A typical recommendation for securing a REST API is to use HTTP Basic Authentication over SSL. My question is, should HTTP Basic Authentication only be used to authenticate the client (ie. the app accessing the API), or can it also be used to authenticate the user (the consumer of the app)?
It seems most APIs have to deal with both, as almost all web services employ some sort of user accounts. Just consider Twitter or Vimeo—there are public resources, and there are private (user specific) resources.
It seems logical that a simple REST API could do both client and user authentication at the same time using using HTTP Basic Authentication (over SSL).
Is this a good design?
By authenticate the client you probably mean the usage of API Key, this mechanism is used to track the concrete application/client. The second thing is that it gives you the possibility to disable the application by disabling the key, for example when client's author removes his account from the service. If you want to make your API public then it is a good idea.
But you need to remember that it gives you no real protection, everybody can download the client and extract that key.
I would not recommend to use Basic Authentication for API authentication. When it comes to authentication then you should consider that the application (client) developer has to implement its side of the authentication, too. Part of that is not only authentication itself but also how to get credentials and even much more than that.
I recommend to make use of an established authentication standard that ships with client libraries for the most popular programming languages. Those libraries make it much more likely that developers are going to adapt your API, because they reduce implementation effort on the client side.
Another important reason for using authentication standards is that they make developers (and others) more confident in the security of your authentication system. Those standards have been audited by experts and their weaknesses and strengths are well known and documented. It is unlikely that you are going to develop a nearly as solid authentication flow unless you are a security expert :-).
The most established standard in this field is OAuth but you can find alternatives by searching for "oauth alternatives".
How does OAuth help you with your problem setting?
In OAuth 2, the application client has to obtain an access token for a user before accessing any protected resource. To get an access token, the application must authenticate itself with its application credentials. Depending on the use-case (e.g. 3rd party, mobile) this is done in different ways that are defined by the OAuth standard.
An access token should not only represent a user but also which operations may be used on what resources (permissions). A user may grant different permissions to different applications so this information must somehow be linked to the token.
How to achieve such a semantic for access tokens however is not part of OAuth - it just defines the flow of how to obtain access tokens. Therefor, the implementation of the access token semantic is usually application specific.
You can implement such token semantic by storing a link between an access tokens and its permissions in your backend when you create the access token. The permissions may either be stored for every user-application combination or just for every application, depending on how fine-granular you want things to be.
Then, each time that an access token is processed by the API, you fetch this information and check whether the user has sufficient permissions to access the resource and to perform the desired operation.
Another option is to put the permission information into the access token and to sign or encrypt the token. When you receive the access token, you verify or decrypt it and use the permissions that are stored in the access token to make your decision. You may want to have a look on Json Web Tokens (JWT) on how to accomplish that.
The benefit of the later solution is better scalability and less effort during backend implementation. The downside of it are potentially larger requests (especially with RSA encryption) and less control over tokens.
Related
My team and I have been working on a web application for our clients that uses JSON web tokens for authentication and authorization. Using Azure AD as our identity provider, we verify a user's identity and generate a signed JWT with the user's permissions in it. The JWT then gets included in the authorization header of all subsequent requests to the APIs. Pretty standard stuff as far as JWTs go.
We're now being asked to provide the capability to link directly into our system from another third-party web application without forcing the user to reauthenticate. I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to do so without creating a massive security loophole.
The way I picture this working would be to implement an endpoint for programmatic authentication in our system that accepts a cryptographically signed payload with an API key and the user's ID or email address. The third-party system would have a private key with which to sign the payload, and we'd have a public one to verify the signature. If the request is legitimate, we'd issue a token for the specified user, and they could use that to link to whatever they like.
I'm already getting yelled at by at least one person that this is a complete joke from a security standpoint because, among other things, it completely bypasses AAD authentication. I believe the third-party system in question does use AAD for authentication, but that's not really relevant either way because we're trusting them implicitly whether they've authenticated their users or not. Either way I take his point.
I'm not a security expert and I don't claim to know whether there even is a proper way to do this kind of thing, but from my vantage it doesn't really seem all that much less secure than any other mechanism of authentication and authorization using JWTs. Is that true? Are we nuts for even trying? Is there a way to do it that's more secure? What should I know about this that I demonstrably don't already?
Thanks in advance for the help. At the very least I hope this spurs some helpful conversation.
Single Sign-On (SSO) enables users to enter their credentials once to sign in and establish a session which can be reused across multiple applications without requiring to authenticate again. This provides a seamless experience to the user and reduces the repeated prompts for credentials.
Azure AD provides SSO capabilities to applications by setting a session cookie when the user authenticates the first time. The MSAL.js library allows applications to leverage this in a few ways.
MSAL relies on the session cookie to provide SSO for the user between different applications.
Read more in this documentation.
