We have a requirement to call Snapchat APIs from the non-browser application. These APIs use OAuth for authentication with a grant-type authorization code.
This grant type needs a redirect URI to authenticate with an external application and generate a code that can be used to create tokens.
We don't have a redirect URI as ours is a non-browser application that needs to pull(GET) data from Snapchat.
How do we generate tokens as we don't have to redirect URI? Is the autoriation_code grant type suitable for non-browser-based applications?
Refer Snapchat API Specifications for token generation:
https://marketingapi.snapchat.com/docs/#user-auth-via-redirect
Your application doesn't have to be a browser, but it does have to support redirection to use the code grant type. From the specification:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1
"The authorization code grant type is used to obtain both access
tokens and refresh tokens and is optimized for confidential clients.
Since this is a redirection-based flow, the client must be capable of
interacting with the resource owner's user-agent (typically a web
browser) and capable of receiving incoming requests (via redirection)
from the authorization server."
Depending on which stack your application is written in, there may be libraries available to support this.
Related
OAuth 2.0 spec defines confidential and public clients. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-2.1
Here is the prescription according to the OAuth 2.0 spec
Confidential client - Web application - Auth code grant flow.
Public clients - Desktop App, Mobile App, SPA(Single page app) - Implicit flow.
However AD B2C's prescription according to Microsoft documentation is as follows
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-b2c/active-directory-b2c-reference-oauth-code
Confidential client - Web application - OpenIDConnect signin (Built on top of auth code grant)
Public clients - Desktop App, Mobile App - Auth code grant flow
Public clients - SPA(Single page app) - Implicit flow
Based on the above inference, we are clear with Web Apps and SPAs, no confusions here.
However for Desktop and mobile apps why is Microsoft suggesting Auth code grant flow instead of implicit flow [even though they are public clients according to Microsoft documentation as well]?
Posting the answer that i received from Microsoft, which i find as more appropriate in this case.
Please refer to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8252#section-8.2 which says below -
The OAuth 2.0 implicit grant authorization flow (defined in
Section 4.2 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]) generally works with the practice
of performing the authorization request in the browser and receiving
the authorization response via URI-based inter-app communication.
However, as the implicit flow cannot be protected by PKCE [RFC7636]
(which is required in Section 8.1), the use of the Implicit Flow with
native apps is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Access tokens granted via the implicit flow also cannot be refreshed
without user interaction, making the authorization code grant flow --
which can issue refresh tokens -- the more practical option for
native app authorizations that require refreshing of access tokens.
I believe the authorization code flow is being recommended for mobile and native apps so that a refresh token can be issued to these public clients.
The implicit flow does not issue a refresh token to a public client -- this flow requires the public client to send a hidden iframe request.
tldr: Authoirzation code flow is ideal for confidential clients. But it is not limited only for them;
Your perspective on client type and grant is not correct.
Confidential clients are the ones which can protect the client secret. For example, a web application with a secure back-end is one such. But a SPA cannot be considered one as it does not have a way to protect the client secret. SPA runs on a browser and observing the source from browser will reveal such secret if used. Same applies for a mobile app and a windows installed app (native). If you embed the client secret, then it can be obtained by some reverse engineering from the device.
Now about grant type, authorization code grant is suitable for any client which can do a back-channel token request. This token request happens outside the browser. This can be done by a mobile app or a windows app too. Also, there is PKCE specification dedicated to security enhance the flow for such native clients. If you read the spec, you will see that token request's client credentials are required only if client is confidential.
If the client type is confidential or the client was issued client
credentials (or assigned other authentication requirements), the
client MUST authenticate with the authorization server as described
in Section 3.2.1.
But SPA not having a back-end cannot perform the token request mentioned about. It runs on the browser. Thus implicit grant is defined to cater such apps.
In OAuth2.0 Authorization Code Grant as stated in RFC 6749, the token request requires client secret according to sec4.1.3; however, the authorization request is not according to sec4.1.1.
Does anyone know why? It seems using client secret for both authorization and token request makes the process more secure.
They are different because they are two different types of requests. 4.1.1
GET /authorize?response_type=code&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3&state=xyz
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient%2Eexample%2Ecom%2Fcb HTTP/1.1
Host: server.example.com
Is used to display the actual consent screen to the user.
Once the user has accepted then the code is exchanged for an access token
>HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: https://client.example.com/cb?code=SplxlOBeZQQYbYS6WxSbIA
&state=xyz
No secret is needed because you are currently in the Authorization Code section of the document.
4.1. Authorization Code Grant
The authorization code grant type is used to obtain both access
tokens and refresh tokens and is optimized for confidential clients.
Since this is a redirection-based flow, the client must be capable of
interacting with the resource owner's user-agent (typically a web
browser) and capable of receiving incoming requests (via redirection)
from the authorization server.
