Related
If a user wants to change to a new email address, I use:
var token = await _userManager.GenerateChangeEmailTokenAsync(user, newEmail);
...and send a confirmation mail which includes this change token. The user clicks the link in the email, arrives back at the site, and now I need to change the email.
BUT, I don't know the new email address.
I've gone through the hassle of an confirmation mail loop, so I want to use it. Asking for the email again risks mistypings that could lock out the user from his account, and is also another hurdle for the user, and more code to maintain for me.
Obvious solutions:
ask for it again (and risk mistypings, and make the mail loop pointless)
store the new email address in User.NewEmailTemp (yuck, want to keep this stateless)
include it in the link in the email (bad security!)
There may be a better way. The change token includes a bunch of data, including a "purpose" which contains the new email address. Can I somehow extract/decode the purpose, or is it mangled as part of a hashing process?
The answer is simply to persist it. Stateless isn't really an option. However, that doesn't mean you need to necessarily pollute the user subdomain with it. You can, for example, create a separate entity like EmailChangeRequest, with props for the new email, the token, and probably a timestamp (mostly for pruning/expiration). The token, here, wouldn't be for validation, but rather for lookup, so it could be considered a key on the table.
Long and short, when the user clicks the link, you look up the request via the token, get the new email from that, and then call ChangeEmailAsync with that new email and the token.
If you're really opposed to persistence of any sort, I've toyed around personally with a JWT-esque approach previously. I say "-esque" because passing around a full encrypted and signed JWT as a query or route param is going to make for extremely long URLs for your confirmation links, perhaps even approach request limits. What I did instead, was chop off the header of the JWT, since the header is mostly meant for cross-client communication. In this scenario, I can safely assume an encryption method and issuer and such is unnecessary.
Another change I made was to use TOTP-style tokens instead of the encrypted hashes used by default. This serves to further reduce the JWT token size, and since I'm encrypting the JWT itself, it's not that important if the token inside is encrypted itself. The token provider for things like email confirmation can be easily customized in ConfigureServices, and there's built-in TOTP token providers that can be used, so this is also relatively low-friction.
I still don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to persist it, especially if you use a separate entity outside of your user subdomain. However, the pseudo JWT approach might fit your needs better if you don't want to go that route.
I have an account that I do referrals on and instead of having to make an entire landing page, and provide users with my referral link - I'll just have them purchase from my account.
Is there any way I could generate a link that will automatically log users in without me having to reveal my password?
You could definitely do this by using something like a JSON Web Token (JWT).
Basically, the way it works is like this:
On your server, you create a JWT that is signed with a secret key (some random string that only your server knows).
In your JWT, you include your user's account ID that you want the purchase to come from.
You email this JWT to the person in a link, something like https://mywebsite.com/order?token=<jwt-token-here>.
The user clicks that link.
Your web server takes the token out of the URL parameters, and ensures it is valid (that the signature is good).
Your web server then finds the account ID in the token, and retrieves that user account from your user database.
You then LOG that user in using cookies or whatever, and direct them to the purchase page fully logged in!
This is a pretty typical web flow for what you're trying to do, and is a totally fine way to do things like this. There are tons of JWT libraries out there that make this easy to do, so it shouldn't be very technically challenging.
The only other thing you should know in regards to creating JWTs, is that you can set an 'expiration' time. You should DEFINITELY do this, as you don't want someone to be able to log in using your token months in the future. The best way to do it would to likely be generate a token that lasts for 24 hours or so, then email THAT to the user. This way, it expires after one day.
Last thing to know: there are actually quite a few auth libraries that simplify this stuff. I'm the author of one, myself: express-stormpath. Depending on what you're trying to do, that might actually make your life wayyy easier as it can generate those tokens automatically, and handle session creations for ya.
Hope that helps!
I know this is not the first time the topic is treated in StackOverflow, however, I have some questions I couldn't find an answer to or other questions have opposed answers.
I am doing a rather simple REST API (Silex-PHP) to be consumed initially by just one SPA (backbone app). I don't want to comment all the several authentication methods in this question as that topic is already fully covered on SO. I'll basically create a token for each user, and this token will be attached in every request that requires authentication by the SPA. All the SPA-Server transactions will run under HTTPS. For now, my decision is that the token doesn't expire. Tokens that expire/tokens per session are not complying with the statelessness of REST, right? I understand there's a lot of room for security improvement but that's my scope for now.
