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/
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.
I have used Auth0 for a while with success, I recently came across a new challenge: allowing external developers to access my API with credentials provided by my web app.
The current system comprises of:
a Web App (not a SPA currently) with Auth0 log in
a back end API with Auth0 api authentication
Currently there is a single client in Auth0. The user logs in on the website and when they call the API via the website the token is passed along in the headers.
My question is: what is the best way to allow developers to request direct access to the api, in a self service manner on my website?
I see two paths forward, either create a client for each developer application via the Auth0 management API (github style), or request a token on behalf of the developer with a VERY long lifespan (like AppVeyor).
I'm assuming that your API provides functionality and/or resources that are associated or owned by an end-user, and you want to allow other application to also access this data on behalf of each end-user. If this isn't the case, and you API is general-purpose and does not require the notion of an end-user identity then other approaches like API keys could also meet your requirements.
Considering the end-user delegation scenario, the approach I would recommend would be going with the creation of separate client applications within Auth0. Like you said, you could automate this process through the Management API so that this process could be handled in a self-service way. Despite being self-service, the application that enabled the registration could still apply constraints in order to make sure only eligible developers could obtain the necessary information to then obtain access tokens to access the API.
This has the benefit that if you wanted to stop an existing developer from using your API you could just remove the associated client application and they wouldn't be allowed to request access tokens anymore and the ones they already had would be short lived and soon expire. This requirement is more complex to implement when using long-lived tokens because they would need to be revoked/blacklisted.
A final note, if these applications don't require to act on behalf an end-user when calling your API and you would prefer to still accept access tokens instead of using a different approach like API keys, then you can consider registering client applications meant to use the client credentials grant.
Updated based on questions from #user18044 below
If a user is authenticated in two different web applications via 2 different SAML-based identity providers, and one of the applications needs to request data from a web API exposed by the other application, would it be possible to call the web API methods securely by virtue of the user's current authenticated status in both applications without separately securing the API methods via an API level authentication protocol such as OAUTH? Note that both applications are owned and operated by my company and share the same 2nd level domains and user base, even though the identity servers are different (one is legacy).
Some further information: Application A is a portal application that is going to host widgets using data supplied from Application B. Application A will only communicate with application B via a web API exposed by application B. Currently application B does not expose a web API (except internally to the application itself). This is new functionality that will need to be added to application B. Application A will use Okta as its SSO. Our lead architect's proposal is to continue to use a custom legacy IDP server that we developed internally based around using the dk.nita.saml20 DLL. They are both SAML based I believe, but I don't think they could share the same identity token without some retrofitting. But this is hitting the limits of my knowledge on the topic of authentication. :) I think our architect's plan was to have the user authenticate separately using the two different identity providers and then only secure the web API using CORS, his reasoning being that since the user is already known and authenticated to use application B, that there wouldn't be any security implications in allowing application A to call application B's web api methods, as the user should be authenticated in application B. This seems quirky to me, in that I can imagine a lot of browser redirects happening that might not be transparent to the user, but other than that, I'm just trying to figure out where the security holes might lie, because it feels to me that there would be some.
I know that this approach would not be considered a best practice, however with that being said, I really want to understand why not. Are there security implications? Would it even work? And if so, are there any "gotchas" or things to consider during implementation?
To reiterate, our lead architect is proposing this solution, and it is failing my gut check, but I don't know enough on the topic to be able to justify my position or else to feel comfortable enough to accept his. Hoping some security experts out there could enlighten me.
It's hard to answer without knowing more on how your current applications and APIs are secured exactly. Do the web application and its API have the same relying party identifier (i.e. can the same token be used to authenticate against both)?
If both web applications use the WS-Federation protocol to authenticate users, then most likely the SAML token will be stored in cookies that were set when the identity provider posted the token back to the application.
You do not have access to these cookies from JavaScript. If the web API that belongs to application B uses the same cookie based authentication mechanism, you could use this provided you allow for cross origin resource sharing.
If your web API uses something like a bearer token authentication scheme (like OAuth) or has a different relying party id in the STS, this would obviously not work.
I think the reason this fails your gut check is because you are basically accessing the web API in a way a cross-site request forgery attack would do it.
