I'm currently using Thinktecture's Identity Server as a security token service to handle the issuing of tokens based on username and password claims. This fits perfectly for a scenario where the authenticating client is an actual user authenticating against a web application for instance, but I'm now interested in scenario for when the authenticating party happens to be an independent process on the server that needs to establish a security token to pass to another server process. I'm ideally after a few pieces of advice here:
1. Is this a valid approach to authentication for server processes communicating with each other?
2. What if I were to move one of the server processes to a different machine talking across a TCP boundary instead perhaps? Is this approach still valid.
3. What ClaimTypes would I use for authentication of the process? And is the Thinktecture Identity Server happy to authenticate against these? I assume I'll probably have to write a custom authentication extension to it to do so...
Thanks very much,
Clint.
One of IdentityServer's authentication protocols is the "simple http" -- you pass in credentials and get back a token. This might be what you want.
Oh, there's also the WS-Trust endpoints as well.
Related
Just found out that the basic workflow for token-based authentication is as follows:
User requests access by providing username and password
The application validates the credentials and returns a token to the client
The token is then stored on the client and sent with every request henceforth
The server then validates the token and returns private data as a response
Now, I understand the flow more or less, however, I'm having issues with the terms application, client and server. I understand the term server to mean where the API is stored... which is also part of the application. But the application could also be anything from a web app to a mobile app on various platforms... a client in other words.
So isn't it true that the application includes both the server and the client. So what does it mean by each term exactly, in the above context?
On second thoughts... I guess the original token is being generated on the server side, and this is then being returned to the client. Is this true?
Those terms terms are pretty overloaded in software development, so it's always difficult to nail down the exact meaning without focusing in a very specific context. Bear in mind that even authentication can be seen as a very broad context.
I would rephrase your proposed workflow to the following:
User requests access by providing a set of user credentials (we don't have to use passwords all the time, see passwordless authentication out of curiosity).
The authorization server validates the user identity and, if valid, issues an access token.
The client application from which the user started the process receives and stores the issued access token.
The client application calls into a resource server using the access token in order to obtain user associated resources.
Damn, now we have even more terms, but let's try to fix that by providing some definitions.
First, the ones more generic:
Client: An application that obtains information from a server for local use.
Credentials: Usernames, passwords, email addresses—any of a variety of means for communicating parties to generate or obtain security tokens.
(source: Auth0 Identity Glossary)
Then definitions within the context of OAuth 2.0 and/or OpenID Connect:
Authorization server: The server issuing access tokens to the client after successfully authenticating the resource owner and obtaining authorization.
Resource server: The server hosting the protected resources, capable of accepting and responding to protected resource requests using access tokens.
Client: An application making protected resource requests on behalf of the resource owner and with its authorization. The term "client" does not imply any particular implementation characteristics (e.g., whether the application executes on a server, a desktop, or other devices).
(source: RFC 6749)
It's not even useful trying to define application, but what we should conclude from the other definitions is the following:
As you said, a client can range from web, to mobile to event server-side applications.
The role of the authorization server and resource server can be played by the same component, for example, a Web API that has an endpoint protected by HTTP basic authentication that can be used to exchange a pair of username/password credentials with an access token and then all the remaining API endpoints are protected in such way that only allow access if you provide that access token.
Finally, one final note to clarify your last question, yes, the creation of the access tokens need to happen on the server side because the creation of the token will be accompanied by some kind of mechanism that will ensure that the token cannot be tampered with and was in fact created by a very well-know entity. For the case of JWT's this mechanism consists of signing the token which is accomplished by having the server know a secret that no one else knows.
There is a lot of discussion about microservice architecture. What I am missing - or maybe what I did not yet understand is, how to solve the issue of security and user authentication?
For example: I develop a microservice which provides a Rest Service interface to a workflow engine. The engine is based on JEE and runs on application servers like GlassFish or Wildfly.
One of the core concepts of the workflow engine is, that each call is user centric. This means depending of the role and access level of the current user, the workflow engine produces individual results (e.g. a user-centric tasklist or processing an open task which depends on the users role in the process).
In my eyes, thus a service is not accessible from everywhere. For example if someone plans to implement a modern Ajax based JavaScript application which should use the workflow microservice there are two problems:
1) to avoid the cross-scripting problem from JavaScript/Ajax the JavaScript Web application needs to be deployed under the same domain as the microservice runs
2) if the microservice forces a user authentication (which is the case in my scenario) the application need to provide a transparent authentication mechanism.