I have a model for Tokens, and thus a table in the database for tokens with a FK to user_id. By this I mean the token is not part of my user model.
REGISTER
I have a POST /users (requires no authentication) that creates a user in the database and returns the new user. This complies with the one request one resource rule. However, this brings me certain doubts:
My idea is that at the time to create a new user, create a new token for the user, to immediately return it with the Response, and thus, improving the UX. The user will immediately be able to start using the web app. However, returning the token for such response would break the rule of returning just the resource. Should I instead make two requests together? One to create the user and one to retrieve the token without the user needing to reenter credentials?
If I decided to return the token together with the user, then I believe POST /users would be confusing for the API consumer, and then something like POST /auth/register appears. Once more, I dislike this idea because involves a verb. I really like the simplicity offered in this answer. But then again, I'd need to do two requests together, a POST /users and a POST /tokens. How wrong is it to do two requests together and also, how would I exactly send the relevant information for the token to be attached to a certain user if both requests are sent together?
For now my flow works like follows:
1. Register form makes a POST /users request
2. Server creates a new user and a new token, returns both in the response (break REST rule)
3. Client now attaches token to every Request that needs Authorization
The token never expires, preserving REST statelessness.
EMAIL VALIDATION
Most of the current webapps require email validation without breaking the UX for the users, i.e the users can immediately use the webapp after registering. On the other side, if I return the token with the register request as suggested above, users will immediately have access to every resource without validating emails.
Normally I'd go for the following workflow:
1. Register form sends POST /users request.
2. Server creates a new user with validated_email set to false and stores an email_validation_token. Additionally, the server sends an email generating an URL that contains the email_validation_token.
3. The user clicks on the URL that makes a request: For example POST /users/email_validation/{email_validation_token}
4. Server validates email, sets validated_email to true, generates a token and returns it in the response, redirecting the user to his home page at the same time.
This looks overcomplicated and totally ruins the UX. How'd you go about it?
LOGIN
This is quite simple, for now I am doing it this way so please correct me if wrong:
1. User fills a log in form which makes a request to POST /login sending Basic Auth credentials.
2. Server checks Basic Auth credentials and returns token for the given user.
3. Web app attached the given token to every future request.
login is a verb and thus breaks a REST rule, everyone seems to agree on doing it this way though.
LOGOUT
Why does everyone seem to need a /auth/logout endpoint? From my point of view clicking on "logout" in the web app should basically remove the token from the application and not send it in further requests. The server plays no role in this.
As it is possible that the token is kept in localStorage to prevent losing the token on a possible page refresh, logout would also imply removing the token from the localStorage. But still, this doesn't affect the server. I understand people who need to have a POST /logout are basically working with session tokens, which again break the statelessness of REST.
REMEMBER ME
I understand the remember me basically refers to saving the returned token to the localStorage or not in my case. Is this right?
If you'd recommend any further reading on this topic I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks!
REGISTER
Tokens that expire/tokens per session are not complying with the statelessness of REST, right?
No, there's nothing wrong with that. Many HTTP authentication schemes do have expiring tokens. OAuth2 is super popular for REST services, and many OAuth2 implementations force the client to refresh the access token from time to time.
My idea is that at the time to create a new user, create a new token for the user, to immediately return it with the Response, and thus, improving the UX. The user will immediately be able to start using the web app. However, returning the token for such response would break the rule of returning just the resource. Should I instead make two requests together? One to create the user and one to retrieve the token without the user needing to reenter credentials?
Typically, if you create a new resource following REST best practices, you don't return something in response to a POST like this. Doing this would make the call more RPC-like, so I would agree with you here... it's not perfectly RESTful. I'll offer two solutions to this:
Ignore this, break the best practices. Maybe it's for the best in this case, and making exceptions if they make a lot more sense is sometimes the best thing to do (after careful consideration).
If you want be more RESTful, I'll offer an alternative.
Lets assume you want to use OAuth2 (not a bad idea!). The OAuth2 API is not really RESTful for a number of reasons. I'm my mind it is still better to use a well-defined authentication API, over rolling your own for the sake of being RESTful.
That still leaves you with the problem of creating a user on your API, and in response to this (POST) call, returning a secret which can be used as an access/refresh token.