Consider an API that a client accesses directly (machine to machine) and that doesn't require user-specific authentication. The way I understand it, in client_credentials, the client must store a client_id and client_secret that it uses to acquire and refresh tokens. With an API key, the client just stores the key. What makes OAuth more secure in this case? It would appear to me that if the API key is never compromised, no attacker could pose as the intended client. And if the API key is compromised, it is effectively the same as compromising the client_id and client_secret, which an attacker would be able to use to obtain tokens and access the data in the API, posing as the client.
edit: clarified this is a machine-to-machine call
TLDR;
The difference comes down to direct access vs. delegated access.
OAuth allows you to make delegated access. The benefits of delegated access don't change if there is a user involved or not. The same arguments that make the OAuth Authorization code flow attractive for user-to-machine access, apply to the OAuth Client credentials flow for machine-to-machine access.
Ask yourself, do you want the resource server to handle client credentials or not?
On confidential clients for machine-to-machine access, the cost of delegated access vs. direct access may very well outweigh the benefits. That's why so many APIs still use API keys. You'll have to decide that for your individual use case.
Differences
In the OAuth client credentials flow, the client sends an access token to the resource server, which it got beforehand by the authorization server after presenting its client ID and secret. The resource server never sees the client secret. With an API key, the client sends the key with every request.
OAuth adds an additional layer of indirection with the authorization server, such that the credentials themselves never get transmitted to the resource server. This allows the authorization server to give the client only access for a limited amount of time or with limited permissions, without ever needing to change the actual client credentials. It also allows to revoke access tokens without revoking the credentials themselves. For multiple instances of a client this allows you to revoke access for some but not all.
Of course this all comes at the cost of a more complex implementation, and an additional roundtrip from the client to the authorization server.
I won't touch on transmission (URL, header, body, etc.) or format (random string, signed JWT, etc.), since these can be the same for access tokens just as for API keys.
Another, maybe not so obvious, advantage of OAuth is having a clear spec that libraries, documentation and discussions can be based on. With direct access there is no single best practice and different people may understand different things when referring to direct access methods like API keys.
With client credential flow your Client Id and Client Secret are sent to the authorization server to get back an access token. For all subsequent request to the API/resource servers, you pass the access token and not the client credentials themselves. The access token is usually a JWT, which is a set of encoded claims including the token expiry (exp), not before (nbf), token issuer (iss), authorized party (azp), roles, permissions, etc.
This has a number of advantages over a simple API Key approach. e.g.
If the access token (which is included in requests to the API/resource server) is compromised, it's only valid until it expires (which is typically ~1 day for M2M tokens). If an API Key is compromised, it can be used indefinitely or until it's explicitly blocked by the API/resource server.
JWT access tokens are encoded JSON objects that contains a number of fields (a.k.a. claims) that can be used for fine grained authorization e.g. roles, permissions, grant type, authorized party etc. An API Key is generally opaque and is all or nothing when it comes to auth.
You machine tokens can get validated and authorized on the API/resource servers the same way as your user tokens, so you don't end up with multiple auth implementations on the back-end.
OAuth Client Credentials Flow
What is the security difference between API Keys and the client credentials flow of OAuth?
OAuth client credentials flow is not meant to be used by public clients, just between machines.
From auth0.com/docs:
Client Credentials Flow
With machine-to-machine (M2M) applications, such as CLIs, daemons, or services running on your back-end, the system authenticates and authorizes the app rather than a user. For this scenario, typical authentication schemes like username + password or social logins don't make sense. Instead, M2M apps use the Client Credentials Flow (defined in OAuth 2.0 RFC 6749, section 4.4), in which they pass along their Client ID and Client Secret to authenticate themselves and get a token.
So, I am not sure what is your scenario, but I will assume in my reply that you are referring to public clients.
If it is in the public client code, then it is public
The way I understand it, in client_credentials, the client must store a client_id and client_secret that it uses to acquire and refresh tokens.
Yes, it needs to be stored in the client code for the client to be able to obtain the OAuth token.
If you use the client_secret from a web app or mobile app you are making it public, therefore not a secret anymore.
Extracting secrets from public clients
For example, in a web app all it takes to extract the client_secret is to hit F12 in the browser and search for it, thus how much time can this take?
Now, in a mobile app, some may think it's secure because they are compiled into a binary but is almost as easy as it is in the browser, because we have several open-source tools that can help us with this task, like the MobSF framework, and on Linux, you can even achieve this with the strings command. Using the MobSF to perform static binary analysis on the mobile app binary allows for anyone without hacking knowledge to easily extract the client_secret in minutes, just like I show in my article How to Extract an API key from a Mobile App with Static Binary Analysis:
The range of open source tools available for reverse engineering is huge, and we really can't scratch the surface of this topic in this article, but instead, we will focus in using the Mobile Security Framework(MobSF) to demonstrate how to reverse engineer the APK of our mobile app. MobSF is a collection of open-source tools that present their results in an attractive dashboard, but the same tools used under the hood within MobSF and elsewhere can be used individually to achieve the same results.
