I am building an ASP.NET MVC 3 app that has both a www front-end (www.example.com) and a developer API (api.example.com). I'd like to make a simple service available to developers where they sign up for a key and make REST calls with it. I'm unclear on a few things:
1) How should I generate and store keys? Is it acceptable to store them in plain text in the database or should I hash and salt them?
2) How do I authorize API calls? I'm guessing I don't want to do this via ASP.NET Membership for this.
Things like rate-limiting seems straight-forward once I understand those two issues.
1) That's really up to you. I've seen it done completely differently in different API's I've worked with. Some keys closely resemble GUID's, others are clearly just random strings, but the important thing is that they're unique and not easily guessable. As far as how you store it in the database, how much effort you put into protecting your data really depends on the level of sensitivity of users' accounts. If the nature of the service you're providing is highly confidential and/or you may end up being audited, then you should take whatever means are necessary to protect the data (using a 1-way hash and salting). My personal philosophy is to keep things as simple as possible until there's a reason to introduce added complexity, but I've worked on sites that used 1-way hashing with salts for authentication.
2) That depends on who's going to be using your service. You could use the built-in ASP.NET Forms Authentication Membership Provider, and even integrate it with your public website, but that will limit the usage of your API to developers using a platform that supports cookies on HttpProxies, and will make your API harder to follow. Most REST-ful services I've had experience with have used a combination of basic authentication and SSL, which will provide the broadest range of developer support, but will be more complicated to implement on your side. On the server side you'll have to capture the user credentials out of the HTTP headers and authenticate them against your user database.
Related
I've a situation where I'm creating a Blazor Server front end for an API, and that API may also be used directly by some other systems. Essentially some smaller customers might use the UI, others (perhaps larger with their own dev team) build their own UI and use the API. We control both sets of code (for the Blazor and the API).
Auth in the api is done (at the moment) by sending a userid and a password and getting a JWT Bearer token that is added to all subsequent requests.
Auth on the BS app is (at the moment) done using Azure AD B2C; the templating in VS makes it an easy setup and then no really specialist knowledge is needed to maintain and add new users
There isn't any special link between the two for now; both are in dev and the BS app just has a hard coded u/p for a single dev user inthe API side. At some point that needs to change so the API serves more than one customer via the UI
It seems I have a couple of routes I could go down:
Make the BS app use the API for auth; in my mind this looks like setting up something similar to what you get when you make a new BS app with "Individual Accounts" auth, except it doesn't use EF on a database with tables for tracking identity - it would probably use a custom store and usermanager that asks the API for auth instead of some DB, and then some (hopefully simple) mechanism of getting the returned token from the API into every httpclient that ends up being used to poke the API (they're abstracted away into proxies built by NSwag but it's easy enough to address because NSwag code calls a particular overridable method to setup the headers.. finding a way to have the httpclientfactory do it might be even easier)
Make the BS app and the API use AD B2C for auth. As a workflow I genuinely have no idea how that's done or what it looks like.
Of the two I'd prefer the latter because it hands off some additional responsibility to AD, such as maybe in future we want to have UI customers also do 2FA but I'm not really sure how to go about researching it. How do we go about sharing auth between the two systems?
I'm not looking for code; some rudimentary instructions on how to share the authenticated identity between the BS app and the API is really what I need. If it's not an achievable goal, what alternative mechanism for Blazor Server do I have that would allow easy sharing of a retrieved bearer across a everything the user might do in a "session" (I don't mind if they lose SignalR connection and have to log in again)?
If either of the approaches above look like I'm just making life hard work, and it should be done another way, an outline of the steps required to make it go would be ideal
There is a lot of information on the web about OAuth 2, its different types of flows and where/how to use them. I find that most of these resources discuss authenticating a user for an application, but I am struggling to understand what the best/correct approach would be when consuming third party APIs (i.e. when our own API is the "middleman" between a user and their data in a third party API).
With the help of an example scenario and some diagrams, I would be really grateful for advice/opinions on how I should properly implement integration with third party APIs and what the pros & cons of each approach are.
Starting point
As a starting point, suppose we have a web app, structured as follows:
Frontend - SPA (Angular), hosted with AWS S3 + Cloudfront
Backend - Node, running as stateless AWS lambda functions with AWS API Gateway
Auth0 for handling auth/signin etc. The frontend uses an Implicit OAuth2 flow to obtain access_tokens, which are stored in local storage and included as a header in all requests to the backend.