My alternative is as follows:
You don't need to have a user in order to start a session.
What you can do instead is start the session before you create the user. This guarantees that for any future call, you know you are talking to the same client.
If you start your OAuth2 process and receive your access/refresh token, you can simply do an authenticated POST request on /users. What this means is that your system needs to be aware of 2 types of authenticated users:
Users that logged in with a username/password (`grant_type = passsword1).
Users that logged in 'anonymously' and intend to create a user after the fact. (grant_type = client_credentials).
Once the user is created, you can assign your previously anonymous session with the newly created user entity, thus you don't need to do any access/refresh token exchanges after creation.
EMAIL VALIDATION
Both your suggestions to either:
Prevent the user from using the application until email validation is completed.
Allow the user to use the application immediately
Are done by applications. Which one is more appropriate really depends on your application and what's best for you. Is there any risk associated with a user starting to use an account with an email they don't own? If no, then maybe it's fine to allow the user in right away.
Here's an example where you don't want to do this: Say if the email address is used by other members of your system to add a user as a friend, the email address is a type of identity. If you don't force users to validate their emails, it means I can act on behalf of someone with a different email address. This is similar to being able to receive invitations, etc. Is this an attack vector? Then you might want to consider blocking the user from using the application until the email is validated.
You might also consider only blocking certain features in your application for which the email address might be sensitive. In the previous example, you could prevent people from seeing invitations from other users until the email is validated.
There's no right answer here, it just depends on how you intend to use the email address.
LOGIN
Please just use OAuth2. The flow you describe is already fairly close to how OAuth2 works. Take it one step further an actually use OAuth2. It's pretty great and once you get over the initial hurdle of understanding the protocol, you'll find that it's easier than you thought and fairly straightforward to just implement the bits you specifically need for your API.
Most of the PHP OAuth2 server implementations are not great. They do too much and are somewhat hard to integrate with. Rolling your own is not that hard and you're already fairly close to building something similar.
LOGOUT
The two reasons you might want a logout endpoint are:
If you use cookie/session based authentication and want to tell the server to forget the session. It sounds like this is not an issue for you.
If you want to tell the server to expire the access/refresh token earlier. Yes, you can just remove them from localstorage, and that might be good enough. Forcing to expire them server-side might give you that little extra confidence. What if someone was able to MITM your browser and now has access to your tokens? I might want to quickly logout and expire all existing tokens. It's an edge case, and I personally have never done this, but that could be a reason why you would want it.
REMEMBER ME
Yea, implementing "remember me" with local storage sounds like a good idea.
I originally took the /LOGON and /LOGOUT approach. I'm starting to explore /PRESENCE. It seems it would help me combine both knowing someone's status and authentication.
0 = Offline
1 = Available
2 = Busy
Going from Offline to anything else should include initial validation (aka require username/password). You could use PATCH or PUT for this (depending how you see it).
You are right, SESSION is not allowed in REST, hence there is no need to login or logout in REST service and /login, /logout are not nouns.
For authentication you could use
Basic authentication over SSL
Digest authentication
OAuth 2
HMAC, etc.
I prefer to use PUBLIC KEY and PRIVATE KEY [HMAC]
Private key will never be transmitted over web and I don't care about public key. The public key will be used to make the user specific actions [Who is holding the api key]
Private key will be know by client app and the server. The private key will be used to create signature. You generate a signature token using private key and add the key into the header. The server will also generate the signature and validate the request for handshake.
Authorization: Token 9944b09199c62bcf9418ad846dd0e4bbdfc6ee4b
Now how you will get private key? you have to do it manually like you put facebook, twitter or google api key on you app.
However, in some case you can also return [not recommended] the key only for once like Amazon S3 does. They provide "AWS secret access key" at the registration response.
I want to to implement password recovery in my web application.
I'd like to avoid using secret questions.
I could just send the password by e-mail but I think it would be risky.
Maybe I could generate a new temporary random password and send it by e-mail but I think it is as risky as the above point.
Can I send a url by e-mail for example http://example.com/token=xxxx
where xxxx is a random token associated with the user. So when the user navigates to that url he/she can reset the password.
When I was in the Air Force the security rule we had was: When setting or resetting passwords, do not send the user id and the password in the same email. That way, if someone is intercepting emails snooping for passwords, he has to successfully intercept BOTH emails, and be able to connect them, to breach security.
