Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
When designing a REST API or service are there any established best practices for dealing with security (Authentication, Authorization, Identity Management) ?
When building a SOAP API you have WS-Security as a guide and much literature exists on the topic. I have found less information about securing REST endpoints.
While I understand REST intentionally does not have specifications analogous to WS-* I am hoping best practices or recommended patterns have emerged.
Any discussion or links to relevant documents would be very much appreciated.
If it matters, we would be using WCF with POX/JSON serialized messages for our REST API's/Services built using v3.5 of the .NET Framework.
As tweakt said, Amazon S3 is a good model to work with. Their request signatures do have some features (such as incorporating a timestamp) that help guard against both accidental and malicious request replaying.
The nice thing about HTTP Basic is that virtually all HTTP libraries support it. You will, of course, need to require SSL in this case because sending plaintext passwords over the net is almost universally a bad thing. Basic is preferable to Digest when using SSL because even if the caller already knows that credentials are required, Digest requires an extra roundtrip to exchange the nonce value. With Basic, the callers simply sends the credentials the first time.
Once the identity of the client is established, authorization is really just an implementation problem. However, you could delegate the authorization to some other component with an existing authorization model. Again the nice thing about Basic here is your server ends up with a plaintext copy of the client's password that you can simply pass on to another component within your infrastructure as needed.
There are no standards for REST other than HTTP. There are established REST services out there. I suggest you take a peek at them and get a feel for how they work.
For example, we borrowed a lot of ideas from Amazon's S3 REST service when developing our own. But we opted not to use the more advanced security model based on request signatures. The simpler approach is HTTP Basic auth over SSL. You have to decide what works best in your situation.
Also, I highly recommend the book RESTful Web Services from O'reilly. It explains the core concepts and does provide some best practices. You can generally take the model they provide and map it to your own application.
You may also want to take a look at OAuth, an emerging open protocol for token-based authorization specifically targeting http apis.
It is very similar to the approach taken by flickr and remember the milk "rest" apis (not necessarily good examples of restful apis, but good examples of the token-based approach).
There is a great checklist found on Github:
Authentication
Don't reinvent the wheel in Authentication, token generation, password storage. Use the standards.
Use Max Retry and jail features in Login.
Use encryption on all sensitive data.
JWT (JSON Web Token)
Use a random complicated key (JWT Secret) to make brute forcing the token very hard.
Don't extract the algorithm from the payload. Force the algorithm in the backend (HS256 or RS256).
Make token expiration (TTL, RTTL) as short as possible.
Don't store sensitive data in the JWT payload, it can be decoded easily.
OAuth
Always validate redirect_uri server-side to allow only whitelisted URLs.
Always try to exchange for code and not tokens (don't allow response_type=token).
Use state parameter with a random hash to prevent CSRF on the OAuth authentication process.
Define the default scope, and validate scope parameters for each application.
Access
Limit requests (Throttling) to avoid DDoS / brute-force attacks.
Use HTTPS on server side to avoid MITM (Man In The Middle Attack)
Use HSTS header with SSL to avoid SSL Strip attack.
Input
Use the proper HTTP method according to the operation: GET (read), POST (create), PUT/PATCH (replace/update), and DELETE (to delete a record), and respond with 405 Method Not Allowed if the requested method isn't appropriate for the requested resource.
Validate content-type on request Accept header (Content Negotiation) to allow only your supported format (e.g. application/xml, application/json, etc) and respond with 406 Not Acceptable response if not matched.
Validate content-type of posted data as you accept (e.g. application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data, application/json, etc).
Validate User input to avoid common vulnerabilities (e.g. XSS, SQL-Injection, Remote Code Execution, etc).
Don't use any sensitive data (credentials, Passwords, security tokens, or API keys) in the URL, but use standard Authorization header.
Use an API Gateway service to enable caching, Rate Limit policies (e.g. Quota, Spike Arrest, Concurrent Rate Limit) and deploy APIs resources dynamically.
Processing
Check if all the endpoints are protected behind authentication to avoid broken authentication process.
User own resource ID should be avoided. Use /me/orders instead of /user/654321/orders.
Don't auto-increment IDs. Use UUID instead.
If you are parsing XML files, make sure entity parsing is not enabled to avoid XXE (XML external entity attack).
