Goal: My server needs to direct non-users to a landing/home page, and logged in users to the actual app. When the app is loaded, it will make authenticated HTTP requests to a RESTful API (via Ajax).
I have a RESTful API that needs authentication. On another server I have my website, which also needs authentication, so I can determine whether to display the landing/home page for non-users or the app for logged in users.
Initially I thought it would be enough to implement HTTP Basic Auth for the RESTful API. However, in order to get authentication running for my website too, I would also need to setup authentication there, which would mean duplicating the low-level code to check the credentials in the database in both the REST API and the website servers.
Alternatively, I wondered if the website could authenticate via the RESTful API. For example, in my request handler for POST /login, I could make a GET request to my API, passing along the user credentials from the request body. If the request returns 200 OK, I could sign the user’s session, thus authenticating them. From there onwards, the Ajax requests to the REST API need to be authenticated with the same credentials, so I could:
set a cookie containing the credentials, thus allowing the JavaScript to retrieve the credentials before doing the request (OK with SSL?)
dump the credentials in the served HTML for the web app thus allowing the JavaScript to retrieve the credentials before doing the request (OK with SSL?)
proxy the API through the web app server, where I could retrieve the credentials from the session and add them to the Authorization header of the proxied request?
Alternatively, I imagine I could just share a session between the two servers, although I’ve heard that’s bad practice for RESTful design.
What would be wrong with doing it like this? Is there a better way to meet my goal?
I recently implemented something similar to this (assuming I understand you correctly), and there seemed to be a few viable options.
Have the server side of your web-app always authenticate with a specific username/password when accessing the REST API, ensuring that your web-app is always trusted and assuming that users are properly logged in on the web-app if a request is authenticated as the app.
Pros: Easy to implement, easy to understand, easy to extend for other applications as well (we had a CLI that accessed the same REST API as well).
Cons: It's impossible for the REST API to know which user is actually accessing it. If a trusted client is compromised the whole system is compromised.
Have the server side of your web-app keep user details in the session and authenticate using the users credentials every time you access the REST API.
Pros: Fairly easy to implement (although some authentication mechanisms make it hard to keep hold of the user password - for good reason). The whole procedure is transparent to the REST API.
Cons: You're now storing (for all intents and purposes in clear-text) the username and password of a user in the session of the web-server - one of the most prime targets for attack in the system.
Create an authentication system on the REST API that authenticates a request with a username/password authorization and returns a token that is valid for a limited time.
Pros: More secure, if your web-app is compromised you're not providing the attacker with your users username/passwords, but instead only allowing them a limited time access.
Cons: Much harder to implement. You might need to deal with token timeouts specifically. For purists it also means that your REST implementation (or at least the authentication system) will be arguably "stateful".
What you should implement would depend on your situation. Personally I'd definitely go with the more secure option (the last one), but due to external constraints we were forced to implement the first option in our specific case (with the promise we'd revisit it and upgrade later - unfortunately later never comes).
I think your approach with using Basic HTTP Authentication in REST service and having your app authenticate with the service is perfectly fine. The only caveat here (which I am sure you are aware of), is that your REST service should run over SSL, as Basic HTTP authentication is not very secure - username and password are just Base64 encoded.
Related
I am building a system with an ASP.NET Core web app (incidentally, in Blazor), which let's call "Site", and some domain web services (which might someday be used by other sites), one of which let's call "CustomerService".
Following various guides and articles on how to set up authentication with Open ID Connect and Azure Active Directory for this system, I see the following possible different approaches to authentication and authorization, especially with regard to AJAX requests:
Site-only auth, passthrough: Service trusts the site; site authenticates user.
Service-only auth, passthrough: Service authenticates user; site passes through all AJAX requests.
Service-only auth, CORS Service provides site client data via CORS, with authentication; site doesn't handle AJAX requests at all.
Service and site auth, passthrough: Service and site both authenticate user; site passes through some AJAX requests.
These all seem to have significant practical problems. Is there a fifth approach, or a variation I should be considering?
Here's my elaboration of these approaches.