I've seen a lot of sites that use the "go to this URL to reset your password". Maybe I'm missing something -- I don't claim to be a security expert -- but I don't see how that is any more secure than just inventing a new, temporary password and sending it. If a hacker intercepts the email, why can't he go to that link and see the new password as well as the legitimate user could? It looks to me like extra hassle for the user with no security gain.
By the way, congratulations on NOT using security questions. The logic of this device escapes me. Since the dawn of computer security we have been telling people, "DON'T make a password that is information about yourself that a hacker could discover or guess, like the name of your high school, or your favorite color. A hacker might be able to look up the name of your high school, or even if they don't know you or know anything about you, if you still live near where you went to school they might get it by tryinging local schools until they hit it. There are a small number of likely favorite colors so a hacker could guess that. Etc. Instead, a password should be a meaningless combination of letters, digits, and punctuation." But now we also tell them, "But! If you have a difficult time remembering that meaningless combination of letters, digits, and punctuation, no problem! Take some information about yourself that you can easily remember -- like the name of your high school, or your favorite color -- and you can use that as the answer to a 'security question', that is, as an alternative password."
Indeed, security questions make it even easier for the hacker than if you just chose a bad password to begin with. At least if you just used a piece of personal information for your password, a hacker wouldn't necessarily know what piece of personal information you used. Did you use the name of your dog? Your birth date? Your favorite ice cream flavor? He'd have to try all of them. But with security questions, we tell the hacker exactly what piece of personal information you used as a password!
Instead of using security questions, why don't we just say, "In case you forget your password, it is displayed on the bottom of the screen. If you're trying to hack in to someone else's account, you are absolutely forbidden from scrolling down." It would be only slightly less secure.
Lest you wonder, when sites ask me for the city where I was born or the manufacturer of my first car, I do not give an actual answer tot he question. I give a meaningless password.
</rant>
First off, do not store a plain-text copy of the user's password, or even an encrypted version. You want to only ever keep a hashed copy of the user's password.
As for recover solutions, I find that the recovery link to change the user's password is the best solution in my experience. It will probably be a bit more convenient for the user, while being largely the same from a security point of view as sending a new random password to be changed after next login. I'd still recommend having the recovery url expire after a reasonable short period of time, as well as only being usable a single time.
Hard to say what you should do, as pretty much any solution to this problem will weaken security. Unless maybe you want to investigate sending an SMS, callback verification, one-time password generators, or other such schemes that take password recovery to a different medium.
However, what you should not do:
Send the password - because after all, as has already been mentioned, you don't have it.
Generate a new temporary password - not only is this as insecure as sending the password, it also leads to the possibility of a denial of service attack. I can go to the site, pretend to be you, request a new password and then (if you haven't checked your email) you can't log in, don't know why and have to request a new new password ...
The token is probably the way to go. Receiving it notifies a forgotten password request, but doesn't take any action unless you confirm. You would also make it a one-time token with a relatively short expiry time to limit risk.
Of course, a lot depends on the application. Obviously protecting financial and other sensitive information is more critical than preventing your account being hacked on mytwitteringfacetube.com, because while it's inconvenient, if someone wants to steal someone's identity on a social network site, they can just open their own account and masquerade with stolen information anyway.
Obviously, you can't send the original password by email, because you're not storing it (right?!). Sending a temporary password (that must be changed, because it only works for one login), and a link to reset the password are equivalent from a security point of view.
I don't unnderstand the attitude towards the secret question method. It's not like I am going to make my password "BlueHouse" and then make my security question "What are your two favorite things?" and the answer "Blue and Houses". The security question is not the magic key to get the actual password. It's usually a way to get a new password sent to the email address on file. I don't know how else you guys do it, but it sounds like you do one of two things.
1) The user clicks a "I forgot my password" button and the new password is sent to the user.
2) The user clicks a "I forgot my password" button and then has to answer a security question before getting the new password emailed to the address on file.
Seems to me that option number 2 is more secure.
Why is sending a token any more secure than sending the password? If an email account has been hacked, it's been hacked. It doesn't matter if there is a link to reset the password, a token, or a new password. Don't forget, most sites don't say "The new password has been sent to the following email address for you to hack into". A hacker would need to guess the email address that needs to be hacked.