If you are parsing XML files, make sure entity expansion is not enabled to avoid Billion Laughs/XML bomb via exponential entity expansion attack.
Use a CDN for file uploads.
If you are dealing with huge amount of data, use Workers and Queues to process as much as possible in background and return response fast to avoid HTTP Blocking.
Do not forget to turn the DEBUG mode OFF.
Output
Send X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff header.
Send X-Frame-Options: deny header.
Send Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none' header.
Remove fingerprinting headers - X-Powered-By, Server, X-AspNet-Version etc.
Force content-type for your response, if you return application/json then your response content-type is application/json.
Don't return sensitive data like credentials, Passwords, security tokens.
Return the proper status code according to the operation completed. (e.g. 200 OK, 400 Bad Request, 401 Unauthorized, 405 Method Not Allowed, etc).
I'm kind of surprised SSL with client certificates hasn't been mentioned yet. Granted, this approach is only really useful if you can count on the community of users being identified by certificates. But a number of governments/companies do issue them to their users. The user doesn't have to worry about creating yet another username/password combination, and the identity is established on each and every connection so communication with the server can be entirely stateless, no user sessions required. (Not to imply that any/all of the other solutions mentioned require sessions)
Everyone in these answers has overlooked true access control / authorization.
If for instance your REST APIs / web services are about POSTing / GETing medical records, you may want to define access control policie about who can access the data and under which circumstances. For instance:
doctors can GET the medical record of a patient they have a care relationship with
no one can POST medical data outside practice hours (e.g. 9 to 5)
end-users can GET medical records they own or medical records of patients for whom they are the guardian
nurses can UPDATE the medical record of a patient that belongs to the same unit as the nurse.
In order to define and implement those fine-grained authorizations, you will need to use an attribute-based access control language called XACML, the eXtensible Access Control Markup Language.
The other standards here are for the following:
OAuth: id. federation and delegation of authorization e.g. letting a service act on my behalf on another service (Facebook can post to my Twitter)
SAML: identity federation / web SSO. SAML is very much about who the user is.
WS-Security / WS-* standards: these focus on the communication between SOAP services. They are specific to the application-level messaging format (SOAP) and they deal with aspects of messaging e.g. reliability, security, confidentiality, integrity, atomicity, eventing... None cover access control and all are specific to SOAP.
XACML is technology-agnostic. It can be applied to java apps, .NET, Python, Ruby... web services, REST APIs, and more.
The following are interesting resources:
the OASIS XACML website
the NIST ABAC standard
I've used OAuth a few times, and also used some other methods (BASIC/DIGEST). I wholeheartedly suggest OAuth. The following link is the best tutorial I've seen on using OAuth:
http://hueniverse.com/oauth/guide/
One of the best posts I've ever come across regarding Security as it relates to REST is over at 1 RainDrop. The MySpace API's use OAuth also for security and you have full access to their custom channels in the RestChess code, which I did a lot of exploration with. This was demo'd at Mix and you can find the posting here.
Thanks for the excellent advice. We ended up using a custom HTTP header to pass an identity token from the client to the service, in preparation for integrating our RESTful API with the the upcoming Zermatt Identity framework from Microsoft. I have described the problem here and our solution here. I also took tweakt's advice and bought RESTful Web Services - a very good book if you're building a RESTful API of any kind.
OWASP(Open Web Application Security Project) has some cheat sheets covering about all aspects of Web Application development. This Project is a very valuable and reliable source of information.
Regarding REST services you can check this: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/REST_Security_Cheat_Sheet
I would recommend OAuth 2/3. You can find more information at http://oauth.net/2/
I searched a lot about restful ws security and we also ended up with using token via cookie from client to server to authenticate the requests . I used spring security for authorization of requests in service because I had to authenticate and authorized each request based on specified security policies that has already been in DB.
The fact that the SOAP world is pretty well covered with security standards doesn't mean that it's secure by default. In the first place, the standards are very complex. Complexity is not a very good friend of security and implementation vulnerabilities such as XML signature wrapping attacks are endemic here.
As for the .NET environment I won't help much, but “Building web services with Java” (a brick with ~10 authors) did help me a lot in understanding the WS-* security architecture and, especially, its quirks.