(1) Service trusts the site; site authenticates user:
(1a) Set up Site.Server to use Open ID Connect for users to authenticate, implement all necessary authorization on Site.Server, pass through web API calls to CustomerService, and set up CustomerService to trust requests that come from Site.Server. This looks like a bad idea because then any user can spoof Site.Server and have full access to operations that should be secured on CustomerService. Also, CustomerService would not be able to enforce authorization; we'd be trusting Site.Server to get it right, which seems suboptimal.
(1b) Same as (1a), but Site.Server would know a secret API key that would be passed to CustomerService, either in headers or the API call's querystring or body. This doesn't seem so great because the API key would never change and then could be discovered and spoofed by any user. Still, this could work, as the API key could stay secret, and we could use our secret server for both sides to retrieve it. But still CustomerService would not be able to enforce authorization; we'd be trusting Site.Server to get it right, which seems suboptimal.
(1c) Same as (1b), but we come up with a mechanism for rotating the API key occasionally. This doesn't seem so great because the API key would change and then could be discovered and spoofed by any user. Still, this could work, as the API key could stay secret, and we could use our secret server for both sides to retrieve it. But still CustomerService would not be able to enforce authorization; we'd be trusting Site.Server to get it right, which seems suboptimal.
(2) Service authenticates user; site passes through all AJAX requests: Avoid any authentication on Site.Server and instead enforce authorization/authentication on CustomerService only through Open ID Connect+Azure AD. Site.Server would have to pass through requests including headers to CustomerService. This has the benefit of putting the security in the right place, but it seems unworkable, as the user has no way to authenticate on CustomerService since the user isn't using CustomerService directly; their AJAX requests still go to Site.Server.
(3) Service provides site client data via CORS, with authentication; site doesn't handle AJAX requests at all: Avoid any authentication on Site.Server and instead use CORS to allow the user's browser to connect directly to CustomerService, requiring authentication only through Open ID Connect+Azure AD. This has the benefit of putting the security in the right place, but how can a user authenticate on a AJAX request without having done so in a human-browsable way first? My AJAX request can't redirect to microsoftonline and prompt the user, can it? Plus CORS seems like a bad idea in general--we want to move away from cross-site anything; to the user, it should appear that Site.Server is serving up both AJAX calls and HTML page requests, right?
(4) Service and site both authenticate user; site passes through some AJAX requests. Put authentication on both Site.Server and CustomerService, with the same app ID, making them appear as one and the same site as far as Azure AD knows. Site.Server could do its own authentication and restrict certain service calls from getting to CustomerService, or it could pass through requests, including headers, to CustomerService, which could then deny or grant access as well. This is what we decided to do, but I question it now, as if I add a
second service, now it has to have again the same app ID to keep this approach.
None of these approaches seem to hit the mark. Am I missing another approach that I should be considering? Or is there a variation I am missing?
Here are my thoughts on what an option 5 is:
WEB UI
Code runs in the browser and interacts with the Authorization Server to authenticate the user. A library such as OIDC Client does the security work for you.
Provides best usability and simplest code. The UI uses access tokens to call cross domain APIs. Renewing tokens is tricky though, and browser security requires some due diligence.
WEB BACK END
Is static content only, deployed around the world close to end users - perhaps via Azure CDN. Must execute zero code. Provides best performance.
WEB UI SAME AS MOBILE UI
Your Web UI in effect operates in an identical manner to a mobile UI and is quite a bit simpler, with less need for cookies + double hops.
ENTRY POINT API
The browser UI interacts with an entry point API tailored to UI consumers. This API validates tokens by downloading Azure AD token signing keys. It is also has first say in authorizing requests.
The entry point API orchestrates calls to Core APIs and Azure APIs such as Graph. The Web UI uses a single token scoped to the entry point API and you can strictly control the UI's privileges. Meanwhile the API can use Azure AD's 'on behalf of' feature to get tokens for downstream APIs so that the UI does not need to deal with this.
DOMAIN APIs
These typically run in a locked down private cloud and are not called directly by the outside world. This allows you closer control over which types of caller can invoke which high privilege operations.
BLOG POSTS OF MINE
My blog's index page has further info on these patterns and the goals behind them. Maybe have a browse of the SPA Goals and API Platform Architecture posts.