I agree with Andy. Aren't security questions normally independent of the password? (mine are) Meaning they have a question and an answer and aren't related to the password. It seems like this is used to prevent spurious password reset requests and actually does have a use.
Imagine - someone could go to a site's "forgot password" utility and enter a zillion email addresses - or just one person they want to annoy. If the password is reset at that point, the people belonging to those email addresses would have to then notice in their email the password reset and login to the site with the reset password next time they went there. With the security question, this isn't as easy for someone to do.
I see Amazon sends a link to the given email. They also require you to enter a captcha to prevent DOS attacks. Because it's a link, I imagine that means they did not reset the password immediately and it would be reset once the user clicks the link. With the scenario above, the user would just see the email and note that "no I didn't do that" and go about their business not having to change their password needlessly. A security question might have prevented the attempt at the beginning and the legit user from getting the email in the first place.
Here's a whitepaper on it:
http://appsecnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/latest-forgot-password-best-practices.html
This one actually recommends secret questions as a major part of the authentication process. And sending an authentication code via email and requesting it is just an add-on layer you can optionally include.
It really comes down to how much security you want to have. One the one end of the extreme is a password reset process that involves contacting and certifying that you are who you claim to be, e.g. via id, because your mailbox could be compromised as well. Actually, as people tend to use the same password everywhere this is very likely. On the other end there is the standard approach that involves just sending out an email with a random new password.
"Secret" questions and answers are just another form of username and passwords with the fatal flaw that they are usually incredibly easy to guess, so good that you don't want to use them.
To your point about the token, I don't think it makes a big difference in overall security. Whether you send out a token that allows a user to change the password or whether you send out a random password right away doesn't make a big difference.
Just make sure the token is only usable once and preferably only in a limited time span, e.g. +24h after requesting it.
And, as pointed out by previous answers, NEVER EVER store plain passwords. Hash them. Preferably add salt.
Here's how I resolved it:
I added retrieve_token and retrieve_expiration fields to my 'users' table.
The user requests a password reset by providing their email and filling out captcha. A random hashed value is generated for their retrieve_token field - i.e. md5($user_id.time()), while retrieve_expiration will be set to a datetime that expires in next 45 minutes. Email is sent out to the user with a link:
https://example.com/reset-password?retrieve_token=912ec803b2ce49e4a541068d495ab570
SSL should be mandatory when authentication is required. You can also add a table for logging reset requests that stores email and the IP address. It helps track down possible brute attacks and you can block attacker's IP if necessary.
You could implement security question for requesting password reset, but I feel captcha would be enough to discourage anyone from repeating the request multiple times.
#Jay. The reason why you go to a URL to reset your password instead of just sending someone a new temporary password is more than just security. Without something like a URL with a token, a person could reset another persons password. There is no need to gain access to the email. If someone had a bone to pick with someone, they could just keep initiating a new password reset. Then the poor target has to logon and change the password again and again.
By sending a token, the user's password does not change until they login with it and confirm it. The spam of reset emails can be ignored. Tokens are just as easy (if not easier) to generate as a new password by using a GUID, it's not really extra hassle for the developer.
Also, because the GUID is unique (a generated password might not be), a token can be tied to a username. If the incorrect username is given on the URL, then the token can be cancelled (i.e. when a different person initiates it and someone intercepts it.. assuming that the username isn't the same as the email).
#Jay. The proper use of security questions is to initiate a password reset email, not for actually resetting the password. Without a mechanism such as a security question, one could initiate a password reset. Althought seemingly beign, sending a reset email could be sent to an email that might no longer belong to the original owner. This is not rare. For example, when employees leave a company, often those mails are forwarded to another employee. A security question, adds a low level of obfucation to that scenario. It also reduces issues where one person keeps initiating a password reset on the wrong account causing some poor sod to get unintentionally spammed. Security question are really not meant to be truely secure, they are just meant to reduce scenarios such as those. Anyone using a security question to actually reset the password is doing it wrong.
Regarding security question/answer. As a user of websites I personally don't use them (I enter garbage in them). But they are certainly not useless or meaningless as some say here.
Consider this situation:
A user of your site has left his desk to go to lunch and didn't lock his workstation. A nefarious user can now visit the page for recovering/resetting password and enter the user's username. The system will then email the recovered/reset password without prompting for the security answer.