A problem I see with this approach is that if the user is not authenticated with the other web application, then the call to your API will also fail.
I agree with user18044 as far as it being based on a cross-site request forgery attack and the security between applications. Is it true that if User X has access to App A, that they will have access to App B and vice versa? If that is not the case, then each application will need to be authenticated separately...and it won't be a SSO. I found these links that might be helpful in your situation.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5583460/how-to-implement-secure-single-sign-on-across-various-web-apps
https://developer.salesforce.com/page/Implementing_Single_Sign-On_Across_Multiple_Organizations
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.
I am currently developing a web application that is right now comprised of a front end which displays and interacts with the data using a REST API we have written. The only thing that will ever use the API is our front end website, and at some point a mobile app that we will develop.
I have done a lot of reading about how OAuth is the ideal mechanism for securing an API and at this point I am starting to have a good understanding of how it works.
My question is -- since I am never granting access to my API to a third-party client, is OAuth really necessary? Is there any reason it is advantageous? Furthermore, because the back end is simply the API, there is no gateway for a user to authenticate from (like if you were writing an app using the Twitter API, when a user authenticates they would be directed to the Twitter page to grant to access then redirected back to the client).
I am not really sure which direction to go in. It seems like there must be some approach halfway between http authentication and OAuth that would be appropriate for this situation but I'm just not getting it.
From my point of view, one of the scenarios that favor OAuth over other options is to work with untrusted clients, no matter if these are developed by you or a third party.
What's an untrusted client? Think from the point of who handles the credentials that grant access to your API.
For example, your web application could interact with your API in two falvors:
Your web app server side talks to your API. Your web app server is a trusted client because the credentials to access your API can only be access by whom have access to the server...You and your team. You could authenticate your web app server with a client_id and a client_secret.
You may want to make calls directly to your API from your Web app client, which runs on the end user's browser using JavaScript. The end user's browser is an untrusted client. If you were to deliver the credentials to your API down to the browser, anyone could check the JavaScript code and steal your credentials.
A third party Native App is also untrusted. A malicious developer that uses your API could save the credentials of and end user of your platform.
Your Native App is a trusted client and could manage the authentication with a simple username , password and a client id identifying your App.
How can OAuth help? OAuth Authorization code and Implicit grants can help you with this issue. These flows only work with clients that support a redirect, like a browser. And let you authenticate an untrusted client and a user against your Authorization Server to gain access to your Resource Server, your API, without exposing the credentials. Take a look at the RFC to see how it is done.
The good thing of OAuth is that it not only supports these redirect based authentication flows, but it also supports client credentials grant and user credentials grant. So an OAuth Authorization Server would cover all cases.
OAuth 2.0 originally seems like a PITA if you think about having to build a lot of it yourself, but most languages have some really solid OAuth 2.0 setups which you can just bolt in with varying amounts of fiddling. If you're using a framework like Laravel or RoR then it's barely any work.
PHP: http://oauth2.thephpleague.com/
Ruby (Rails or Grape): https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper
If you don't want to redirect users as suggested in your post then ignore other comments and answers that talk about two legged flows. You can use the client_credentials grant type to have apps just provide their client id and secret in return for an access token, which is nice and easy.
I would ask how private are we talking, because if the only systems talking to it are within the backend and have no interaction with the outside world you could probably leave it wide open and just rely on the network to keep it safe (VPN/Firewall).
But if it's private in the sense of "our iPhone app uses it" then you definitely want to go with OAuth 2.0, or something like it.
2 legged OAuth is probably what you want to use. It's basically hashing a shared key, but you have the advantage of not having to write the code yourself.
Here's a related question: Two-legged OAuth - looking for information
You should use Oauth for mobile device to API layer communication.
However, there is no benefit of Oauth in this web UI layer to middle-layer access (machine to machine).
On the other hand there are some potential issues
Managing the access token expiry becomes a pain. Consider that your UI has to cache the access token across multiple nodes in a cluster. Refresh it when expired, and the fact that UI layer is negotiating security with backend will just take extra time once in a while.
In two legged Oauth (OAuth Client Credential as in v2.0) does not support any encryption. So you still need to send key and secret both to the server for getting an access token.
Backend has to implement issuing access token, refresh token, validating access token etc, without any significant benefit