There are some working code samples on this page. In my case the hosting uses AWS instead of Azure, though concepts are the same.
I'm writing a web app with a separate frontend and backend. The frontend is written in React, and the backend is a node.js server running an Express endpoint. How do I ensure that only my frontend can access the API, and not anyone else? My API URL is exposed in my frontend client side code, so anyone can see that.
I added JWT authentication to my API, but I still need to have an unprotected /login endpoint in order to generate the JWT token, and in order to login to generate the token, I must post both a username and password from my frontend, which other users can see, since it's done from the client side.
What is the proper way of securing an API that is hosted on a separate backend like this, so that only my frontend can access it, in a way where nobody can see what credentials are being used to access the endpoint?
You can't. Your API is on the internet. Anyone can access it. You can require an account and login credentials for the account before allowing access to the API, but once someone has an account and credentials, they can access the API from their own script rather than via your web page. This is how the web works. Not much you can do about it. And credentials being used by the client cannot be hidden. All data that is EVER on the client can be looked at by a hacker on the client. This is the way of the web.
Larger companies will typically monitor their API usage to look for inappropriate use. This includes rate limiting, detecting behaviors and sequences that are not typical of a regular human user. When they detect inappropriate use, they will often disable that action or ban the offending account, either temporarily or permanently. This is also why some pages use techniques to detect if an actual human is individually causing the operation such as reCaptcha. For example, on stack overflow, when editing comments or posts, I often run into rate limiting where it tells me that I have to wait a bit before it will accept my edit.
There is no absolutely secure way to store credentials in a client. The most common scheme for credentials is to require username and password (securely over https) and then when that is accepted on the server as legit credentials, some sort of token is issued to the client which can be used for future API calls. That token may be in a cookie or may need to be manually included with each subsequent API call (the advantage of a cookie when using APIs from a browser is that the cookie is automatically sent with each subsequent request).
If the token is a cookie, then the cookie is stored in the browser's cookie storage and an expiration can be set for it. The browser's cookie storage is protected from access by web pages from other sites, but can be accessed by someone on the local computer (it's stored in the file system).
If the token is not a cookie, just returned as a token, and the client wishes to store it, there are a few other places that Javascript provides access to in order to store it. Local storage has similar security as cookie storage. It is protected from access by other web sites, but can be accessed by a person on the local computer.
I'm having some trouble deciding how to implement authentication for a RESTful API that will be secure for consumption by both a web app and a mobile app.
Firstly, I thought to investigate HTTP Basic Authentication over HTTPS as an option. It would work well for a mobile app, where the username and password could be stored in the OS keychain securely and couldn't be intercepted in transit since the request would be over HTTPS. It's also elegant for the API since it'll be completely stateless. The problem with this is for the web app. There won't be access to such a keychain for storing the username and password, so I would need to use a cookie or localStorage, but then I'm storing the user's private details in a readily accessible place.
After more research, I found a lot of talk about HMAC authentication. The problem I see with this approach is there needs to be a shared secret that only the client and server knows. How can I get this per-user secret to a particular user in the web app, unless I have an api/login endpoint which takes username/password and gives the secret back to store in a cookie? to use in future requests. This is introducing state to the API however.
To throw another spanner into the works, I'd like to be able to restrict the API to certain applications (or, to be able to block certain apps from using the API). I can't see how this would be possible with the web app being completely public.
I don't really want to implement OAuth. It's probably overkill for my needs.
I feel as though I might not be understanding HMAC fully, so I'd welcome an explanation and how I could implement it securely with a web app and a mobile app.
Update
I ended up using HTTP Basic Auth, however instead of providing the actual username and password every request, an endpoint was implemented to exchange the username and password for an access key which is then provided for every authenticated request. Eliminates the problem of storing the username and password in the browser, but of course you could still fish out the token if you had access to the machine and use it. In hindsight, I would probably have looked at OAuth further, but it's pretty complicated for beginners.
You should use OAuth2. Here is how:
1) Mobile App
The mobile app store client credentials as you state yourself. It then uses "Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.3) to send those credentials. In turn it gets a (bearer) token it can use in the following requests.
