I currently have a backend running on AWS Lambda and I'm using DynamoDB as a database. In Dynamo, there is a list of users and each user has specific permissions as to what routes they have access to through the API. There is no issue here.
I have not built the front end yet, but I will be logging in users using Google Auth, more specifically with the react-google-login component.
My question is: Once a user is logged in to the site, should I trust the JWT from Google (after verifying its legitimacy
here with the Google API) which returns the user information (Name, Email), lookup the user item inside of Dynamo to retrieve their permissions, and then serve their request?
This seems like the logical thing to do but I was looking for some confirmation. My one worry is that someone could use a supervisors name & email to authorize a request but if the lambda must accept a JWT created by Google as entry, I believe this problem is solved correct?
I have API Keys as well for every user for some external functionality, but I have that covered since it's just a Dynamo call away. My only concern is with the front end requests to Lambda since I do not want to roll my own auth/jwt.
Here is what I was envisioning.
Thank you!
Normally you should use access tokens for that purpose. The ID token should be meant only to authenticate the user, and the access token should be used to authorize access.
The best scenario would be to have a separate Authorization Server which could issue access tokens, and there are some open source solutions out there which you can use.
If you really don't want to setup your own AS then you could follow the scenario you outlined - the part with verifying JWT from Google and checking permissions in the DynamoDB is what the Authorization Server would normally do to issue an access token.
Just remember to thoroughly validate the incoming JWT - not only the signature with Google, but also check if that is a token created for your client / audience, etc. Otherwise someone could take a Google ID token JWT from their client and gain access to your API. This article lists best security practices when working with JWTs.
Also remember that ID tokens might have short expiration times and there are no means of automatically refreshing them (like you can do it with a refresh token in case of an access token), so you might end up having to reauthenticate quite often.
I have a webapp which asks user several questions and store answers. User logs in via OAuth using external provider, then I get user ID information from external SSO server.
I need my app to be used by several users at the same computer, so every time the form is submitted, I need to log out the user. I can do it easily in my app, but then I redirect user to OAuth server again. OAuth server remembers user, so it gives the code of previously logged user right away. I want users to log in again at OAuth server though, but how can I do it? Is it possible to ask OAuth server not to remember the user that had logged in previously?
From your question the actual flow is a bit unclear, however, there are two options:
The client needs to log out after initial log in. With this, a new session flow will be initiated in the next iteration, forcing the client to have to log in again.
The server needs to not remember consent ("Do you want to allow x on app y."), to ask the client for consent again.
Please be aware of the terms authentication, authorisation and consent have very specific meanings in this context.
You may want to share more details on the situation you are in, e.g. relevant code, the OAuth2 server you want to authorise with, including software, version and possibly url. Also, the client (as in rfc6749) is of importance here, did you implement the oauth flow yourself or did you rely on any library? If yes, which?
For the past 10+ days I've read an watched ALL the content I could find on understanding OAuth2 and OpenID Connect, only to find that many people disagree on the implementation, which really confuses me.
To my understanding, all the articles and examples I found assume you want access to eg. google calendar, profile info or emails if you eg. login with google, but I do NOT need to access other than my own API's - I only want to use Google, Facebook etc for logging in, and getting an id which I can link to my user in my own database - nothing more than that.
I'll try illustrate my use case and use that as an example.
A note on the diagram: the Authentication service could probably be built into the API Gateway - not that i matters for this example, since this is not about "where to do it", but "how to do it the best way" possible, for an architecture such as mine, where it's used for my own API's / Microservices, and not accessing Google, Facebook etc. external API's
If you can understand what I'm trying to illustrate with this diagram above, please tell me if I've misunderstood this.
The most basic requirements for this architecture you see here are:
Users can login with Google, Facebook, etc.
The same login will be used for all micro-services
OpenId user will have a linked account in the database
User access is defined in my own db, based on groups, roles and permissions
I do not intend to use external API's after the user is authenticated and logged in. No need for ever accessing a users calendar, email etc. so I really just need the authentication part and nothing else (proof of successful login). All user access is defined in my own database.
So a few fundamental questions comes to mind.
