I'm coding up a REST/RPC API for a web app that I'm creating. From what I've learned it seems like one of the core ideas behind REST is to not maintain any state. That said I find myself doing things like marking a session as authenticated on the server side of things and this feels like saving state. How far should I take this practice? Where should I draw the line? There are other things that would be really convenient to save as part of the session's variables but I'm wondering how do I know when I shouldn't or shouldn't do this.
I hope this is the right venue to ask this question. I debated on whether or not to post it in programmers but this just felt more appropriate.
UPDATE:
I'm told that using a ticketing system is better than using session variables to maintain things like auth information. Could someone include and answer that has a very highly description of how such a ticketing system would work?
You are correct - REST calls are ideally stateless, and storing something in a session variable, and using that for the REST call, is anathema. You can't, for instance, guarantee that a RESTful client can even send the cookie information necessary for the session variables.
If you need authentication, then you should have REST calls that return something like a ticket, then the REST caller would send that ticket as part of another call.
UPDATE
For a ticketing system, you generally want to use the same auth or similar auth system. For instance, if you require a user name and password, you might want the ticket request to POST that. A ticket is a GUID that is passed on subsequent calls. The ticket on the server can be stored in session, or in a DB (I typically have a TICKETS table, with things like expiration dates).
$result = file_get_contents('http://site.com?action=auth&user=matt&password=pass');
// parse $result XML for ticket or auth error
// subsequent calls...
$result = file_get_contents('http://site.com?action=getSomething&ticket=" . $ticket);
QuickBase works this way - you send an API_Auth action with a username, password and api app token, and get a ticket in return. Then you pass your api app token and the ticket on subsequent calls - both GET requests and POST sends.
Related
one question, maybe it's a bit longer, but i really hope someone can help me 🙏
I've been reading the docs but simply can't figure it out.
Is there a way i can create a signup feature where user creates an account (only simple one, email and pw) , and that account data is saved somewhere in a json file
And then the user can login via post method by typing his credntials.
And if credentials are correct (out of any other credentials there are in that particular json file) he gets a random jwt.
I mean i know i need to set up the rules if email and pw match any user and pw from the json file
Thanks!
Mockoon offers mostly stateless and independant endpoints mocking. Which means, there is currently no easy way to "code" it for such advanced use cases.
You can simulate a POST /signup and POST /login call, make sure the request looks OK by using Mockoon's rules, but they will not be linked and the credentials will not be persisted.
A system of CRUD endpoints is currently under development but it will allow for JSON manipulation only, not the kind of behavior you describe which is also very close to a production application.
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.
We are building ASP.NET MVC app that is supposed to manage sport objects reservations (tennis courts, squash courts etc).
Users are not supposed to act only in scope of one club at the moment of interaction with app.
Navigation to the app should be like:
appname.com/clubName or
clubName.appname.com
Questions:
1. What would be the best way to persist the data about selected club. We have implemented storing in session (injecting information about the club durint app opening), but we read that using session is rather deprecated solution. We are using ApiController so in order to get the session we had to hack the routing (registering custom RouteHandler). Is session mechanism applicable for this problem?
var session = HttpContext.Current.Session;
if (session != null)
{
service.ClubName = session[CustomSessionKeys.ClubName.ToString()].ToString();
}
Is it good idea to use subdomains for our problem?
Many thanks in advance :)
Generally a web api works differently than a normal mvc app.
In an MVC application you would use a session cookie to make the internet act like a state machine. However, this is not what is generally done for web api's. In a web api, you provide some form of authentication (e.g. via the header authentication field).
But within a request you ofcourse want to to keep track of the current user, or in asp.net terms, the current principal.
We set the principle though a Delegation handler
HttpContext.Current.User = user;
If you want some more code on how this whole authentication is done, just let me know.
This was all serverside ofcourse, on the client side, you can keep any information you want in a session store. Although you might want to consider using the local storage in stead (depending on what semantics you want to give it). They both work in the same way.
You can consult W3C webstorage specification for the complete information on both of these.
Well you have many choices I guess!
Go with the route thing as you suggested, where you keep the club Id or name as part of the URL. I would go for this if I need the link to give more meaning to the user.