REST itself offers no security standards, but things like OAuth and SAML are rapidly becoming the standards in this space. However, authentication and authorization are only a small part of what you need to consider. Many of the known vulnerabilities relating to web applications apply very much to REST apis. You have to consider input validation, session cracking, inappropriate error messages, internal employee vulnerabilities and so on. It is a big subject.
I want to add(in line with stinkeymatt), simplest solution would be to add SSL certificates to your site. In other words, make sure your url is HTTPS://. That will cover your transport security (bang for the buck). With RESTful url's, idea is to keep it simple (unlike WS* security/SAML), you can use oAuth2/openID connect or even Basic Auth (in simple cases). But you will still need SSL/HTTPS. Please check ASP.NET Web API 2 security here: http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/security (Articles and Videos)
As #Nathan ended up with which is a simple HTTP Header, and some had said OAuth2 and client side SSL certificates. The gist of it is this... your REST API shouldn't have to handle security as that should really be outside the scope of the API.
Instead a security layer should be put on top of it, whether it is an HTTP Header behind a web proxy (a common approach like SiteMinder, Zermatt or even Apache HTTPd), or as complicated as OAuth 2.
The key thing is the requests should work without any end-user interaction. All that is needed is to ensure that the connection to the REST API is authenticated. In Java EE we have the notion of a userPrincipal that can be obtained on an HttpServletRequest. It is also managed in the deployment descriptor that a URL pattern can be secure so the REST API code does not need to check anymore.
In the WCF world, I would use ServiceSecurityContext.Current to get the current security context. You need to configure you application to require authentication.
There is one exception to the statement I had above and that's the use of a nonce to prevent replays (which can be attacks or someone just submitting the same data twice). That part can only be handled in the application layer.
For Web Application Security, you should take a look at OWASP (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Main_Page) which provides cheatsheets for various security attacks. You can incorporate as many measures as possible to secure your Application.
With respect to API security (authorization, authentication, identity management), there are multiple ways as already mentioned (Basic,Digest and OAuth). There are loop holes in OAuth1.0, so you can use OAuth1.0a (OAuth2.0 is not widely adopted due to concerns with the specification)
It's been a while but the question is still relevant, though the answer might have changed a bit.
An API Gateway would be a flexible and highly configurable solution.
I tested and used KONG quite a bit and really liked what I saw. KONG provides an admin REST API of its own which you can use to manage users.
Express-gateway.io is more recent and is also an API Gateway.
Related
While understanding the nature of web API, Some questions regarding its safety were raised. What are the best practices to design web API such that only authorized user should be able to access it. I tried to check below options, but none was able to achieve perfect safety.
1) I cannot rely on request origin, referrer or user agent string since they can be easily spoofed.
2) Web API requires just a public key to access it so CSRF token is also not suitable to implement.
Is there any other way I can ensure request is coming from trusted source only?
My use case is I would like to implement client side API like google map, where any one who has purchased an access to API, will whitelist their website domain and can include my plugin on their website. Plugin will then make request to my API on behalf of user.
Is it a good idea, if I apply some request signature logic on web API so my server can validate the requester and reject the unauthorized origins. I assume I would have to keep my request signature logic secret and so I may need some obfuscation on code.
You do not mention anything about the usecase, especially if the client is a system or a person?
First off, security by obscurity is never a good choice. Second, it is considered bad practice to "create your own security system", it is much better to stand on the shoulders of others who has the knowledge and experience in security.
Without knowing the exact usercase, it is hard to come with a lot of suggestions... however, i'd suggest you look at at stuff like jwt tokens(i'm guessing that you have a person behind a webclient as the user of your webservice)... since you've tagged the question with asp.net-web-api i'd also suggest you have a look at https://identityserver.io project ... I've previously used IdentityServer4 with success in a large asp.net webapi project...
I'm working on a RESTful API, that works as backend for a mobile application.
The underlying system is based on Jersey and Jetty server, but my question is more generic (for any JaX-RS compliant system).
I'm looking for a standard solution to secure it. I read about many answers talking about JWT, tokens, ... and OAuth.
But all solutions except OAuth do not have a Standard and neither any implementation apart from some basic examples on github.