Potentially also native mobile app(s), consuming the same backend API.
Goal
Now suppose that we wish to add integration with Google Sheets. The new feature would allow users to use their own Google Sheets (i.e. stored in their own Google account) as a data source, with the app having read&write access to the sheet. There may be other integrations in the future, so I am assuming that other APIs would require a similar process.
Problem statement
In addition to the existing OAuth process (which allows users to sign in to the "MyApp" frontend and communicate with the "MyApp API"), there needs to be an additional OAuth process for users to connect MyApp to the third party Google Sheets API.
The documentation has two Quickstart examples, but neither seems to quite fit my needs:
Browser - https://developers.google.com/sheets/api/quickstart/js
Node.js (console app) - https://developers.google.com/sheets/api/quickstart/nodejs
The data from the third-party (Google) API is one of potentially several integration points, so intuitively it seems more logical (and more secure) that all communication with the Google Sheets API should happen in the MyApp API, and not on the frontend/client side. The MyApp API would fetch data, process/manipulate/format it in some way and then present it for display in the frontend or mobile apps.
We require access to each user's own data, so the Client Credentials flow is not suitable. I am focussing on the Implicit or Authorization Grant workflows.
Important note: The trickiness seems to come from the fact that the MyApp API is stateless, so there is no long-lived session in which to store tokens. On that basis, it seems like tokens need to be stored either in the frontend (e.g. local storage/cookies etc) or in a backend database.
Below is my interpretation of two possible approaches. I'd appreciate thoughts/corrections.
Option 1: Implicit flow - tokens stored FE, passed along to BE which then makes requests to Google
Pros:
Allows access to user's own data
Simpler flow, access_token retrieved immediately without needing the code step
Less steps to implement between initial sign-in process and actually obtaining data
No need for a backend database, can resend the token with each request
Cons:
Frontend (browser) has access to Google access_token which seems unnecessary and is a potential security concern
It seems like a strange process to pass the access_token from FE to BE, purely to allow BE to then use that token to make another request
I'm not sure how we would refresh/renew tokens since I understand that storing refresh_tokens on the client is bad practice. It would not be a good user experience if the user had to frequently sign in to reconnect their account
Option 2: Authorization Code Flow - all communication with Google via BE, tokens stored in BE database
Pros:
Allows access to user's own data
Other than the code-request / consent page, all communication with Google is implemented backend, so the tokens are not accessible on the client
Client secret can be used from the BE
Cons:
More complex flow, requires extra steps
Given that the BE is stateless, it's not clear how best to store the tokens. It seems like it would require storing them in a database which is extra complication and seems like it would have security implications - how would you properly secure / encrypt the access_token/refresh_tokens in said database?
Conclusion
Given that the data processing is to happen on the backend, option 2 seems slightly more suitable because the sensitive tokens can be hidden from the frontend app, and several clients (web frontend, mobile apps) have less obligation to be involved in the process with the exception of the initial sign in / user consent. However I’m not sure whether having a database full of user auth tokens is a good idea or how I could properly protect this database.
The good news is that both options are perfectly valid and equally secure. The concern about a short-lived Access Token being in the browser isn't an issue. Equally, if you only held the tokens on the BE, then you would need to implement your own client authentiation/session/JWT blah blah, which presents the same attack surface.
I've done both, and am currently migrating from BE to FE. In my case the reason is that everything I need to do, I can do on the FE, so I end up with no BE at all. This isn't strictly true since I do some onboarding/payment with the BE, but that's about all.
So the best approach depends on factors beyond those in your question, such as the nature of app, what the BE cost is and how important that is, what your devops skillsets look like for maintaining two environments, to what extent a BE is required anyway, vs being completely optional.
I have a JSON REST API written in Symfony 2.7, and I want to authenticate & authorize users. This is my first time doing this, so I have some doubts/questions.
For that, I thought several methods:
User & password, and then save a session in the back end
Same as 1), but add an "apiToken" (randomly generate when user register) and then sending back & forth the apiToken in every single request to check user identity.
Use OAuth (which I'm currently reading about it).
I read that using OAuth for a simple API is like an "overkill", but on the safe side it sticks to standards and also allows me to use it when using my API with mobile devices and different platforms.