First of all, is OpenID Connect even the right tool for the job for authentication only (I'll have no use for authorization, since I will not need read/write access to google / facebook API's other than getting the ID from authenticating)?
People generally do not agree on whether to use the ID or Access token for accessing your own API's. As far as I understand the ID token is for the client (user-agent) only, and the access token is for eg. accessing google calendar, emails etc.... External API's of the OpenID Provider... but since I'll only be accessing my own API's, do I event need the access token or the ID token - what is the correct way to protect your own API's?
If the ID token is really just for the client, so it can show eg. currently logged in user, without going to the DB, I have 0 use for it, since I'll probably query the user from from the db and store it in redux for my react frontend app.
Dilemma: To store user details, groups, roles and permission inside JWT or not for API authorization?
By only storing the user identifier in the token, it means that I always allow authenticated users that has a valid token, to call endpoints BEFORE authorization and first then determine access based on the db query result and the permissions in my own database.
By storing more data about the user inside the JWT, it means that in some cases, I'd be able to do the authorization / access (group, role, permission) check before hitting the API - only possible with user info, groups, roles and permission stored inside a JWT issued upon login. In some cases it would not be possible due to eg. the CMS content access permissions being on a per-node level. But still it would mean a little better performance.
As you can see on the diagram I'm sending all API requests through the gateway, which will (in itself or with an authentication service) translate the opaque access token into some JWT with an identifier, so I can identify the user in the graph database - and then verify if the user has the required groups, roles and permissions - not from an external API, but from my own database like you see on the diagram.
This seems like a lot of work on every request, even if the services can share the JWT in case multiple services should need to cross call each other.
The advantage of always looking up the user, and his permissions in the db, is naturally that the moment the user access levels change, he is denied/granted access immediately and it will always be in sync. If I store the user details, groups, roles and permission inside a JWT and persist that in the client localstorage, I guess it could pose a security issue right, and it would be pretty hard to update the user info, groups, roles and permissions inside that JWT?
One big advantage of storing user access levels and info inside the JWT is of course that in many cases I'd be able to block the user from calling certain API's, instead of having to determine access after a db lookup.
So the whole token translation thing means increased security at the cost of performance, but is is generally recommended and worth it? Or is it safe enough to store user info and groups, roles, permissions inside the JWT?
If yes, do I store all that information from my own DB in the ID Token, Access token or a 3rd token - what token is sent to the API and determines if the user should be granted access to a given resource based on his permissions in the db? Do I really need an access token if I don't need to interact with the ID providers API? Or do I store and append all my groups, roles, permissions inside the ID token (that doesn't seem clean to me) issued by OpenID connect, and call the API and authorize my own API endpoints using that, even if some say you should never use the ID token to access an API? Or do I create a new JWT to store all the info fetched from my database, which is to be used for deciding if the user can access a given resource / API endpoint?
Please do not just link to general specs or general info, since I've already read it all - I just failed to understand how to apply all that info to my actual use case (the diagram above). Try to please be as concrete as possible.
Made another attempt to try and simply the flow:
The following answer does only apply for a OpenID Connect authentication flow with a 3rd party IDP (like Google). It does not apply for an architecture where you host your own IDP.
(There are some API gateways (e.g Tyk or Kong) which support OpenID Connect out of the box.)
You can use JWTs (ID token) to secure your APIs. However, this has one disadvantage. JWTs cannot be revoked easily.
I would not recommend this. Instead you should implement an OAuth2 authorization server which issues access tokens for your API. (In this case, you have two OAuth2 flows. One for authentication and one for authorization. The ID and access token from the IDP are used only for authentication.)
The following picture shows a setup where the API gateway and authentication/authorization server are two separate services. (As mentioned above, the authentication/authorization can also be done by the API gateway.)
The authentication flow (Authorization Code Grant) calls are marked blue. The authorization flow (Implicit Grant) calls are marked green.
1: Your web app is loaded from the app server.
2a: The user clicks on your login button, your web app builds the authorization URL and opens it. (See: Authorization Request)
2b: Because the user hasn't authenticated and has no valid session with your authorization server, the URL he wanted to access is stored and your authorization server responds with a redirect to its login page.