2) Web site
The website uses "Authorization Code Grant" (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1):
Website sees unauthorized request and redirects browser to HTML-enabled autorization endpoint in the REST api.
User authenticates with REST service
REST site redirects user back to website with access token in URL.
Website calls REST site and swaps access token to authorization token.
Here after the website uses the authorization token for accessing the REST service (on behalf of the end-user) - usually by including the token as a "bearer" token in the HTTP Authorization header.
It is not rocket science but it does take some time to understand completely.
3) Restricting API access for certain applications
In OAuth2 each client is issued a client ID and client secret (here "client" is your mobile app or website). The client must send these credentials when authorizing. Your REST service can use this to validate the calling client
I resolved this for my own API quite easily and securely without the need to expose any client credentials.
I also split the problem into 2 parts. API authentication - is this a valid request from a recognised entity (website or native app). API authorisation, is that entity allowed to use this particular endpoint and HTTP verb.
Authorisation is coded into the API using an access control list and user permissions and settings that are set up within the API code, configuration and database as required. A simple if statement in the API can test for authorisation and return the appropriate response (not authorised or the results of processing the API call).
Authentication is now just about checking to see if the call is genuine. To do this I issue self signed certificates to clients. A call to the API is made from their server whenever they want - typically when they generate their first page (or when they are performing their own app login checks). This call uses the certificates I have previously provided. If on my side I am happy the certificate is valid I can return a nonce and a time limited generated API key. This key is used in all subsequent calls to other API endpoints, in the bearer header for example, and it can be stored quite openly in an HTML form field or javascript variable or a variable within an app.
The nonce will prevent replay attacks and the API key can be stolen if someone wants - they will not be able to continue using after it expires or if the nonce changes before they make the next call.
Each API response will contain the next nonce of if the nonce doesn't match it will return an authentication error. In fact of the nonce doesn't match I kill the API key too. This will then force a genuine API user to reauthenticate using the certificates.
As long as the end user keeps those certificates safe and doesn't expose the method they use to make the initial authentication call (like making it an ajax request that can be replayed) then the API's are nice and secure.
One way of addressing the issue of user authentication to the API is by requesting an authentication token from the API when the user logs in. This token can then be used for subsequent requests. You've already touched on this approach - it's pretty sound.
With respect to restricting certain web apps. You'll want to have each web app identify itself with each request and have this authentication carried out inside your API implementation. Pretty straight forward.
My company is re-writing its e-commerce site as a single page application using the new Web API / SPA features in MVC 4. We're not sure about the best way how to handle authentication.
Specific questions:
How do we handle both encrypted and non-encrypted communication? Clearly, we need to use HTTPS for the login, account, and checkout AJAX, but we'd like to use HTTP for browsing the catalog in order to avoid expensive SSL handshakes that would slow the whole site down. Is this even possible for a SPA, or are we stuck with HTTPS for everything?
What sort of authentication should we use? Primarily our site will be accessed from a web browser, so cookies may be fine. But down the road, we may want to make a custom iPhone app. Is Basic Authentication, OpenId, or OAUTH preferable? If so, why?
If we go with Forms Auth and cookies, will the redirect issue be fixed for the release of MVC 4, or do I have to use the haack?
If we go with Basic Authentication, how do you do persistent sessions, so that users don't have to log in every time they go to the page again.
Which authentication methods are well supported by ASP.NET MVC 4. It'd be ideal not to have to write a lot of specialized code.
Thanks in advance
1. How do we handle both encrypted and non-encrypted communication? Are we stuck with one protocol, https, with a spa?
You are not stuck with one protocol. With a spa you can use ajax to communicate over http or https, whichever one you choose at any given time. I would use https for anytime your are sending sensitive information like a persons name or their birthdate or login credentials.
Once a user logins to your site over https then your server can set a forms authentication cookie for that user. This cookie should be an encrypted value that ties their session to the server. You must be aware that if the rest of your site is using http then you have the risk of this cookie being passed over the wire in plain text. Even though the contents of the cookie can be encrypted, using an encryption algorithm of your choosing, a malicious person can steal this cookie and jack your user's session.