Also, I don't know too much about security flaws of using method 1) or 2).
I know this is maybe based on opinions, but I don't know any other site to post this question, as Symfony official mailing was shut down and migrate here it seems.
As you seems to know, your question is too opinion based.
If I can give you some advices (too long for a 600chars comment),
OAuth is powerful, but so much free.
I mean that you can easily implement it sort as everything works well while having a set of potential security issues without being aware of their existence.
Libraries and bundles providing OAuth are hard to maintain because of the new security issues regularly found.
On the other hand, if you need the benefits of OAuth (be a client and/or a server, compatible with the most part of social networks), go learn OAuth and do your experience with it.
Otherwise, use a simple credentials/request token two-step authentication.
See the JWT Authentication tutorial by KnpLabs,
Symfony Guard Authentication by Ryan Weaver,
and the great LexikJWTAuthenticationBundle, easy to implement and to use.
I have made a simple WCF-REST-service, published it to Azure and activated SSL with a X.509-certificate.
I'd like to setup some authentication for this service as well. I could solve this very easily by sending a credentials-header in clear text since all traffic is now encrypted, but I am planning to use some kind of federated authentication instead so that users can take advantage of Single Sign-On.
This field is relatively new and yet seems to already be littered with obsolete technology, making it difficult for someone with little experience to find current best practices and solid toolsets. I'm hoping somebody with significant experience can provide some insight and give us all an up-to-date jumpstart.
What are the modern, state-of-the-art options for federated authentication?
Is OpenId the only technology for this?
Is it difficult to implement SSO?
Can a relatively inexperienced yet reasonably intelligent developer implement this based off a few tutorials? Or are the underlying technologies too complex, making a third-party API/framework more desirable? (like DotNetOpenAuth)
For Azure and WCF specifically, is "Windows Azure Active Directory Access Control" really necessary, or would that be like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?
Authentication, Authorization and identity federation are HUGELY complex subjects and should not be taken lightly. The reason security is a big, complex problem is that its extraordinarily hard to get right!
If you don't already have a great deal of experience in internet identity & security, don't try and roll your own auth mechanism: Correctly and securely implementing an authentication mechanism is very, VERY hard.
For example, in your scenario above, you've not accounted for ensuring that the creds you pass in the HTTP header are anonymized for each site you want to present them to and that they expire after a period of time, that they cannot be replayed, that they cannot be synthesized by a malicious 3rd party, etc.
I strongly encourage you to use a pre-existing authn mechanism and supporting framework. In fact, since you're an Azure user, the easiest way to add end-user identity federation to your site is to use the new authn features of Windows Azure Mobile Services
If you still want to learn more about identity and identity federation, I encourage you to research this subject before choosing the right type of authentication to use:
Start with A Guide to Claims-Based Identity and Access Control (2nd Edition). This will give you most of the background and knowledge necessary to understand this subject sufficiently to make sound decisions.
Once you've got a good grip on this subject, I recommend reading everything that Vittorio Bertocci has written over at http://cloudidentity.com.
HTH.
Overview
I'm looking to create a (REST) API for my application. The initial/primary purpose will be for consumption by mobile apps (iPhone, Android, Symbian, etc). I've been looking into different mechanisms for authentication and authorization for web-based APIs (by studying other implementations). I've got my head wrapped around most of the fundamental concepts but am still looking for guidance in a few areas. The last thing I want to do is reinvent the wheel, but I'm not finding any standard solutions that fits my criteria (however my criteria my be misguided so feel free to critique that as well). Additionally, I want the API to be the same for all platforms/applications consuming it.
oAuth
I'll go ahead and throw out my objection to oAuth since I know that will likely be the first solution offered. For mobile applications (or more specifically non-web applications), it just seems wrong to leave the application (to go to a web-browser) for the authentication. Additionally, there is no way (I am aware of) for the browser to return the callback to the application (especially cross-platform). I know a couple of apps that do that, but it just feels wrong and gives a break in the application UX.
Requirements
User enters username/password into application.
Every API call is identified by the calling application.
Overhead is kept to a minimum and the auth aspect is intuitive for developers.
The mechanism is secure for both the end user (their login credentials are not exposed) as well as the developer (their application credentials are not exposed).
If possible, not require https (by no means a hard requirement).