I'm concern as OAuth seems a good solution for third party access on your API but I think is a great overhead for straight access & tokenization, from a Mobile app or a Website AJAX. Is hard for me to accept that is the only available solution.
Here I'm asking, am I wrong about OAuth (beeing designed for third party access)? or other access solutions are not available (eg opensourced) as they are only custom made for the specific purpose?
My scenario requirements:
Token should be self certified (eg JWT) so a proxy/load balancer can filter out a not signed one, before reaching the endpoint.
No need for a token/renew system as we have a distributed cache holding a SESSION and therefore a missing session mean that authorization expired/was revoked.
The second one, may not be true as if we issue a certificate to an App for 1 year, and revoke it after 1 hour. This token may be still used by an attacker to "frustrate" our cache for 1 year.
I want to make a web application that's a Single-Page client that interacts with a REST API in the server. I need to authenticate users of my app as opposed to authenticate third party-apps (the latter being the focus of most tradional REST bibliography).
After googling a lot, I found there are many options (Basic HTTP Auth, HTTP digest, OAuth, etc) and several desirable properties one might get depending on the one chosen. For example, Basic Auth is simple but sends plain passwords unencrypted, which is not a good idea unless you guarantee that your app will run under TLS. Digest on the contrary doesn't send the credentials on every request, but prevents strong password encryption and is vulnerable to man in the middle attacks[1]. Meteor introduced SRP which avoids storing and sending passwords[2].
It appears to me that the consensus is to use OAuth, particulary the OAuth2 credentials flow, since I want to authorize access to my resources on my own server[3][4][5]. What I don't get is what are the benefits of this particular approach. I do get the benefits of using OAuth as a form of delegate authentication, much like those of using OpenID for federated authentication: you don't handle authentication data at all in your server. But in the case you apply the credentials flow for authorization (or OAuth1 2-legged flow for that matter), not introducing a third party, it looks like you still have to handle authentication by some other means, like HTTP basic or digest. So if you're doing that why not stick to that only method, and send the credentials on every request, instead of the token?
It's just to reduce the amount of requests where you have to actually send the credentials? It's just to stick to the OAuth convention? Those don't sound like strong arguments over the other methods. So, I'm I missing some other aspects or did I misunderstood something?
If you are not federating, there is not really a good case for using OAuth.
If you just want to authenticate to your own service, basic or forms authentication is the way to go. The catch, as you've pointed out, is that you must use HTTPS. However, that applies to all authentication methods.
As long as you're using HTTPS, you can leave protection of credentials while in transit to the transport level security. That's what it's there for and (for the most part) that's what it's good at. If you're using plain HTTP (anywhere in your application, not just for authentication), you're done. There are all manner of very clever MitM attacks that totally break the security of any system that employs HTTP anywhere (Moxie Marlinspike gave an interesting presentation on the subject at Black Hat back in 2009).
A typical recommendation for securing a REST API is to use HTTP Basic Authentication over SSL. My question is, should HTTP Basic Authentication only be used to authenticate the client (ie. the app accessing the API), or can it also be used to authenticate the user (the consumer of the app)?
It seems most APIs have to deal with both, as almost all web services employ some sort of user accounts. Just consider Twitter or Vimeo—there are public resources, and there are private (user specific) resources.
It seems logical that a simple REST API could do both client and user authentication at the same time using using HTTP Basic Authentication (over SSL).
Is this a good design?
By authenticate the client you probably mean the usage of API Key, this mechanism is used to track the concrete application/client. The second thing is that it gives you the possibility to disable the application by disabling the key, for example when client's author removes his account from the service. If you want to make your API public then it is a good idea.
But you need to remember that it gives you no real protection, everybody can download the client and extract that key.
I would not recommend to use Basic Authentication for API authentication. When it comes to authentication then you should consider that the application (client) developer has to implement its side of the authentication, too. Part of that is not only authentication itself but also how to get credentials and even much more than that.
I recommend to make use of an established authentication standard that ships with client libraries for the most popular programming languages. Those libraries make it much more likely that developers are going to adapt your API, because they reduce implementation effort on the client side.
Another important reason for using authentication standards is that they make developers (and others) more confident in the security of your authentication system. Those standards have been audited by experts and their weaknesses and strengths are well known and documented. It is unlikely that you are going to develop a nearly as solid authentication flow unless you are a security expert :-).