Authorization Code is sometimes refereed to as the Implicit flow, as the required access token is sent back to the client application without the need for an authorization request token. This makes the whole flow pretty easy, but also less secure. As the client application, which is typically JavaScript running within a Browser is less trusted, no refresh tokens for long-lived access are returned. Returning an access token to JavaScript clients also means that your browser-based application needs to take special care – think of XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) Attacks that could leak the access token to other systems.
Basically a user implicitly trusts their pc so there is really no need for the client secret validation step. Client secret is only needed for server sided applications where the user does not have access to the server so the server must validate itself.
I'd like to authenticate a legacy java (6) application against a node-js one currently secured using keycloak OIDC bearer only (both apps belonging to same realm).
I've been told to use keycloak-authz-client library resolving a keycloak OIDC JSON as below
{
"realm": "xxx",
"realm-public-key": "fnzejhbfbhafbazhfzafazbfgeuizrgyez...",
"bearer-only": true,
"auth-server-url": "http://xxx:80/auth",
"ssl-required": "external",
"resource": "resourceName"
}
However, the keycloak java client required java 8 and my current runtime is a jre6. Recompiling the lib including transitive dependencies does not looks like a good idea and I end up so using keycloak oauth2 REST endpoint.
As far as I know oauth2 I would go with a client_credentials flows exchanging a client secret against an access_token once at application initialization and refreshing / renewing when expired.
Coming to keycloak documentation :
Access Type
This defines the type of the OIDC client.
confidential
Confidential access type is for server-side clients that need to perform a browser login and require a client secret when they turn an
access code into an access token, (see Access Token Request in the
OAuth 2.0 spec for more details). This type should be used for
server-side applications. public
Public access type is for client-side clients that need to perform a browser login. With a client-side application there is no way to
keep a secret safe. Instead it is very important to restrict access by
configuring correct redirect URIs for the client. bearer-only
Bearer-only access type means that the application only allows bearer token requests. If this is turned on, this application cannot
participate in browser logins.
It seems that confidential access type is the one suitable for my needs (should be used for server-side applications) however I don't get how it is related to browser login (which is my mind is related to authenticating using third parties identity providers as facebook and co).
The confidential client settings also require a valid redirect uri the browser will redirect to after successful login or lagout. As the client I want to authenticate is an application I don't see the point.
Generally speaking I don't get the whole access type things. Is it related only to the client or to the resource owner also (Is my node.js application stuck to bearer-only as existing clients use this access type ? will it accept the bearer authentication using the access_token obtained with client_credentials flow ? I suppose it will).
Can someone clarify keycloak OIDC access type and where I went wrong if I did ?
What is the proper way to delegate access for my legacy application to some resources (not limited to a specific user ones) of another application using keycloak ?
You are mixing up the OAuth 2.0 concepts of Client Types and Grants. Those are different, albeit interconnected, concepts. The former refers to the application architecture, whereas the latter to the appropriate grant to handle a particular Authorization/Authentication use-case.
One chooses and combines those options; first one choses the client type (e.g., public, confidential), and then the grant (e.g., Authorization code flow). Both client types share some of the same grants, with the caviar that the confidential client will require also a client secret to be provided during the execution of the Authentication/Authorization grant.
From the Oauth 2.0 specification:
OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to
authenticate securely with the authorization server (i.e., ability to
maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
confidential
Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., client implemented on a secure server with
restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
public
Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., clients executing on the device used by the
resource owner, such as an installed native application or a web
browser-based application), and incapable of secure client
authentication via any other means.
As one can read the client type refers to the type of the application architecture. Why do you need those types? The answer is to add an extra layer of security.
Let us look at the example of the Authorization Code Grant. Typically the flow is as follows:
The user goes to an application;
The user gets redirect to the Keycloak login page;
The user authenticates itself;
Keycloak check the username and password, and if correct, sends back to the application an authorization code;
The application receives that code and calls Keycloak in order to exchange the code for tokens.
One of the "security issue" with that flow is that the exchange of code for token happens on the frontend channel which due to the nature of browsers it is susceptible to a hacker intercepting that code and exchange it for the tokens before the real application does it. There are ways of mitigating this but it is out of the scope of this question.
Now, If your application is a single-page application, then it cannot safely store a secret, therefore we have to use a public client type. However, if the application has a backend where the client secret can be safely stored, then we could use a confidential client.
So for the same flow (i.e., Authorization Code Grant), one can make it more secure by using a confidential client. This is because the application will now have to send to Keycloak a client secret as well, and this happens on the backend channel, which it is more secure than the frontend channel.
What is the proper way to delegate access for my legacy application to
some resources (not limited to a specific user ones) of another
application using keycloak ?
