I'm making an parental application and I need the client (Windows Service) to update with the server every X seconds/minutes. For obvious reasons, I cannot have the user enter the password every time the client needs to update with the server, so I was wondering whether it would be better practice:
To send the username + password once, and get a token that doesn't expire until a new one is issued or
Store the username and password encrypted on the client computer
Using a token for authentication is always better that username+password because if someone manages to get access to the saved credentials (token or password) the damage by a revealed password is always higher that by a token that is random and is only used by your service and that can be replaced at any time.
Additionally humans tend to reuse passwords, which means a reveled password would raise security problems in more than just your service.
In my opinion OAuth2 is a good example of a token based authentication system: It has two types of tokens: refresh and access. The access token is like you have described and the refresh token allows to generate a new access token and invalidates the previous access token. This makes it possible to "update" the access token e.g. every week or month.
I want to create a login system using JWT and have these questions:
1- My client login and I generate a token for him/her and store the token in local storage. Now If somebody else copies this token from local storage of this person browser and paste in his/her (I mean hacker) browser local storage, this hacker will able to log in? If yes, is that safe?
2- I put user Id in the token that I generated On login function. On each request that is sending to the backend, I decode token and find userId in it. Now should I compare this user id by anything? Example checking that is there any session by this user ID in backend or even checking the user Id by DB?
3- should I put an expiration time for JWT token on the local store?
1 - It's safe to store these in localStorage. It is worth checking out how to protect against Cross site scripting attacks; this is particularly true for high security environments. Users copying and pasting is probably an unlikely attack, and, if the user has physical access to do the copy and paster, there are probably other 'vulnerabilities' like just using the browser's stored passwords.
2 - The JWT encrypts the user id included in the claim. A user can't change this claim and keep it valid (assuming a strong key), so no need to check this elsewhere.
3 - Yep! Since the JWT has a claim (like the user roles) in it, you don't want those to be valid for forever. Also, you want to have a way to ensure that users re-verify their identify (ie. log in again) just in case something goes wrong/a token is stolen. When you put an expiration on the token, you force this.
Let's consider this use case:
1) I call my API login endpoint with username and password and get my Auth token that I add to every consecutive request to the header as Authorization: Bearer <token>.
2) I call /current-user endpoint with no params, only with Authorization header. Server authorizes user using token and gets user's id from that token. Then he finds the user by id in database and returns it's data.
My question is, whether this approach isn't insecure. I'm wondering, what if I was an attacker and was calling /current-user endpoint using randomly generated tokens. Once I occasionally matched real token, the server would return me other user's data.
Isn't it necessary to store user id on client along with token and call requests using both? Eg. /user?id=<stored user id> with Authorization header and get rid of /current-user endpoint? After that some kind of ACL on server would determine, whether used token has allowed access to user with passed user id.
(I also found there are JWT tokens but I see the same problem there. As an attacker I would somehow manage to guess other user's token and server would return me his data)
For security purposes, it is normally assumed that the user id is known to the attacker anyway. For example, if the attacker already has or knows a legitimate account, she might be able to guess how other user ids are assigned.
Also, if your token is long enough and totally random, it doesn't really make any difference.
Look at it this way: let's say your token has length n, your user id has length m. Without the user id, the attacker has to guess n characters, with it included she has to guess n+m characters. If your n is high enough, you don't need those extra characters. Keep in mind that the effective length of the user id might be much shorter than its apparent length if your user ids aren't completely random, so the m added might actually be really small.
Is it possible for you to use digitally signed tokens? You could basically encrypt the token with the client's (or user's) private key and then encrypt the package along with plaintext userid again with the server's public key. That way only the server can decrypt the package and once decrypted, it knows who the user is. It can then use the public key associated with that userid to decrypt to the package and get the token.
As you havent provided much info on the application and the speed of authentication required or technologies you are using, it is difficult to provide any more info.
I was just wondering if this would be a reasonable way to write a custom authentication method for a RESTful API. It seems moderately secure, but perhaps I'm way wrong here.
1) Email and Password are sent over HTTPS to my server.
2) Server stores the email, and runs the password through a SHA512 hash with a 256 bit random salt. The hashed and salted password is stored in the database.
So now we have:
email = email#example.com
password = OHqhuewQclakufEjUbZMbowJKEGcvEBz,51c6a3cb58e10754f76e334de064a9dede7875141e1ce0233e3ff14fd7be98a4d5b8fc1c5ab871cb3b1d6b0c9f8073bc3558308511fc4fd6bd049aed5e58a9a4
3) Generate a random token with a lifetime (very random and large), store it the database, and then link that random token to that specific authenticated user.