The most established standard in this field is OAuth but you can find alternatives by searching for "oauth alternatives".
How does OAuth help you with your problem setting?
In OAuth 2, the application client has to obtain an access token for a user before accessing any protected resource. To get an access token, the application must authenticate itself with its application credentials. Depending on the use-case (e.g. 3rd party, mobile) this is done in different ways that are defined by the OAuth standard.
An access token should not only represent a user but also which operations may be used on what resources (permissions). A user may grant different permissions to different applications so this information must somehow be linked to the token.
How to achieve such a semantic for access tokens however is not part of OAuth - it just defines the flow of how to obtain access tokens. Therefor, the implementation of the access token semantic is usually application specific.
You can implement such token semantic by storing a link between an access tokens and its permissions in your backend when you create the access token. The permissions may either be stored for every user-application combination or just for every application, depending on how fine-granular you want things to be.
Then, each time that an access token is processed by the API, you fetch this information and check whether the user has sufficient permissions to access the resource and to perform the desired operation.
Another option is to put the permission information into the access token and to sign or encrypt the token. When you receive the access token, you verify or decrypt it and use the permissions that are stored in the access token to make your decision. You may want to have a look on Json Web Tokens (JWT) on how to accomplish that.
The benefit of the later solution is better scalability and less effort during backend implementation. The downside of it are potentially larger requests (especially with RSA encryption) and less control over tokens.
I'm developing a REST API that requires authentication. Because the authentication itself occurs via an external webservice over HTTP, I reasoned that we would dispense tokens to avoid repeatedly calling the authentication service. Which brings me neatly to my first question:
Is this really any better than just requiring clients to use HTTP Basic Auth on each request and caching calls to the authentication service server-side?
The Basic Auth solution has the advantage of not requiring a full round-trip to the server before requests for content can begin. Tokens can potentially be more flexible in scope (i.e. only grant rights to particular resources or actions), but that seems more appropriate to the OAuth context than my simpler use case.
Currently tokens are acquired like this:
curl -X POST localhost/token --data "api_key=81169d80...
&verifier=2f5ae51a...
×tamp=1234567
&user=foo
&pass=bar"
The api_key, timestamp and verifier are required by all requests. The "verifier" is returned by:
sha1(timestamp + api_key + shared_secret)
My intention is to only allow calls from known parties, and to prevent calls from being reused verbatim.
Is this good enough? Underkill? Overkill?
With a token in hand, clients can acquire resources:
curl localhost/posts?api_key=81169d80...
&verifier=81169d80...
&token=9fUyas64...
×tamp=1234567
For the simplest call possible, this seems kind of horribly verbose. Considering the shared_secret will wind up being embedded in (at minimum) an iOS application, from which I would assume it can be extracted, is this even offering anything beyond a false sense of security?
Let me seperate up everything and solve approach each problem in isolation:
Authentication
For authentication, baseauth has the advantage that it is a mature solution on the protocol level. This means a lot of "might crop up later" problems are already solved for you. For example, with BaseAuth, user agents know the password is a password so they don't cache it.
Auth server load
If you dispense a token to the user instead of caching the authentication on your server, you are still doing the same thing: Caching authentication information. The only difference is that you are turning the responsibility for the caching to the user. This seems like unnecessary labor for the user with no gains, so I recommend to handle this transparently on your server as you suggested.
Transmission Security
If can use an SSL connection, that's all there is to it, the connection is secure*. To prevent accidental multiple execution, you can filter multiple urls or ask users to include a random component ("nonce") in the URL.
url = username:key#myhost.com/api/call/nonce
If that is not possible, and the transmitted information is not secret, I recommend securing the request with a hash, as you suggested in the token approach. Since the hash provides the security, you could instruct your users to provide the hash as the baseauth password. For improved robustness, I recommend using a random string instead of the timestamp as a "nonce" to prevent replay attacks (two legit requests could be made during the same second). Instead of providing seperate "shared secret" and "api key" fields, you can simply use the api key as shared secret, and then use a salt that doesn't change to prevent rainbow table attacks. The username field seems like a good place to put the nonce too, since it is part of the auth. So now you have a clean call like this:
nonce = generate_secure_password(length: 16);
one_time_key = nonce + '-' + sha1(nonce+salt+shared_key);
url = username:one_time_key#myhost.com/api/call
It is true that this is a bit laborious. This is because you aren't using a protocol level solution (like SSL). So it might be a good idea to provide some kind of SDK to users so at least they don't have to go through it themselves. If you need to do it this way, I find the security level appropriate (just-right-kill).