My Current Thoughts on Implementation
An external developer will request an API account. They will receive an apikey and apisecret. Every request will require at minimum three parameters.
apikey - given to developer at regisration
timestamp - doubles as a unique identifier for each message for a given apikey
hash - a hash of the timestamp + the apisecret
The apikey is required to identify the application issuing the request. The timestamp acts similarly to the oauth_nonce and avoids/mitigates replay attacks. The hash ensures that request was actually issued from the owner of the given apikey.
For authenticated requests (ones done on the behalf of a user), I'm still undecided between going with an access_token route or a username and password hash combo. Either way, at some point a username/password combo will be required. So when it does, a hash of several pieces of information (apikey, apisecret, timestamp) + the password would be used. I'd love feedback on this aspect. FYI, they would have to hash the password first, since I don't store the passwords in my system without hashing.
Conclusion
FYI, this isn't a request for how to build/structure the API in general only how to handle the authentication and authorization from solely within an application.
Random Thoughts/Bonus Questions
For APIs that only require an apikey as part of the request, how do you prevent someone other than the apikey owner from being able to see the apikey (since sent in the clear) and make excessive requests to push them over usage limits? Maybe I'm just over thinking this, but shouldn't there be something to authenticate that a request was verified to the apikey owner? In my case, that was the purpose of the apisecret, it is never shown/transmitted without being hashed.
Speaking of hashes, what about md5 vs hmac-sha1? Does it really matter when all of the values are hashed with with sufficiently long data (ie. apisecret)?
I had been previously considering adding a per user/row salt to my users password hash. If I were to do that, how could the application be able to create a matching hash without knowing the salt used?
The way I'm thinking about doing the login part of this in my projects is:
before login the user requests a login_token from the server. These are generated and stored on the server on request, and probably have a limited lifetime.
to login the application calculates the hash of the users password, then hashes the password with the login_token to get a value, they then return both the login_token and the combined hash.
The server checks the login_token is one that it has generated, removing it from its list of valid login_tokens. The server then combines its stored hash of the user's password with the login_token and ensures that it matches the submitted combined token. If it matches you have authenticated your user.
Advantages of this are that you never store the user's password on the server, the password is never passed in the clear, the password hash is only passed in the clear on account creation (though there may be ways around this), and it should be safe from replay attacks as the login_token is removed from the DB on use.
That's a whole lot of questions in one, I guess quite a few people didn't manage to read all the way to the end :)
My experience of web service authentication is that people usually overengineer it, and the problems are only the same as you would encounter on a web page. Possible very simple options would include https for the login step, return a token, require it to be included with future requests. You could also use http basic authentication, and just pass stuff in the header. For added security, rotate/expire the tokens frequently, check the requests are coming from the same IP block (this could get messy though as mobile users move between cells), combine with API key or similar. Alternatively, do the "request key" step of oauth (someone suggested this in a previous answer already and it's a good idea) before authenticating the user, and use that as a required key to generate the access token.
An alternative which I haven't used yet but I've heard a lot about as a device-friendly alternative to oAuth is xAuth. Have a look at it and if you use it then I'd be really interested to hear what your impressions are.
For hashing, sha1 is a bit better but don't get hung up about it - whatever the devices can easily (and quickly in a performance sense) implement is probably fine.
Hope that helps, good luck :)
So what you're after is some kind of server side authentication mechanism that will handle the authentication and authorisation aspects of a mobile application?
Assuming this is the case, then I would approach it as follows (but only 'cos I'm a Java developer so a C# guy would do it differently):
The RESTful authentication and authorisation service
This will work only over HTTPS to prevent eavesdropping.
It will be based on a combination of RESTEasy, Spring Security and CAS (for single sign on across multiple applications).
It will work with both browsers and web-enabled client applications
There will be a web-based account management interface to allow users to edit their details, and admins (for particular applications) to change authorisation levels
The client side security library/application
For each supported platform (e.g.
Symbian, Android, iOS etc) create a
suitable implementation of the
security library in the native
language of the platform (e.g. Java,
ObjectiveC, C etc)
The library
should manage the HTTPS request
formation using the available APIs
for the given platform (e.g. Java
uses URLConnection etc)
Consumers of the general authentication and
authorisation library ('cos that's
all it is) will code to a specific
interface and won't be happy if it
ever changes so make sure it's very
flexible. Follow existing design
choices such as Spring Security.