3: The login page is loaded from your authorization server.
4a: The user clicks on "Login with ...".
4b: Your authorization server builds the IDP authorization URL and responds with a redirect to it. (See: Authentication Request)
5a: The IDP authorization URL is opend.
5b: Because the user hasn't authenticated and has no valid session with the IDP, the URL he wanted to access is stored and the IDP responds with a redirect to its login page.
6: The login page is loaded from the IDP.
7a: The user fills in his credentials and clicks on the login button.
7b: The IDP checks the credentials, creates a new session and responds with a redirect to the stored URL.
8a: The IDP authorization URL is opend again.
(The approval steps are ignored here for simplicity.)
8b: The IDP creates an authorization and responds with a redirect to the callback URL of your authorization server. (See: Authentication Response)
9a: The callback URL is opened.
9b: Your authorization server extracts the authorization code from the callback URL.
10a: Your authorization server calls the IDP's token endpoint, gets an ID and access token and validates the data in the ID token. (See: Token Request)
(10b: Your authorization server calls the IDP's user info endpoint if some needed claims aren't available in the ID token.)
11a/b: Your authorization server queries/creates the user in your service/DB, creates a new session and responds with a redirect to the stored URL.
12a: The authorization URL is opend again.
(The approval steps are ignored here for simplicity.)
12b/+13a/b: Your authorization server creates/gets the authorization (creates access token) and responds with a redirect to the callback URL of your web app. (See: Access Token Response)
14a: The callback URL is opened.
14b: Your web app extracts the access token from the callback URL.
15: Your web app makes an API call.
16/17/18: The API gateway checks the access token, exchanges the access token with an JWT (which contains user infos, ...) and forwards the call.
A setup where the authorization server calls the API gateway is also possible. In this case, after the authorization is done, the authorization server passes the access token and JWT to the API gateway. Here, however, everytime the user infos change the authorization server has to "inform" the API gateway.
This is a very long question. But I believe most can be summarised by answering below,
To my understanding, all the articles and examples I found assume you want access to eg. google calendar, profile info or emails if you eg. login with google,
You do not necessarily use Access token (ID token in some occasions) to access the services offered by token issuer.You can consume tokens by your own APIs. What these Identity Providers (synonym to Authorization server, or IDP in shorthand) is to hold identities of end users. For example, typical internet have a Facebook account. With OAuth and OpenID Connect, the same user get the ability to consume your API or any OAuth/OIDC accepted service. This reduce user profile creation for end users.
In corporate domain, OAuth and OIDC serves the same purpose. Having a single Azure AD account lets you to consume MS Word as well as Azure AD's OIDC will issue tokens which can be used to Authorise against an in-house API or an third party ERP product (used in organization) which support OIDC based authentication. Hope it's clear now
A note on the diagram is that the Authentication service could probably be built into the API Gateway - not sure if that would be better?
If you are planning to implement an API gateway, think twice. If things are small scale and if you think you can maintain it, then go ahead. But consider about API managers which could provide most of your required functionalities. I welcome you to read this article about WSO2 API manger and understand its capabilities (No I'm not working for them).
For example, that API manager has built in authentication handling mechanism for OAuth and OIDC. It can handle API authentication with simple set of configurations. With such solution you get rid of the requirement of implement everything.
What if you can't use an API manager and has to do it yourself
OpenID Connect is for authentication. Your application can validate the id token and authenticate end user. To access APIs through API Gateway, I think you should utilise Access token.
To validate the access token, you can use introspection endpoint of the identity provider. And to get user information, you can use user-info endpoint.
Once access token is validated, API gateway could create a session for a limited time (ideally to be less or equal to access token lifetime). Consequent requests should come with this session to accept by API gateway. Alternatively, you can still use validated access token. Since you validated it at the first call, you may cache for a certain time period thus avoiding round trips to validations.
To validate user details, permission and other grants, well you must wither bind user to a session or else associate user to access token from API gateway at token validation. I'm also not super clear about this as I have no idea on how your DB logic works.