The situation becomes more complex if the client need to access more than one user-centric microservices forcing user authentication.
I always end up with an architecture where all services and the client application running on the same application server under the same domain.
How can these problems be solved? What is the best practice for such an architecture?
Short answer: check OAUTH, and manage caches of credentials in each microservice that needs to access other microservices. By "manage" I mean, be careful with security. Specially, mind who can access those credentials and let the network topology be your friend. Create a DMZ layer and other internal layers reflecting the dependency graph of your microservices.
Long answer, keep reading. Your question is a good one because there is no simple silver bullet to do what you need although your problem is quite recurrent.
As with everything related with microservices that I saw so far, nothing is really new. Whenever you need to have a distributed system doing things on behalf of a certain user, you need distributed credentials to enable such solution. This is true since mainframe times. There is no way to violate that.
Auto SSH is, in a sense, such a thing. Perhaps it may sound like a glorified way to describe something simple, but in the end, it enables processes in one machine to use services in another machine.
In the Grid world, the Globus Toolkit, for instance, bases its distributed security using the following:
X.509 certificates;
MyProxy - manages a repository of credentials and helps you define a chain of certificate authorities up to finding the root one, which should be trusted by default;
An extension of OpenSSH, which is the de facto standard SSH implementation for Linux distributions.
OAUTH is perhaps what you need. It is a way provide authorization with extra restrictions. For instance, imagine that a certain user has read and write permission on a certain service. When you issue an OAUTH authorization you do not necessarily give full user powers to the third party. You may only give read access.
CORS, mentioned in another answer, is useful when the end client (typically a web browser) needs single-sign-on across web sites. But it seems that your problem is closer to a cluster in which you have many microservices that are managed by you. Nevertheless, you can take advantage of solutions developed by the Grid field to ensure security in a cluster distributed across sites (for high availability reasons, for instance).
Complete security is something unattainable. So all this is of no use if credentials are valid forever or if you do not take enough care to keep them secret to whatever received them. For such purpose, I would recommend partitioning your network using layers. Each layer with a different degree of secrecy and exposure to the outside world.
If you do not want the burden to have the required infrastructure to allow for OAUTH, you can either use basic HTTP or create your own tokens.
When using basic HTTP authentication, the client needs to send credentials on each request, therefore eliminating the need to keep session state on the server side for the purpose of authorization.
If you want to create your own mechanism, then change your login requests such that a token is returned as the response to a successful login. Subsequent requests having the same token will act as the basic HTTP authentication with the advantage that this takes place at the application level (in contrast with the framework or app server level in basic HTTP authentication).
Your question is about two independent issues.
Making your service accessible from another origin is easily solved by implementing CORS. For non-browser clients, cross-origin is not an issue at all.
The second problem about service authentication is typically solved using token based authentication.
Any caller of one of your microservices would get an access token from the authorization server or STS for that specific service.
Your client authenticates with the authorization server or STS either through an established session (cookies) or by sending a valid token along with the request.
We are using WCF services. Right now, we are using Windows Auth but this is not for long. Some services will sit outside the firewall and use username/password verified in the database.
My tech lead is "scared" at how easy any user can "Add Reference" to the services we have and just party on. He wants to "guard" the services by adding another identity - the application. He wants the service to accept requests from certain applications so the certain users cannot just use the service - add reference to it and call. It’s the notion of the application having an identity + credentials that is the operative principle here, as services on the network may need to authenticate those credentials prior to fulfilling a request, in order to prevent rogue code inside the network (i.e., NOT the application) from accessing services using “Joe User” end-user credentials.
Does this make any sense?
Then he believes the Juval Lowy's book has, in an Appendix that discusses sending more than one identity during a WCF call (Security Interceptor). There is no specific suggestion that all of those have to be end-user identities and if that is the case, one of those could be the identity of the application making the request.
How can this be done?
Thanks,
Sam
The problem with sending an application identity is that the secret used to confirm that identity has to be stored somewhere. If it is visible to one application on a machine then generally it will be visible to other applications running under the same identity.
Would your manager be happy with "it came from an authorised machine"? If that's the case you could simply use Client Certs
Its also worth taking a step back: if the user is authenticated and is authorized to perform the functionality they have requested, why do you care which application they came from - if they are who they say they are and they are allowed to do what they are requesting then why couldn't they use, say, fiddler to make the request - isn't that the point of a service (rather than a closely coupled client server app)?
You might want to look through Common Security Scenarios in the MSDN documentation to see if any of those options fit your needs.