The proper grant is to use the so called Client Credential Grant:
4.4. Client Credentials Grant
The client can request an access token using only its client
credentials (or other supported means of authentication) when the
client is requesting access to the protected resources under its
control, or those of another resource owner that have been previously
arranged with the authorization server (the method of which is beyond
the scope of this specification).
Since this grant uses the client credentials (e.g., client secret) you can only use it if you have selected confidential as the client type.
You can implement the "Authorization Code Flow" in this situation?
A single page app in www.app.com
A REST backend in www.backend.com
Is possible to obtain via javascript an "authorization code" and then pass it to the "backend" for this get the "access token"?
In theory, using the authorization code flow (or the hybrid flow) with a JS/mobile/desktop application is definitely possible, and you don't even need to store client credentials for that (you could, of course, but extracting them is so easy that it would be pointless).
Contrary to popular belief, client authentication is not required for "public" applications (i.e apps that cannot safely store their credentials, which includes JS apps) when using the authorization code flow:
If the client type is confidential or the client was issued client
credentials (or assigned other authentication requirements), the
client MUST authenticate with the authorization server as described
in Section 3.2.1.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1.3
f the Client is a Confidential Client, then it MUST authenticate to the Token Endpoint using the authentication method registered for its client_id, as described in Section 9.
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#TokenRequest
In practice, I'm pretty sure most authorization/authentication servers will enforce client authentication when using the authorization code flow and will instead recommend using the implicit flow for public apps.
If your authorization server supports this scenario, using the authorization code flow in your JS app should be easy if you use response_mode=query (or better: response_mode=fragment as suggested by #Hans), since you can use your JS main page as the redirect_uri and use some JS to extract the authorization code from the query string or from the fragment.
That is possible by setting the redirect_uri to somewhere in your SPA, pickup the code from the authorization response (using any of the methods described in How to get the value from the GET parameters?) and pass it on to the backend in an application specific way. When using OpenID Connect there's the option to have the code delivered in the fragment of the redirect_uri which has some security advantages over having it delivered as a query parameter.
OAuth 2.0 has multiple workflows. I have a few questions regarding the two.
Authorization code flow - User logs in from client app, authorization server returns an authorization code to the app. The app then exchanges the authorization code for access token.
Implicit grant flow - User logs in from client app, authorization server issues an access token to the client app directly.
What is the difference between the two approaches in terms of security? Which one is more secure and why?
I don't see a reason why an extra step (exchange authorization code for token) is added in one work flow when the server can directly issue an Access token.
Different websites say that Authorization code flow is used when client app can keep the credentials secure. Why?
The access_token is what you need to call a protected resource (an API). In the Authorization Code flow there are 2 steps to get it:
User must authenticate and returns a code to the API consumer (called the "Client").
The "client" of the API (usually your web server) exchanges the code obtained in #1 for an access_token, authenticating itself with a client_id and client_secret
It then can call the API with the access_token.
So, there's a double check: the user that owns the resources surfaced through an API and the client using the API (e.g. a web app). Both are validated for access to be granted. Notice the "authorization" nature of OAuth here: user grants access to his resource (through the code returned after authentication) to an app, the app get's an access_token, and calls on the user's behalf.
In the implicit flow, step 2 is omitted. So after user authentication, an access_token is returned directly, that you can use to access the resource. The API doesn't know who is calling that API. Anyone with the access_token can, whereas in the previous example only the web app would (it's internals not normally accessible to anyone).
The implicit flow is usually used in scenarios where storing client id and client secret is not recommended (a device for example, although many do it anyway). That's what the the disclaimer means. People have access to the client code and therefore could get the credentials and pretend to become resource clients. In the implicit flow all data is volatile and there's nothing stored in the app.
I'll add something here which I don't think is made clear in the above answers:
The Authorization-Code-Flow allows for the final access-token to never reach and never be stored on the machine with the browser/app. The temporary authorization-code is given to the machine with the browser/app, which is then sent to a server. The server can then exchange it with a full access token and have access to APIs etc. The user with the browser gets access to the API only through the server with the token.
Implicit flow can only involve two parties, and the final access token is stored on the client with the browser/app. If this browser/app is compromised so is their auth-token which could be dangerous.
tl;dr don't use implicit flow if you don't trust the users machine to hold tokens but you do trust your own servers.
The difference between both is that:
In Implicit flow,the token is returned directly via redirect URL with "#" sign and this used mostly in javascript clients or mobile applications that do not have server side at its own, and the client does not need to provide its secret in some implementations.
In Authorization code flow, code is returned with "?" to be readable by server side then server side is have to provide client secret this time to token url to get token as json object from authorization server. It is used in case you have application server that can handle this and store user token with his/her profile on his own system, and mostly used for common mobile applications.
so it is depends on the nature of your client application, which one more secure "Authorization code" as it is request the secret on client and the token can be sent between authorization server and client application on very secured connection, and the authorization provider can restrict some clients to use only "Authorization code" and disallow Implicit
Which one is more secure and why?