4) I send the token back to the client through HTTPS (web, Android, or iOS), whereby it's stored in cookies or SharedPrefs or what have you.
5) Now, the client sends the token with every request. The server can then check the cached token value with the one it's receiving each time to make sure that the server always knows who's making requests.
Does this seem reasonable and secure? The issue I think that arises here is if the tokens data becomes compromised. Is there perhaps anyway to toughen that one part up?
you must know that there is nothing 100% secure,
you can store the ip of the user recent logged, if you receive another login from the same user from diferent ip, you can send back a response indicating that user is already connected
I'm referencing another SO post that discusses using refresh tokens with JWT.
JWT (JSON Web Token) automatic prolongation of expiration
I have an application with a very common architecture where my clients (web and mobile) talk to a REST API which then talks to a service layer and data layer.
I understand JWT token authentication, but I am a little confused at how I should use refresh tokens.
I want my JWT authentication to have the following properties:
JWT Token has an expiration of 2 hours.
The token is refreshed every hour by the client.
If the user token is not refreshed (user is inactive and the app is not open) and expires, they will need to log in whenever they want to resume.
I see a lot of people claiming to make this a better experience using the concept of a refresh token, however, I don't see the benefit of this. It seems like an added complexity having to manage it.
My questions are the following:
If I WERE to use a refresh token, wouldn't it still be beneficial to have a long term expiration for good practice on that token as well?
If I WERE to use a refresh token, would that token be persisted with the userId and/or JWT token?
When I update my token every 1 hour, how does this work? Will I want to create an endpoint that takes in my JWT token or my refresh token? Will this update the expiration date of my original JWT token, or create a new token?
Is there the need for a refresh token given these details? It seems that If the user is just using a JWT token to grab a new token (per the link above) then the refresh token is obsolete.
Let me come to your questions a little later down the line and start by actually discussing the whole purpose of a refresh token.
So the situation is:
The user opens the app and provides his login credentials. Now, most probably the app is interacting with a REST backend service. REST is stateless, there isn't a way to authorize access to the APIs. Hence, so far in the discussion, there is no way to check if an authorized user is accessing the APIs or is just some random requests coming through.
Now to be able to solve this problem, we need a way to know that the requests are coming from an authorized user. So, what we did was to introduce something called an access token. So now once the user is authenticated successfully, he is issued an access token. This token is supposed to be a long and highly random token (to ensure that it can not be guessed). This is where the JWT comes into the picture. Now you may/may not want to store any user-specific details in a JWT token. Ideally, you would want to just store very simple, extremely non-sensitive details in the JWT. The manipulation of the JWT hash to retrieve other user's details (IDOR etc.) is taken care of by JWT (the library being used) itself.
So, for now, our problem with authorized access is solved.
Now we talk of an attack scenario. Let's say using all of the above user Alice, using the app, has the authorized access token and now her app can make requests to all the APIs and retrieve the data as per her authorization.
Assume that SOMEHOW Alice loses the Access Token or put another way, an adversary, Bob, gets access to Alice's access token. Now Bob, despite being unauthorized, can make requests to all the APIs that Alice was authorized to.
SOMETHING WE IDEALLY DON'T WANT.
Now the solution to this problem is :
Either detect that there is something of this sort happening.
Reduce the attack window itself.
Using just the access token alone, it is hard to achieve condition 1 above, because be it Alice or Bob, it's the same authorized token being used and hence requests form the two users are not distinguishable.
So we try achieving 2 above and hence we add an expiration to the validity of the access token, say the access token is valid for 't' (short-lived) time.
How does it help? Well, even if Bob has the access token, he can use it only while it is valid. As soon as it expires, he will have to retrieve it again. Now, of course, you could say that he can get it the same way he got it the first time. But then again there's nothing like 100% security!
The above approach still has a problem and in some cases an unacceptable one. When the access token expires, it would require the user to enter his login credentials and obtain an authorized access token again, which at least in case of mobile apps, is a bad (not acceptable) user experience.
Solution: This is where the refresh token comes in. It is again a random unpredictable token that is also issued to the app along with the access token in the first place. This refresh token is a very long-lived special token, which makes sure that as soon as the access token expires, it requests the server for a new access token, thus removing the need for the user to re-enter his login credentials to retrieve a new authorized access token, once an existing one has expired.
Now you may ask, Bob can have access to the refresh token as well, similar to the way he compromised the access token. YES. He can. However, now it becomes easy to identify such an incidence, which was not possible in the case of an access token alone, and take the necessary action to reduce the damage done.
How?