So, the process of extracting the api-key in my article is the same you will use to extract the client_secret or any other string of your interest in the mobile app binary.
OAuth or API Key?
What makes OAuth more secure in this case? It would appear to me that if the API key is never compromised, no attacker could pose as the intended client. And if the API key is compromised, it is effectively the same as compromising the client_id and client_secret, which an attacker would be able to use to obtain tokens and access the data in the API, posing as the client.
If used from a public client neither are secure, because if read my linked article, you understand by now how easy is to bypass an API Key or extract the client_secret and client_id.
So, if your client is public you should not use the OAuth client credential flow, thus you need to go with the insecure API key approach or you can be more diligent and try to apply defence-in-depth approaches, but this will depend if the API clients are only web apps or mobile apps or both.
If your API clients are only web apps I invite you to read my answer to the question Secure API data from calls out of the app, especially the section dedicated to Defending the API Server.
In the case the API clients are only mobile apps then I recommend you to read this answer I gave to the question How to secure an API REST for mobile app?, especially the sections Securing the API Server and A Possible Better Solution.
On the other hand, if your API clients are both a web app and a mobile app I recommend you to apply the security measures more relevant to you from both answers linked above.
Remember that security is always about adding as many layers of defences as you can afford or it's required by law. Even in the past century, the castles were built with a lot of different security defence layers, thus this is nothing new to the digital era.
Do You Want To Go The Extra Mile?
In any response to a security question I always like to reference the excellent work from the OWASP foundation.
For APIS
OWASP API Security Top 10
The OWASP API Security Project seeks to provide value to software developers and security assessors by underscoring the potential risks in insecure APIs, and illustrating how these risks may be mitigated. In order to facilitate this goal, the OWASP API Security Project will create and maintain a Top 10 API Security Risks document, as well as a documentation portal for best practices when creating or assessing APIs.
For Mobile Apps
OWASP Mobile Security Project - Top 10 risks
The OWASP Mobile Security Project is a centralized resource intended to give developers and security teams the resources they need to build and maintain secure mobile applications. Through the project, our goal is to classify mobile security risks and provide developmental controls to reduce their impact or likelihood of exploitation.
OWASP - Mobile Security Testing Guide:
The Mobile Security Testing Guide (MSTG) is a comprehensive manual for mobile app security development, testing and reverse engineering.
For Web Apps
The Web Security Testing Guide:
The OWASP Web Security Testing Guide includes a "best practice" penetration testing framework which users can implement in their own organizations and a "low level" penetration testing guide that describes techniques for testing most common web application and web service security issues.
Authentication is a bit over the top for me.
My understanding is:
Client performs the login
API or authentication server responds with a token
Client calls API (includes a header which holds the token)
API checks if the token is valid and if valid responds with a resource
I checked several options:
IdentityServer4
Has the advantage to easily implement 3rd party authentication like Facebook. You can easily use the ASP.NET Core identities to authorize your API based on roles.
Custom (simple) JWT authentication
Reference: ASP.NET Core Token Authentication Guide
With this approach, you have to make your own identity user and fetch it from a database.
Cookie authentication
The client holds the token in a cookie when sending a request you have to send it too.
My front-end is written in JS and back-end is ASP.NET Core, so it's CORS.
I don't know what should I use and why? Why do many recommend to use IdentityServer4; isn't the simple custom authentication enough?
(I have problems with the IdentityUser properties and the "hidden" database checks)
The problem with authentication is that it may be simple to write a few lines of code that accomplish the end goal of authenticating your users, but it's really complex to do so in a way that you won't regret it later; aka my application got owned.
One of the steps to take to try to prevent that from happening is don't try to reinvent the wheel and stick to using current standards. However, even with standards, you need to implement them accordingly and that is why you probably see recommendations like the one you mentioned. I would actually make the same type of recommendation my self, delegate as much as you can to third-party libraries like IdentityServer4 or cloud services like Auth0. (you should know I work at Auth0, so you can consider me biased; however, for a non-biased recommendation you can check ThoughtWorks Technology Radar).
Also, if you store tokens in cookies, although the storage and transmission of the token happen differently this is still a token based-authentication system; for more on the possible implications of choosing a client-side token storage approach check where to save a JWT in a browser-based application.
In relation to CORS, you did not make that explicit, so I thought it may be worthwhile to mention it. You only need to actually worry about CORS if you deploy your front-end and back-end in separate domains because even if development happens in isolation if they share a domain CORS is one less thing you need to worry about.