The options that pops to my eye are Transport Security with Certificate Authentication and Message Security with Mutual Certificates. Both rely on X.509 certificates. The latter option is on the message level, so you can handle certificate delivery and security negotiation however you want.
To make it a lot harder for someone to add a reference to your service you could just remove the mex endpoint. This way it would be very difficult for a stranger to create a valid request message.
You can then distribute the WSDL manually, only to people you trust.
(I tried searching, but couldn't find any truly helpful links.)
We are implementing a set of WCF services. What I would like to do in these services is have the clients (which will be trusted application servers) be able to pass a token of some sort to the web service to authenticate. I do not want to be required to pass username/password on the initial or subsequent requests (because in some cases the calling application server may not have the password). Windows and Kerberos are not usable in our specific circumstance.
I had thought to just create a simple custom UserNameSecurityTokenAuthenticator class and modify it so that if the password is empty, it takes userName as the string-encoded token value (obviously checking the token itself to verify that it's valid at that point), but if the password is not empty, forwarding on the username/password to a MembershipProvider for checking. Basically I'd like to overload the username/password authentication to provide for token passing as well.
Is this possible? Can I simply plug in a token authenticator like this, or is there some other simple way to "intercept" requests like this (and update the actual username value from the decrypted token)?
Or is there some other incredibly simple way to allow the client to pass a custom token and have the server accept it that I'm just missing?
If it's a fairly controlled environment and not too many clients involved, then I'd try to set up something along the lines of the B2B scenario securing the transport link using certificates on both ends.
Certificates are not bound to Windows or an AD domain, and setting them up is a one-time job.
Read more about that WCF security scenario:
MSDN: Transport Security with Certificate Authentication
Fundamentals of WCF Security: Business Partner Applications
. WCF Security How-To's
I have a set of .NET applications running in a public web environment which connect to a centralized component made up of web pages and web services.
Is there any way to implement a security feature to make the centralized web pages be sure of the caller applications identity? Making a post and supplying a querystring parameter stating the caller application is a naive solution, someone can manually change it.
Any ideas? Tks in advance.
Assign secret keys to each client-server pair and use them to sign messages passed between client and server (using HMAC for example).
TLS/SSL/HTTP. You just need to enable client authentication. SSL is usually only used in the scenario where the server needs to be authenticated. But the server end can be configured to authenticate the client also. Digital certs need to be installed on both ends. This then uses all the appropriate crypto to do the job, ie. public authentication, establishment of secure channel, using Diffie-Hellman, RSA, AES/3DES, whatever you configure.
Take a look at this post. Good place to start.
Another option, perhaps have you look at OpenID?
The current situation:
Servers A, B, and C are trusted and controlled by you. A visitor comes to site A and views a page that sends data to site C, and the data contains something like "origin=A". We're concerned that the user will change that to "origin=B".
A simple fix:
You control all three servers, so let them communicate to verify incoming data. For example, A will change "origin=A" to "origin=A&token=12345", where the token value is random. The user tries to tamper with it and sends "origin=B&token=12345" to server C. C makes a trusted connection to B, saying "Did you send someone to me with token 12345?" B says "Nope" and C knows to reject the request.
This can be arbitrarily elaborate, depending on your needs and whether you're using https. Maybe tokens expire after a certain time period. Maybe they're tied to IP address. The point is that server C verifies any information that comes from the end user with servers A and B.
Are you asking about single-sign-on? (i.e. someone authenticated on AppA should also be able to use AppB and AppC without re-authenticating)
You can do this by configuring the machineKey for your apps so they can share asp.net authentication tokens.
The company I work for currently uses shared forms authentication cookies across the enterprise by using the same machine keys on each web server. However, this is not ideal if you wish to SSO across different domains and it's not very neat for windows app that need to come into the web farm to use the web service methods...
So, where we have to do this we are using SAML
But to clean this all up and make it more unified and more secure we are beginning to implement Geneva
If you communicate with the web services and web pages using http post, you avoid putting the info in a query string.
Send the data over https so that it cannot be tappered with.
You then need to make sure that the call is coming from your public web environment. One way of doing this is to use windows authentication, based on the identity of the application pool.
EDIT 1
Take a look at this link: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WCF/WCFBasicHttpBinding.aspx
It shows how to set up windows authentication for WCF basic http binding.
Maybe look at the HTTP REFERER field. Under certain conditions this may be treated as reliable. In particular: An A mimic site won't send users from A to C according to HTTP REFERER.