First Appreciate your patience in writing a very valuable question in this forum
we too have same situation and problem
I want to go through ,as images are blocked in our company in detail
Was trying to draw paralles to similar one quoted in the book
Advance API In Practise - Prabath Siriwerdena [ page 269]Federating access to API's Chapter. Definitely worth reading of his works
API GW should invoke Token Exchange OAUTH2.0 Profile to IDP [ provided the IDP should support TOken Exchange profile for OAUTH 2.0
The Absence of API Gateway , will result in quite bespoke development
for Access Control for each API Check
you land up in having this check at each of the api or microservice [ either as library which does work for you as a reusable code]
definitely will become a choking point.]
I need to interact with an API that only supports OAuth2.
The problem is, I would like to write a purely server side application which should sit there without a GUI polling an API every day.
The API gives me the ability to get the application token programatically, but it looks like I need to implement the entire GUI flow to get the subsequent access token. This is because I need to log in via the application providers web based login screen.
It looks like I then need to get that access token, and copy this out as my server side credential where I recreate it. If that ever expires or goes bad, I'll need to go back via the GUI flow to get my server side access token.
Is my understanding correct here as this feels very clunky?
Specifically:
Can I avoid implementing the process where we link over to the application providers login form?
Is it right that after doing this, I have to unpick an access token and store this within my server side application. I don't appear to have any control over whether that will expire?
I can see that e.g. Facebook specifically support server side and client side flow. I wonder if I'm coming up against limitations in this particular implementation of OAuth 2?
I don't know how you actually want the app to behave, but one thing is certain - you do have to input the user credentials once.
Once you authenticate and authorize (there are a lot of open questions on SO, about automatic authentication), your app will get not only an access token, but also a Refresh Token. A refresh token is just what you need in your use case. You can store it your the server side - A refresh token does not have an expiration time. It lives till the user explicitly revokes permissions.
For any OAuth service provider there is a token exchange endpoint where you can exchange the refresh token for a (refresh token + access token) pair. So, at the backend (your server) you can at any time hit this endpoint - get a short-lived access token and perform the operation that you need to. This saves you all the effort of following the GUI flow every time.
See this link - https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2WebServer#offline
EDIT - Made some changes after reading your comment. You simply need to know how to use refresh tokens in your app.
I've found that the typical solution to the problem I asked in this question is to use XAuth.
Many providers such as Twitter and the application I am currently working against support XAuth to provide a simplified flow without the user interface based authentication.
What is the difference among BasicAuth,OAuth and XAuth?
I'm trying to use OAuth with .NET (DotNetOpenAuth) to send updates to a Twitter account via a web application. I understand the basic workflow of OAuth and Twitter.
Where I'm confused if is it useful in a server web application? I don't want any user interaction.
But how it seems after an application start, the request token needs to be recreated and also an access token. This involves user interaction.
What is the correct workflow for my case?
Storing the request token or access token in config file?
Or the easist way, using HTTP basic authentication?
Thanks
If I understand you correctly your application will not be interacting with Twitter on behalf of your users but will be acting as the Twitter account for your application.
In this case there are 2 main factors to consider.
1) Do you want "from API" attached to each status as will be if you use basic auth or your applications name will happen if you use OAuth.
2) Do you want to put in the extra effort to implement OAuth.
If you decide to go with OAuth you would store your apps consumer key/secret and the accounts access token in configuration just like you would store the accounts screenname/password.
Your "request token needs to be recreated" phrase suggests you might be running into the problem where every time your user visits you need to re-authorize to Twitter, and perhaps you're looking for a way to access the user's Twitter account while he's not at your web site, and how can you do this when their token isn't fresh from being re-authorized. Is that right?
If so, the user isn't supposed to have to re-authorize Twitter every time they visit your site. The token is supposed to last a long time, which would also allow your site to access their Twitter account when they are not directly interacting with your web site. The problem may be that you haven't implemented the IConsumerTokenManager interface, but are instead using the default InMemoryTokenManager, which is for sample use only, since this memory-only token manager loses tokens every time the web app is restarted. Your own implementation of this simple interface should store and read the tokens out of some persistent storage such as a database.