This might not be a big deal to you though if they are only allowed to browse the site and create a shopping cart. Once the user is ready to checkout then you should re-authenticate the user, over https, as a sort of double check to make sure they are not a malicious user. Amazon does this.
2. What sort of authentication should we use?
Well, that's all a matter of what features do you want your site to have.
OAuth is for exposing webservices which you can allow other sites to call with delegated access. What this means is that if you have a user who wants another site (site x) to be able to access features on your site for their profile. The site x can redirect the user to an oauth endpoint on your site which will authenticate the user. Your oauth endpoint will ask the user if its okay that certain features are shared with site x and if the user agrees a token will be generated. The user passes this token to site x where site x will make server to server calls to your site. Site x will present the token in the calls so the calls to your services will be a delegated access call. OAuth is a way of provisioning other sites to make delegated access to your services. I hope i was able to explain that clearly.. I'm not always good at this.
OpenID is not a very secure way of handling authentication its more of a convenience so that users don't have to be hassled with registering an account with your site. Because OpenID is completely open you are trusting another provider to validate your users. If the third party provider's user store is compromised then your users are compromised also. It's an example of a voucher system where you are basically saying I will trust who you say you are, if you can have an OpenID provider vouch for you.
Another solution is WS-Federation. WS-Federation is if you have multiple sites and you want to have 1 authentication provider that you trust. This authentication provider can be yours and basically all your sites say if you want access to my site then you have to first be authenticated with my authentication provider. This authentication provider can live on a seperate domain and can choose any authentication mechanism it chooses. You are trusting that this auth provider will do its best job to manage your users accounts.
WS-Federation can be overkill though if you only want authentication on your site and don't have multiple sites. In that case I would just recommend doing Forms Authentication and this should be simple enough to do. There are lots of examples of how to do this and microsoft provides many solutions for how to do this. You should look into creating a custom membership provider.
Once a user has been authenticated with your site you should create a forms authentication cookie. This cookie ties the user to their session on the server. This applies to all the scenarios listed above. MVC 4 supports all the scenarios listed above also.
Thanks, and feel free to ask more questions if I wasn't clear enough.
** EDIT 12/1/2017 **
Coming back to this question years later I have learned that relying on cookies for REST based APIs is not a good idea. You don't want to create a session on your web application because it makes your app harder to scale. So, if you need authentication then use HTTPS with some form of authentication (BASIC, DIGEST, Token Based, etc..). So, your SPA client appl will set the Authorization header on every http request and then your web server app will re-authenticate every request.
The main downside of using ASP.NET's form based security is that it assumes you're want a 401 web page when your authentication fails (useless when you're doing an AJAX call) and it's really designed around doing redirects which kind breaks the whole SPA pattern. You can hack around it but it's not designed for the purpose you're using it.
This toolkit may provide an alternative to ASP.NET'as form model.
Not yet sure how mature it is ...
http://www.fluentsecurity.net
Feedback welcome.
I just started working with webapi myself so don't consider my answer authorative. I'm not a security expert though I should be. I ran into the same questions as you did and found, as you did, that there is no authorative answer though - within mvc webapi at any rate. Looking at other webapi specs may give you some inspiration.
The simplest way I came across was of course using SSL. That let's you get away with sending credentials in clear text in the header. Doesn't break rest.
My api will employ SSL all the way but I wanted to double up anyway. So I'm sending an encrypted key in the querystring for all my requests. Pretty much the way cookieless authentication works for a non api asp site, but mvc doesn't play with it so I've rolled my own solution.
On a mobile site, the user would log in, be redirected, to the app with the encrypted key encoded into the js. So he'll initially have a cookiebased auth for the site, and be responsible for it's protection, password saving etc.
Another api consumer would get a more permanent "secret" from a dev site yet to be made and use that to check out a key.
Normally mvc authentication is stateless, meaning the ticket is never invalidated server side. If you controll the client you can just ignore invalidate cookie requests if the server logs you out, and just keep on reusing the ticket. Eventuelly you might want to keep track of your tickets server side, but it's not stateless, doubt if it's restfull, and by consequence scalability taket a hit. But authentication is pretty important so...
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.