So now that the view from 30,000ft is complete how do you go about doing it? Well, it's not that hard to create an authentication and authorisation system based on the listed technologies on the server side with a browser client. In combination with HTTPS, the frameworks will provide a secure process based on a shared token (usually presented as a cookie) generated by the authentication process and used whenever the user wishes to do something. This token is presented by the client to the server whenever any request takes place.
In the case of the local mobile application, it seems that you're after a solution that does the following:
Client application has a defined Access Control List (ACL) controlling runtime access to method calls. For example, a given user can read a collection from a method, but their ACL only permits access to objects that have a Q in their name so some data in the collection is quiety pulled by the security interceptor. In Java this is straightforward, you just use the Spring Security annotations on the calling code and implement a suitable ACL response process. In other languages, you're on your own and will probably need to provide boilerplate security code that calls into your security library. If the language supports AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming) then use it to the fullest for this situation.
The security library caches the complete list of authorisations into it's private memory for the current application so that it doesn't have to remain connected. Depending on the length of the login session, this could be a one-off operation that never gets repeated.
Whatever you do, don't try to invent your own security protocol, or use security by obscurity. You'll never be able to write a better algorithm for this than those that are currently available and free. Also, people trust well known algorithms. So if you say that your security library provides authorisation and authentication for local mobile applications using a combination of SSL, HTTPS, SpringSecurity and AES encrypted tokens then you'll immediately have creditibility in the marketplace.
Hope this helps, and good luck with your venture. If you would like more info, let me know - I've written quite a few web applications based on Spring Security, ACLs and the like.
Twitter addressed the external application issue in oAuth by supporting a variant they call xAuth. Unfortunately there's already a plethora of other schemes with this name so it can be confusing to sort out.
The protocol is oAuth, except it skips the request token phase and simply immediately issues an access token pair upon receipt of a username and password. (Starting at step E here.) This initial request and response must be secured - it's sending the username and password in plaintext and receiving back the access token and secret token. Once the access token pair has been configured, whether the initial token exchange was via the oAuth model or the xAuth model is irrelevant to both the client and server for the rest of the session. This has the advantage that you can leverage existing oAuth infrastructure and have very nearly the same implementation for mobile/web/desktop applications. The main disadvantage is that the application is granted access to the client's user name and password, but it appears like your requirements mandate this approach.
In any case, I'd like to agree with your intuition and that of several other answerers here: don't try to build something new from scratch. Security protocols can be easy to start but are always hard to do well, and the more convoluted they become the less likely your third-party developers are to be able to implement against them. Your hypothetical protocol is very similar to o(x)Auth - api_key/api_secret, nonce, sha1 hashing - but instead of being able to use one of the many existing libraries your developers are going to need to roll their own.
Super late to the party but I wanted to throw in some additional points to consider for anyone interested in this issue. I work for a company doing mobile API security solutions (approov) so this whole area is definitely relevant to my interests.
To start with, the most important thing to consider when trying to secure a mobile API is how much it is worth to you. The right solution for a bank is different to the right solution for someone just doing things for fun.
In the proposed solution you mention that a minimum of three parameters will be required:
apikey - given to developer at registration
timestamp - doubles as a unique identifier for each message for a given apikey
hash - a hash of the timestamp + the apisecret
The implication of this is that for some API calls no username/password is required. This can be useful for applications where you don't want to force a login (browsing in online shops for example).
This is a slightly different problem to the one of user authentication and is more like authentication or attestation of the software. There is no user, but you still want to ensure that there is no malicious access to your API. So you use your API secret to sign the traffic and identify the code accessing the API as genuine. The potential problem with this solution is that you then have to give away the secret inside every version of the app. If someone can extract the secret they can use your API, impersonating your software but doing whatever they like.
To counter that threat there are a bunch of things you can do depending on how valuable the data is. Obfuscation is a simple way to make it harder to extract the secret. There are tools that will do that for you, more so for Android, but you still have to have code that generates your hash and a sufficiently skilled individual can always just call the function that does the hashing directly.
Another way to mitigate against excessive use of an API that doesn't require a login is to throttle the traffic and potentially identify and block suspect IP addresses. The amount of effort you want to go to will largely depend upon how valuble your data is.
Beyond that you can easily start getting into the domain of my day job. Anyway, it's another aspect of securing APIs that I think is important and wanted to flag up.