Secure secret storage
It depends who you are trying to thwart. If you are preventing people with access to the user's phone from using your REST service in the user's name, then it would be a good idea to find some kind of keyring API on the target OS and have the SDK (or the implementor) store the key there. If that's not possible, you can at least make it a bit harder to get the secret by encrypting it, and storing the encrypted data and the encryption key in seperate places.
If you are trying to keep other software vendors from getting your API key to prevent the development of alternate clients, only the encrypt-and-store-seperately approach almost works. This is whitebox crypto, and to date, no one has come up with a truly secure solution to problems of this class. The least you can do is still issue a single key for each user so you can ban abused keys.
(*) EDIT: SSL connections should no longer be considered secure without taking additional steps to verify them.
A pure RESTful API should use the underlying protocol standard features:
For HTTP, the RESTful API should comply with existing HTTP standard headers. Adding a new HTTP header violates the REST principles. Do not re-invent the wheel, use all the standard features in HTTP/1.1 standards - including status response codes, headers, and so on. RESTFul web services should leverage and rely upon the HTTP standards.
RESTful services MUST be STATELESS. Any tricks, such as token based authentication that attempts to remember the state of previous REST requests on the server violates the REST principles. Again, this is a MUST; that is, if you web server saves any request/response context related information on the server in attempt to establish any sort of session on the server, then your web service is NOT Stateless. And if it is NOT stateless it is NOT RESTFul.
Bottom-line: For authentication/authorization purposes you should use HTTP standard authorization header. That is, you should add the HTTP authorization / authentication header in each subsequent request that needs to be authenticated. The REST API should follow the HTTP Authentication Scheme standards.The specifics of how this header should be formatted are defined in the RFC 2616 HTTP 1.1 standards – section 14.8 Authorization of RFC 2616, and in the RFC 2617 HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication.
I have developed a RESTful service for the Cisco Prime Performance Manager application. Search Google for the REST API document that I wrote for that application for more details about RESTFul API compliance here. In that implementation, I have chosen to use HTTP "Basic" Authorization scheme. - check out version 1.5 or above of that REST API document, and search for authorization in the document.
In the web a stateful protocol is based on having a temporary token that is exchanged between a browser and a server (via cookie header or URI rewriting) on every request. That token is usually created on the server end, and it is a piece of opaque data that has a certain time-to-live, and it has the sole purpose of identifying a specific web user agent. That is, the token is temporary, and becomes a STATE that the web server has to maintain on behalf of a client user agent during the duration of that conversation. Therefore, the communication using a token in this way is STATEFUL. And if the conversation between client and server is STATEFUL it is not RESTful.
The username/password (sent on the Authorization header) is usually persisted on the database with the intent of identifying a user. Sometimes the user could mean another application; however, the username/password is NEVER intended to identify a specific web client user agent. The conversation between a web agent and server based on using the username/password in the Authorization header (following the HTTP Basic Authorization) is STATELESS because the web server front-end is not creating or maintaining any STATE information whatsoever on behalf of a specific web client user agent. And based on my understanding of REST, the protocol states clearly that the conversation between clients and server should be STATELESS. Therefore, if we want to have a true RESTful service we should use username/password (Refer to RFC mentioned in my previous post) in the Authorization header for every single call, NOT a sension kind of token (e.g. Session tokens created in web servers, OAuth tokens created in authorization servers, and so on).
I understand that several called REST providers are using tokens like OAuth1 or OAuth2 accept-tokens to be be passed as "Authorization: Bearer " in HTTP headers. However, it appears to me that using those tokens for RESTful services would violate the true STATELESS meaning that REST embraces; because those tokens are temporary piece of data created/maintained on the server side to identify a specific web client user agent for the valid duration of a that web client/server conversation. Therefore, any service that is using those OAuth1/2 tokens should not be called REST if we want to stick to the TRUE meaning of a STATELESS protocol.
Rubens