Here's an example of how someone did it with Node.js, basically generate a random token, an expiry time, send out the link with the token attached, have a reset/:token route that ensures a user exists with that token (which is also not expired) and, if so, redirect to a reset password page.
http://sahatyalkabov.com/how-to-implement-password-reset-in-nodejs/
I'm wondering what the best method is for creating a forgot password function on a website. I have seen quite a few out there, here are a few or combination of:
passphrase question / answer (1 or more)
send email with new password
on screen give new password
confirmation through email: must click link to get new password
page requiring user to enter a new password
What combination or additional steps would you add to a forgot password function? I'm wondering about how they request the new password and how they end up getting it.
I'm operating on the principal that the password cannot be retrieved; a new password must be given/generated.
Edit I like what Cory said about not displaying if the username exists, but I'm wondering what to display instead. I'm thinking half the problem is that the user forgot which email address they used, which displaying some sort of "does not exist" message is useful. Any solutions?
I personally would send an email with a link to a short term page that lets them set a new password. Make the page name some kind of UID.
If that does not appeal to you, then sending them a new password and forcing them to change it on first access would do as well.
Option 1 is far easier.
A few important security concerns:
A passphrase question / answer actually lowers security since it typically becomes the weakest link in the process. It's often easier to guess someone's answer than it is a password - particularly if questions aren't carefully chosen.
Assuming emails operate as the username in your system (which is generally recommended for a variety of reasons), the response to a password reset request shouldn't indicate whether a valid account was found. It should simply state that a password request email has been sent to the address provided. Why? A response indicating that an email does/doesn't exist allows a hacker to harvest a list of user accounts by submitting multiple password requests (typically via an HTTP proxy like burp suite) and noting whether the email is found. To protect from login harvesting you must assure no login/auth related functions provide any indication of when a valid user's email has been entered on a login/pass reset form.
For more background, checkout the Web Application Hackers Handbook. It's an excellent read on creating secure authentication models.
EDIT: Regarding the question in your edit - I'd suggest:
"A password request email has been
sent to the address you provided. If
an email doesn't arrive shortly,
please check your spam folder. If no
email arrives, then no account exists
with the email you provided."
There's a trade-off being made here between ease of use and security. You have to balance this based on context - is security important enough to you and your users to justify this inconvenience?
Send email with new password.
FORCE a password change when they arrive and key in the new password.
This ensures that the person who wanted the password will be the only only getting in to the account.
If the email is sniffed, someone could get in to the account (of course), but the real party will discover this immediately (as their password you just sent them doesn't work).
Also send confirmations of password changes to the users.
If someone get the new password, and then an email saying "thanx for changing the password", they're going to be rather puzzled and will talk to an admin if they didn't do it.
Using the email verification/password reset link will give you better security.
If you look around this is how most websites do it and people are pretty used to this verification, so I'd recommend using this type of authentication.
I would think (gbrandt's) Option 2 would be a great method if it is combined with some personal information you already have for the user. i.e date of birth.
When the user requests a new password (reset) via entering his email address, he also has to enter a correct date of birth (or something else) before the password is reset and a new one is emailed to the user.
Only those who know him well can possibly annoy him by resetting his password! It cant be a stranger or a bot
Upon 5 or 7 bad email-address & date of birth combinations the user is emailed that his password has been requested to be reset and has failed due to an incorrect credential. Then password resetting for that account is suspended for 24hrs or any desired period.
(if too many users contact the webadmin regarding this email he'll know someone is trying to maliciously attain information from your website/app)
What do you guys think?
Option 1. is not a good idea, as generally his becomes easily guessable by others. Sarah Palin's personal email (Yahoo I think) was hacked in this way by a third party.
The other options are better and previous posts have outlined the detail.
The idea I was thinking about was to sign the data in the link that is sent to the user. Then, when the user clicks the link and the server receives the call, the server also gets the encrypted part and can validate that the data was untouched.
I have implemented a JAVA project for this use case. It is on GitHub, open source. It answers your question perfectly... implemented in Java.
As for the link in the email - it generates the link, plus validates it upon usage.
There are explanation for everything (and if something is missing - let me know...)
Have a look: https://github.com/OhadR/Authentication-Flows
See a Demo here.
This is the client web-app that uses the auth-flows, with the README with all explanations. it directs you the implementation: https://github.com/OhadR/authentication-flows/tree/master/authentication-flows