Both of them are secure, it depends in the environment you are using it.
I don't see a reason why an extra step (exchange authorization code
for token) is added in one work flow when the server can directly
issue an Access token.
It is simple. Your client is not secure. Let's see it in details.
Consider you are developing an application against Instagram API, so you register your APP with Instagram and define which API's you need. Instagram will provide you with client_id and client_secrect
On you web site you set up a link which says. "Come and Use My Application". Clicking on this your web application should make two calls to Instagram API.
First send a request to Instagram Authentication Server with below parameters.
1. `response_type` with the value `code`
2. `client_id` you have get from `Instagram`
3. `redirect_uri` this is a url on your server which do the second call
4. `scope` a space delimited list of scopes
5. `state` with a CSRF token.
You don't send client_secret, You could not trust the client (The user and or his browser which try to use you application). The client can see the url or java script and find your client_secrect easily. This is why you need another step.
You receive a code and state. The code here is temporary and is not saved any where.
Then you make a second call to Instagram API (from your server)
1. `grant_type` with the value of `authorization_code`
2. `client_id` with the client identifier
3. `client_secret` with the client secret
4. `redirect_uri` with the same redirect URI the user was redirect back to
5. `code` which we have already received.
As the call is made from our server we can safely use client_secret ( which shows who we are), with code which shows the user have granted out client_id to use the resource.
In response we will have access_token
The implicit grant is similar to the authorization code grant with two distinct differences.
It is intended to be used for user-agent-based clients (e.g. single page web apps) that can’t keep a client secret because all of the application code and storage is easily accessible.
Secondly instead of the authorization server returning an authorization code which is exchanged for an access token, the authorization server returns an access token.
Please find details here
http://oauth2.thephpleague.com/authorization-server/which-grant/
Let me summarize the points that I learned from above answers and add some of my own understandings.
Authorization Code Flow!!!
If you have a web application server that act as OAuth client
If you want to have long lived access
If you want to have offline access to data
when you are accountable for api calls that your app makes
If you do not want to leak your OAuth token
If you don't want you application to run through authorization flow every time it needs access to data. NOTE: The Implicit Grant flow does not entertain refresh token so if authorization server expires access tokens regularly, your application will need to run through the authorization flow whenever it needs access.
Implicit Grant Flow!!!
When you don't have Web Application Server to act as OAuth Client
If you don't need long lived access i.e only temporary access to data is required.
If you trust the browser where your app runs and there is limited concern that the access token will leak to untrusted users.
Implicit grant should not be used anymore, see the IETF current best practices for details. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-18#section-2.1.2
As an alternative use a flow with response type code; for clients without possibility to securely store client credentials the authorization code with PKCE flow should be your choice.
From practical perspective (What I understood), The main reason for having Authz code flow is :
Support for refresh tokens (long term access by apps on behalf of User), not supported in implicit: refer:https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.2
Support for consent page which is a place where Resource Owner can control what access to provide (Kind of permissions/authorization page that you see in google). Same is not there in implicit . See section : https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1 , point (B)
"The authorization server authenticates the resource owner (via the user-agent) and establishes whether the resource owner grants or denies the client's access request"
Apart from that, Using refresh tokens, Apps can get long term access to user data.
There seem to be two key points, not discussed so far, which explain why the detour in the Authorization Code Grant Type adds security.
Short story: The Authorization Code Grant Type keeps sensitive information from the browser history, and the transmission of the token depends only on the HTTPS protection of the authorization server.
Longer version:
In the following, I'll stick with the OAuth 2 terminology defined in the RFC (it's a quick read): resource server, client, authorization server, resource owner.
Imagine you want some third-party app (= client) to access certain data of your Google account (= resource server). Let's just assume Google uses OAuth 2. You are the resource owner for the Google account, but right now you operate the third-party app.
First, the client opens a browser to send you to the secure URL of the Google authorization server. Then you approve the request for access, and the authorization server sends you back to the client's previously-given redirect URL, with the authorization code in the query string. Now for the two key points:
The URL of this redirect ends up in the browser history. So we don't want a long lived, directly usable access token here. The short lived authorization code is less dangerous in the history. Note that the Implicit Grant type does put the token in the history.
The security of this redirect depends on the HTTPS certificate of the client, not on Google's certificate. So we get the client's transmission security as an extra attack vector (For this to be unavoidable, the client needs to be non-JavaScript. Since otherwise we could transmit the authorization code via fragment URL, where the code would not go through the network. This may be the reason why Implicit Grant Type, which does use a fragment URL, used to be recommended for JavaScript clients, even though that's no longer so.)
With the Authorization Code Grant Type, the token is finally obtained by a call from the client to the authorization server, where transmission security only depends on the authorization server, not on the client.