I was working on a project which uses Jwt tokens for authentication and authorization, now I have a new requirement in which I have to use Oauth 2.0 for security purposes and SSO.
I wanted to know is there a way out to convert my Jwt written code to use Oauth 2.0
Related
What is the difference between oauth 2.0, auth0 and wso2? I saw some related post where are explained, more or less well, what are the differences between oauth 2.0 and auth0 but ws02 is not included in the explanation.
OAuth 2.0 is a widely used specification for authorization aspects of resources: https://oauth.net/2/
Auth0 and WSO2 Identity Server are two identity providers (IAM solutions). Both support OAuth 2.0.
Auth0: https://auth0.com/docs/protocols/protocol-oauth2
WSO2 IS: https://is.docs.wso2.com/en/latest/learn/working-with-oauth/
I have done a sample application using Sprint Boot, Spring security and JWT and define my custom authentication & authorization filters. While performing basic authentication (passing username & password) I get JWT token in the format of xxxx.yyyy.zzzz where xxxx is header, yyyy is payload and zzzz is signature and each part is encoded using Base64URL encoder. What I do not understand is how JWT is different from OAuth 2.0. In OAuth 2.0, we can pass 2 types of grant_types as either 'username' or 'client credentials' & also needs to pass client id, secret id to get access & refresh tokens.
Please assist to clarify my following doubts:-
1) Is JWT lighter than OAuth 2.0 as it does not contain the refresh token but just access token?
2) Is JWT cannot be used to make a standalone authorization server like we can make a standalone authorization server using #EnableAuthorizationServer annotation when it comes to OAuth 2.0. Is my assumption correct?
3) JWT does not accept client id/secret client but just used as basic authentication to get bearer tokens?
4) Is the format of access token (or bearer) for both OAuth2.0 and JWT are different?
I have seen an example where both OAuth 2.0 and JWT were used. OAuth 2.0 was to make authorization server which returns JWT token only in the end but did not understand why JWT was used if OAuth2.0 can return a token by itself.
Thank you
JWT is a JSON-based token defined in RFC 7519. OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework defined in RFC 6749. Comparing both is like asking "How Glucose is different from Apple Pie?".
However, it is possible to bring OAuth 2.0 and JWTs together as is defined in RFC 7523 – The JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants. It standardizes, how to use JWTs as bearer tokens within the OAuth 2.0 framework, which enables what I call stateless authentication.
Regarding your questions:
Whether or not you use JWTs as bearer tokens does not influence whether or not you want to hand out refresh tokens.
Not sure whether I get your questions. However, using JWT allows you to do decentral, stateless auth decisions as there is no necessity to store token state centrally. However, nobody prevents you from having a standalone authorization server.
How you want to do authentication has nothing to do with JWT. It is still OAuth 2.0.
In OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens are considered to be opaque tokens – the format does not matter. If you use JWTs as bearer tokens, you need to follow the corresponding RFC.
I am working on a web app which will need to implement the three-legged OAuth 2.0 flow. The Smartsheet API docs http://smartsheet.com/developers/api-documentation say that the API supports standard OAuth 2.0 flow. On closer inspection, however, I see that access and refresh token management operations require that instead of sending over the client secret (which appears to be the standard behavior in other APIs), I have to send over a hash, quoting "SHA-256 hash of your client secret concatenated with a pipe and the authorization code. The client_secret is never sent with the request."
Given that this is different from the standard OAuth 2.0 flow, does Smartsheet API support the standard behavior?
Passing the secret in the clear - on the URL - is not supporterd. The flow described in the documentation is an OAuth2 flow, though it is admittedly not the common flow that is most generally used among SaaS vendors. The OAuth2 spec allows for extensions to the token endpoint to accommodate the security requirements of the authorization server, and the SHA256 hash is one such extension.
In OAuth 1.0, 2-legged is pretty easily: Simply send the request as usual and omit the access_token header.
Things seems to have changed in OAuth 2.0 (drastically, as I found out today :)). In OAuth 2.0, the request no longer has headers such as the nonce, consumer key, timestamp etc. This is just replaced by:
Authorization: OAuth ya29.4fgasdfafasdfdsaf3waffghfhfgh
I understand how 3 legged authorizations work in OAuth 2.0 and the application flows. But how does 2-legged work in 2.0? Is it possible to design an API that can support both 2-legged and 3-legged OAuth 2.0?
I have been searching for information regarding this, but I have been finding a lot of stuff on 2-legged for 1.0 and almost nothing for 2.0.
After lots of research, I discovered that client_credentials grant type is for this scenario. Once you punch this term into google, you can find loads of very helpful resources.
This is the normal flow for 3-legged OAuth 2.0 (we want the user to sign in):
Assume we have the following endpoints in our app for authentication:
/oauth/auth
/oauth/token
Normally (for authorization code grant), we direct the user to /oauth/auth?state=blah&client_id=myid&redirecturl=mysite.com/blah
Then upon authentication, the user is redirected to mysite.com/blah?code=somecode
We then get somecode and exchange it for a token using /oauth/token?code=somecode&client_id=myid&client_secret=mysecret
We can then use the token to make calls.
This is the application flow for client_credentials to implement 2-legged OAuth 2.0, which is markedly simplier:
In this approach, we do not need to perform any authentication.
We simply POST to /oauth/token with the following form data:
grant_type=client_credentials&scope=view_friends
Note that scope is optional. The endpoint then directly returns an access token for us to use (no refresh token is provided). Since no refresh token is provided, when the token expires, you will need to reauthenticate and ask for a new one.
This leads to the following caveats:
Use this only for (very very) trusted applications such as internal applications.
You need to devise your own way to authenticate. For instance, the RFC's example uses basic auth.
Another solution is to use JWT (JSON web tokens) like the google OAuth API. It is a very complicated process, but there exists numerous libraries for generating your JWT. You then post the following form data (url encoded of course):
grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer&assertion=generated_jwt
This is posted to /oauth/token to get your token.
As for the question of whether you can create an API that supports 2-legged and 3-legged OAuth 2.0, Yes, it is possible.
Then /auth endpoint is only used when users need to authenticate against the service.
In the /token endpoint, simply check the value of grant_type in the GET parameters for urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer if using JWT or client_credentials for client_credentials.
Note that when generating the client_id and client_secret to give to the user, if you are supporting multiple grant_types, ensure that you have a database column to store what type of grant type the id and secret was generated for. If required to have multiple grant types per user, generate a different set of credentials for each grant type.
You can also check out Google's implementation of 2-legged OAuth2 (I believe this documentation has been published only recently).
The Google Drive SDK delegation docs should also help understanding Google's 2-legged OAuth2 implementation.
For working with Google using 1.0 protocol, applications were required to be registered using https://accounts.google.com/ManageDomains which provided a ConsumerKey and a ConsumerSecret to access feeds.
Newer application registrations are instead done using https://code.google.com/apis/ which provides ClientID, RedirectURL etc. (but not consumer key) as it is based on OAuth 2.0
Question: Is it possible to run an application created with Google APIs (OAuth 2.0) to work with an 1.0a OAuth flow? If yes, what field should be considered as a ConsumerKey?
It is not recommended that you use OAuth2 Registration for OAuth1 flows. The OAuth1 approval page will not look very nice to your users. Google's consumer_key and client_id are roughly equivalent, However, Google's OAuth1 approval page shows the raw value of consumer_key (client_id). The Application brand info will not be shown and instead you'll see the client_id value. 12345.apps.googleusercontent.com.
If you want to do the OAuth1 hybrid protocol, OAuth2 is a naturally 'hybrid' protocol and can do identity as well as data access control.