For every authenticated user (in case of a mobile app, generally), a one to one mapped refresh token and access token pair is issued to the app. So at any given point in time, for a single authenticated user, there will be only one access token corresponding to a refresh token. Now assume that if Bob has compromised the refresh token, he would be using it to generate an access token (because access token is the only thing which is authorized to access resources through the APIs). As soon as Bob (attacker) requests with the newly generated access token because Alice's (genuine user) access token is still valid, the server would see this as an anomaly, because for a single refresh token there can be only one authorized access token at a time. Identifying the anomaly, the server would destroy the refresh token in question and along with it all, it's associated access tokens will also get invalidated. Thus preventing any further access, genuine or malicious, to any authorization requiring resources.
The user, Alice, would be required to once again authenticate with her credentials and fetch a valid pair of a refresh and access tokens.
Of course, you could still argue that Bob could once again get access to both refresh and access tokens and repeat the entire story above, potentially leading to a DoS on Alice, the actual genuine customer, but then again there is nothing like 100% security.
Also as a good practice, the refresh token should have an expiry, although a pretty long one.
I believe for this scenario you could work with the access token alone, making
life easier for your clients but keeping the security benefits of a refresh token.
This is how it would work:
When your user logs in with credentials (username/password) you return a
short-lived JWT. You also create a db record where you store:
JWT id
user id
IP address
user agent
a valid flag (defaults to TRUE)
createdAt
updatedAt
Your client submits the JWT in every request. As long as the JWT hasn't expired,
it has access to the resources. If the JWT expired, you refresh it
behind the scenes and return both the resource and an additional X-JWT header
with the new JWT.
When the client receives a response with an X-JWT header, it discards the
old JWT and uses the new one for future requests.
How refreshing the JWT works on the server
Look for the matching db record using the JWT id.
Check if the valid flag is still true, otherwise reject.
Optionally, you can compare the request IP address and user agent against
the stored IP address and user agent, and decide to reject if something looks
fishy.
Optionally, you can check the db record's createdAt or updatedAt fields, and
decide not to refresh if too much time has passed.
Update the updatedAt field in the db record.
Return the new JWT (which is basically a copy of the expired JWT, but with an extended expiration time).
This design would also give you the option to revoke all tokens for a user (for
example, if the user loses his phone or updates his password).
Benefits:
Your client never has to check expiration times or make refresh token
requests, all it does is check for an X-JWT header on responses.
You can add custom refresh logic based on IP address, user agent, max-token
age, or a combination of those.
You can revoke some or all tokens for a user.
If I WERE to use a refresh token, wouldn't it still be beneficial to have a long term expiration for good practice on that token as well?
Refresh Tokens are long-lived, Access Tokens are short-lived.
If I WERE to use a refresh token, would that token be persisted with the userId and/or JWT token?
It would be persisted as a separate token on the client, alongside JWT but not inside JWT. UserID/UID can be stored inside the JWT token itself.
When I update my token every 1 hour, how does this work? Will I want to create an endpoint that takes in my JWT token or my refresh token? Will this update the expiration date of my original JWT token, or create a new token?
Yes, you need a separate service that issues and refreshes token. It won't update the expiration of the existing JWT Token. A token is simply JSON field-value pairs that are base64 encoded. So changing the data, changes the output. The token also has the issue date, which will at the very least change on every fresh issue (refresh). So every token will be unique and new. The old tokens will auto-expire, hence you need expiration on all Access Tokens, otherwise they will linger around forever.
The other answer here states that old tokens get destroyed when you issue a new token. That's simply not the case. Tokens cannot be destroyed. In fact, you can harvest hundreds of tokens by constantly contacting the auth server and asking for new fresh tokens using your Refresh Token. Each of those Access Tokens will be valid till their expiry. So expiry is imperative, and it should be short.
Is there really the need for a refresh token given these details? It seems that If the user is just using a JWT token to grab a new token (per the link above) then the refresh token is obsolete.
JWT tokens have client claims. For example is_manager:true claim on a JWT token might allow access to manager-level features. Now if you decide to demote the user from manager to contractor, that won't take effect immediately. The user may still be using the old token. Finally when that expires, he hits the auth server to refresh his token. The auth server issues a new token without the managerial claim and the user won't be able to access managerial features any more. This creates a window during which the user's claims are not in sync with the server. This again explains why Access Tokens should be short-lived so sync'ing can happen often.
Essentially you are updating the authorization checks every 15 minutes, instead of checking them on every single request (which is how typical session-based auth works). If you want real-time permissions instead of every-15-minute refreshes, then JWT may not be a good fit.