Conclusion
For a front-end browser-based application talking with a REST API, the most common approach is to go with token-based authentication that relies on OAuth 2.0 protocol to perform the actual issuance of the tokens. Additionally, you should aim to delegate token issuance to a third-party (IdentityServer4 or other) so that you don't need to implement or maintain that part of the system and only need to consume/validate the generated tokens.
I am working on an internal authentication system for users of a set of of RESTful web applications. Our intention is that a user should be able to sign-on once via a web form and have appropriate access to all these RESTful applications in our domain, which may be distributed in a private cloud across many servers. (I understand already that having a single authenticated session is not aligned with a pure RESTful approach, but this is a usability requirement.)
The applications themselves will be written in a variety of programming languages so a language-neutral approach is required. It was suggested to me that we might use OpenID or OAuth or a similar framework to handle the authentication but my understanding is that these are intended for third-party services and not the first-party services that would share data on our internal system. In this case, we might have a central provider service with all the other applications treated as third parties (or relying parties).
Questions:
Are OpenID/OAuth suitable for authentication among first-party services?
If so, how would one be advised to set up authentication for this use case?
Wouldn't a user have to grant individual permission to each first-party server that they wanted to use, just as they would need to grant individual permission to any third-party server? I think this would violate the requirement of having a single sign-on for accessing all the first-party services.
Are there good examples of sites supporting this first-party use case?
What would be a good alternative framework for this first-party use case?
You do not need OAuth for SSO services.
The primary use/advantage of OAuth is, as you know already, granting access to a 3rd party app to access/use your resource in a controlled manner.
Rather than having an authentication/authorization server that you would need for OAuth, why not use a single log in service across all your APIs. An OAuth access token is totally different from what you need.
As far as I understand, what you can have is something like OAuth in a way that your server vends out tokens to the app. (I'm assuming that it's a totally internal system, so tokens cannot be misused).
So basically what I'm proposing is:
When an app tries to access the first API it's redirected to a web-form.
The user enters credentials and is taken to the DB for verification. Let there be a service that generates a token for the user/app
Next API access request would be made with that token - the token uniquely identifies the app
Depending on the level of security you need you can sign some text using HMAC and send it as token, or if its totally internal just generate a unique identifier for the app/user and send it to other API
On receiving the token, each service first calls the main server with the token and internally fetches the corresponding customer/user ID and performs the required function.
In short separate the login + token generation + token verification into a different module. All APIs should use this module for login/token verification.
What I have proposed here works like OAuth but all security aspects have been stripped down since you want to use it in a private cloud.
Oauth supports multiple different kinds of flows. You can use the client crendentials flow from Oauth 2.0 to avoid asking the user to grant permission for every app (this is intended for the cases where you control both the server and the app or where you want to preauthorize certain apps). This post does a good job explaining everything: http://tatiyants.com/using-oauth-to-protect-internal-rest-api/
Suppose I have a front-end application that wants to fetch some data from a back-end service. (I do.) The service will need to verify that the end-user is authenticated, that it is authorized to use the service and possibly filter the returned data based on the user's privileges. In my case, both the front-end app and the back-end service relies on Azure ACS for authentication.
Ideally the front-end would like to act on the behalf of the authenticated user, which sounds like a good fit for using an ActAs token (as specified in WS-Trust). However, it turns out that ACS does not currently support ActAs.
A workaround could be to use the actual bearer token (the bootstrap token in the front-end app) to authenticate to the back-end service. It's not hard to do, but would it be a bad idea for some reason?
From your front-end app, you could certainly pass along the identity data of the end user by either sending the token as is or sending the attributes from it. Both have issues. For the former, if it's also encrypted, the front- and back-ends will have to share the private key needed to decrypt it; they will also have to share audience restrictions, etc. in order for the back-end to consider the token valid for it. In other words, the front- and back-ends will be ONE relying party, not two. Might not be a problem, but be aware. In the latter case, you end up sending user data in a proprietay way which could increase integration and maintenance costs over time. In both cases, you can authenticate the front-end app to the back-end using some other type of credential, e.g., a certificate used at the transport level and, thus, forming a trusted subsystem between them.
One thing that I would suggest you consider instead is OAuth 2. From this blog post, it seems to me that ACS supports it (though I don't have any first hand experience w/ it). The truely wonderful thing about OAuth 2 is that it bakes delegation in, and is NO WHERE near as complex as ActAs in WS-Trust. The net result is the same, i.e., the back-end service will have info about the calling service and the end user, but the amount of effort to get it setup in incomparable. The tokens will still be bearer tokens, but you can mitigate that to a degree by using SSL. Beyond SSL, you can put some additional measures in place, but the best, IMO, would be if Microsoft did something in ACS like Google has done w/ their Access Tokens for service accounts which uses asymmetric keys that are chained up to a PKI. (BTW, for all I know, Microsoft may have already done something like that; if so, you're set.)
Anyway, HTH!