Cookie! yes, if the information is not sensitive store it in a cookie. In case this cookie is only to be accessed from server side, then don't forget to make it HttpOnly
Session. I agree with you, I wouldn't choose session unless the data was very sensitive and I needed to make it secure.
I have built a simple test API for a CakePHP application that will let a user login from a mobile device (or any device for that matter) and get a JSON response. This API could be used for a mobile app built in PhoneGap.
The login method looks like so:
public function login()
{
if($this->request->is('post'))
{
// Use custom method in Model to find record with password params
$findUser = $this->User->findUser(
$_POST['username_or_email'],
AuthComponent::password($_POST['password'])
);
// If a user exists and matches params
if($findUser)
{
$this->User->id = $findUser['User']['id'];
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('authenticated'=>true,'message'=>__('You have been logged in successfully'))));
}
else
{
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('authenticated'=>false,'message'=>__('Username or password is incorrect'))));
}
}
else
{
$this->autoRender = false;
$this->response->type('json');
$this->response->body(json_encode(array('message'=>'GET request not allowed!')));
}
}
The mobile device (or any API user) can send their login details and then they get the request as JSON as true or false for authenticated. This boolean is NOT used to give the user access, it instead tells the mobile app if they can see certain screens and they ONLY get the data or can send data if the session exists!
As just stated, they are also actually logged into the API itself on the device so if they visit the website directly (from that device) they will have a session and see the same response for the JSON.
So essentially a user remains logged in for the duration of the session on the device they communicated with the server on. This is different to a token which would need to be passed for every request, where as in this example they have a session.
Now the questions...
Is it bad practice for the user to be 'actually' logged into the API
with a session like shown above? It seems like the most secure way to handle authentication for a device as it's using the same logic as the direct web root.
I've seen some APIs use access tokens instead which I've also
implemented (user gets their token returned instead of the boolean
and no session is created). But from what I can tell, this seems
like more work as then I need to check for the access token against
a user record every time a request is made.
edit
For the sake of clarity, I am not a supporter of REST, I AM a supporter of RESTful/RESTlike services. If you look at all of the API's on the internet, very few actually stick to one standard. Whatever scheme you choose will depend on your specific problem-space. Just try to be secure and use intuitive design choices (ie dont name a service "cats" if it returns info about "dogs")
end edit
It is good practice in RESTful API's to manage some form of session/tokenizing scheme. Really the ideal (at least in my opinion, there are many schools of thought on this problem) setup involves rolling tokens.
If you are at all concerned with the security of your API, then permissions should be managed out of your database layer. Yes, this creates a bottleneck, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING. Needing to hit the database every single time to validate a client's token adds an extra step in the entire process. This slows down the API, which is actually desireable in a secure system. You don't want a malicious individual to be able to hit your API 3000 times a second, you want their requests to hang for a (somewhat) sizeable fraction of a second.
This is similar to MD5 hashing algorithms. Many of them recalculate the hash a few hundred times, with random pauses in between. This helps to keep a malicious client from attempting to brute force a password (by making it take more time to test each variation of the password string). The same applies to your API.
The other benefit, is that if you DO have a malicious user trying to log in over and over again, if you are managing them from the database layer, then you can red flag their IP Address/username/what-have-you and just drop their requests at step 1.
Anyway, for a suggested process (with rolling tokens, you can cut out parts of this if it seems overkill, but this is hella secure):
User hits a 'login' service, this requires a username/password, and returns two tokens, a Private Access Token and a Public Request Token (the server stores these tokens in the db).
The client stores these Tokens in a secure place
User accesses another endpoint to push/pull some data
Request includes a timestamp
Request includes the Public Request Token
Request includes an Access Token=> This token should be a MD5 hash of the string resulting from concatenating the timestamp string to the end of the Private Access Token string
The server takes the Public Request Token, uses that to lookup the Private Access Token that was stored
The server takes that Private Access Token, and concatenates on the Timestamp String, it then takes the MD5 of this string
If the new Access Token matches the one that the client sent the server, HURRAY, this client is validated, so push/pull the data
(Optional) The server generates new tokens on every request, and returns them to the client. This way every transaction invalidates the old tokens, and if there was some kind of man-in-the-middle attack occurring, if the VALID user has already completed their request, the malicious user now has invalid tokens and can't start messing with your API. This scheme tries to ensure that a malicious user can not expect to intercept a single communication between the server and the client, and still gain access to the system. If they do, then the REAL user should immediately get invalidated tokens. Which should then trigger their API client to hit the 'login' service AGAIN, getting new valid tokens. This once again kicks the malicious user out of the system.
