalidates the old tokens, and if there was some kind of man-in-the-middle attack occurring, if the VALID user has already completed their request, the malicious user now has invalid tokens and can't start messing with your API. This scheme tries to ensure that a malicious user can not expect to intercept a single communication between the server and the client, and still gain access to the system. If they do, then the REAL user should immediately get invalidated tokens. Which should then trigger their API client to hit the 'login' service AGAIN, getting new valid tokens. This once again kicks the malicious user out of the system.
This scheme is not 100% secure, no user access system ever will be. It can be made more secure by adding expiration dates on tokens. This scheme also has the added benefit that you can assign specific permissions to users/tokens (ie Read-Only access, only certain End-Points can be seen, etc)
This is not the only way you can do things, I would look up other Authentication Schemes and take what you want from each of them (OAUTH is a good place to start, then I'd look at Facebook/Twitter/Instagram)
Make your app login everytime, but not with login-pass pair as Swayok lastly suggested. When you login, server generates a token and returns it back to the client. Client then uses this token whenever it makes a request. On each request, server checks whether the token is valid and if so, executes the request.
This is very similar to how sessions work in that, server side frameworks manage it internally and these tokens expire from time to time. However, as Swayok rightuflly pointed out, you don't want session mainly because you're RESTful API should have no state. You get the same utility without storing any user specific data regarding user and logging user in with every request.
Here's a good article on this, or you can try the Facebook Graph API explorer to see it in action
Restful API restricts using sessions and saving system state at all. Each request must log-in user.
Access tokes are great but also require additional handling.
The easiest way is to send authorisation data via HTTP Basic Auth ("Authorization" HTTP header)
http://www.httpwatch.com/httpgallery/authentication/
Mobile Applications can easily do that and it is easy to add this header for each request to API.
On server side:
$username = env('PHP_AUTH_USER');
$password = env('PHP_AUTH_PW');
And process user log-in with this data in ApiAppController->beforeFilter()
To answer your questions
Its not a bad practice as long as you close their session on app close and recreate it when needed. it is same as if they were logged in on a browser they would know and have facility to log out however the same should be available on the app as well otherwise they might have closed the app but not actually ended their session. You can handle this in many ways by asking them to log out automatic checking when they close app
Tokens are an enhanced way of doing the above however you have to consider how secure the token is when transmitted and server need to verify the token on each request. You have said that it seems like more work so yes its more work and if you have time or money constrains and looking for an answer to say if the session style would harm your application in future it wont as long as you are in control of session and not leaving user without ending the session. If you have time then implement tokens and you would like that.