This scheme is not 100% secure, no user access system ever will be. It can be made more secure by adding expiration dates on tokens. This scheme also has the added benefit that you can assign specific permissions to users/tokens (ie Read-Only access, only certain End-Points can be seen, etc)
This is not the only way you can do things, I would look up other Authentication Schemes and take what you want from each of them (OAUTH is a good place to start, then I'd look at Facebook/Twitter/Instagram)
Make your app login everytime, but not with login-pass pair as Swayok lastly suggested. When you login, server generates a token and returns it back to the client. Client then uses this token whenever it makes a request. On each request, server checks whether the token is valid and if so, executes the request.
This is very similar to how sessions work in that, server side frameworks manage it internally and these tokens expire from time to time. However, as Swayok rightuflly pointed out, you don't want session mainly because you're RESTful API should have no state. You get the same utility without storing any user specific data regarding user and logging user in with every request.
Here's a good article on this, or you can try the Facebook Graph API explorer to see it in action
Restful API restricts using sessions and saving system state at all. Each request must log-in user.
Access tokes are great but also require additional handling.
The easiest way is to send authorisation data via HTTP Basic Auth ("Authorization" HTTP header)
http://www.httpwatch.com/httpgallery/authentication/
Mobile Applications can easily do that and it is easy to add this header for each request to API.
On server side:
$username = env('PHP_AUTH_USER');
$password = env('PHP_AUTH_PW');
And process user log-in with this data in ApiAppController->beforeFilter()
To answer your questions
Its not a bad practice as long as you close their session on app close and recreate it when needed. it is same as if they were logged in on a browser they would know and have facility to log out however the same should be available on the app as well otherwise they might have closed the app but not actually ended their session. You can handle this in many ways by asking them to log out automatic checking when they close app
Tokens are an enhanced way of doing the above however you have to consider how secure the token is when transmitted and server need to verify the token on each request. You have said that it seems like more work so yes its more work and if you have time or money constrains and looking for an answer to say if the session style would harm your application in future it wont as long as you are in control of session and not leaving user without ending the session. If you have time then implement tokens and you would like that.
Im steadily building the resources of my API, however after much research on the correct ways to build a RESTful API, I have been unable to find an example of how 'complex' requests should be received.
For example, as part of the login process (which is little more than an authentication key update), the following URI is dispatched by the client:
/api/auth/login
There are no values on the URI, the resource is /auth/ and the command being triggered is /login/. The actual login details are sent to the server Authorization header.
Now, what prompted me to ask this question is as I was writing a command to allow the client to get a reminder of how long the key is valid for, I was immediately drawn to getkeyexpiration or something similar as a command name.
Suddenly I felt that this doesn't sound like what I read about in the 6 constraints, this feels more like operation calls.
So, based on the above examples, is this still a RESTful API? I am concerned as I cannot think of a way to perform this by simply using URI resource names and appended values.
Thank you
EDIT:
From reading this: http://blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2011-07-03-nobody-understands-rest-or-http
I am starting to understand that by naming resources and only resources with noun words, the context of how the server will operate becomes a lot clearer.
Regarding my above example:
/api/auth/login
I have used auth as a prefix of login, because that is the context of the resource. I am designing my system to be extendible and require a way to categorize resources on the URI level. Is there a standard way of doing this?
Your RESTful resources should be nouns, because HTTP provides the verbs.
I would suggest something like this instead:
/api/key
Which you can then POST to (with HTTP Authorization headers included) create a new key, returning something like this:
/api/key/1234ABCDBLAHBLAH
This is a key specific to your session, which you can then GET to retrieve details about it such as expiration time, etc. You will have to pass that key with each subsequent request, of course.
If the key stuff sounds clunky when discussed in the context of a RESTful API, it's because it usually is. Sessions are human/browser concepts, but RESTful APIs are application/integration concepts.
Since servers don't "log on" to other servers, this begs the question: if you're already OK with requiring the caller to pass an Auth header to your login API, why not just require it be passed for each API call, and forget the notion of keys altogether?