I am reading documents for Microsoft Identity Platform to implement api and protecting it by using Microsoft Identity platform and I do understand some what OAuth code Grant flow and Client Credential flow (for daemon apps).
Now when I am reading the documents it is keep mentioning authorization on 'behalf of user' and and 'behalf of itself'. So my question is "on behalf of user" is same as Code Grant flow?. Similarly if client credential flow is "on behalf of itself'.
If not then what is the difference between 'On behalf of user' vs Code grant flow.
Really want to understand as it keeping me in confusion.
Thanks
Azure AD supports the following OAuth flows/grants:
Implicit
Authorization code (with/without PKCE)
On-behalf-of
Client credentials
Device code
Resource owner password credentials
Refresh token
Link to docs: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/active-directory-v2-protocols
In most of these, the application will get an access token that allows it to perform requests on behalf of the signed in user.
The access token contains both information of the app that requested token but also the signed in user's information.
This allows the target API to check both the application's access (scopes aka delegated permissions) and the user's access (roles/other form of access control).
The "on-behalf-of" flow might be a bit confusing here, but it has a specific purpose: exchange an access token obtained with one of the other flows (except client credentials) for a new access token.
It is used in scenarios where a client app uses e.g. authorization code flow to call API A, and API A wants to then call API B on behalf of that same user.
Client credentials flow is the only different one; when using it an application only provides its own credentials and a user is not involved.
Thus the access token only contains application information, and the application will perform requests as itself.
The target API will usually only check the roles in the token (application permissions, app roles with allowed member type application), though it can also check the id of the calling app if it has a list of allowed applications stored somewhere.
Related
I've began to take interest in the OAuth 2.0 specification and am not sure if what I've understood so far is correct.
OAuth is an authorization protocol while OpenID Connect is an authentication protocol which extends OAuth.
The first deals with authorizing access to a 3rd party resource, by a client application. Example you are building some app and would like to use some other application (which is not yours to own) features (resources).
On the other hand OpenID connect, deals with authorization, authorizing some human entity by verifying his/hers identity to, for example, access a specific resource that only him/her alone has access to. Example you're a banking application and allow users to access their account but first they need to confirm their identity with an Authorization Provider.
So is it safe to say that Authorization is destined to application interaction while Authentication for human interaction ?
Your understanding on OAuth and OpenID Connect is correct. When OAuth was introduced, it define a way to obtain access tokens, which the holding party can used against an endpoint protected by OAuth access tokens. This allowed identity details to be stored in a central location (authorization server aka identity servcer) and that central location to maintain token obtaining process (which include human authentication too).
While access token are used to grant access (authorize), OpenID Connect introduced ID token that get transmitted along with access token. The ID token is there to be consumed by the client application, which is used to authenticate the end user.
Token obtaining require authentication at authorization server. Depending on the token obtaining flow (aka OAuth grant), this authentication will involve the human user. It is also possible to follow a flow which does not involve a human user. Such flow only produce an access token. And OpenID Connect can only be used when human user is involved.
Q : So is it safe to say that Authorization is destined to application interaction while Authentication for human interaction ?
If your application (client) involves and end user, then that user can involved in token obtaining flow. And you can obtain access token as well as ID Token. Then you use ID token for end user authentication. And access token is used to connect with another endpoint.
If your application does not involved an end user (ex:- A service), then you will use OAuth to obtain access token, which used against another endpoint.
I am trying come up with a bash script to register an application in Azure AD using the /beta/applications endpoint from Microsoft Graph.
To call /applications, I would need to get an access token.
Is it possible to get an access token for Microsoft Graph using just email address/password (Without a client-id)? I am looking for something like "Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant Flow" mentioned in OAUTH2 spec.
Any other alternative I can look into. I want to write a simple script that would manage application registration and any updates to the application in future.
Yes, there are several means of running a script against the Microsoft Graph API without a user present:
AD supports the resource owner credential grant that you described in your question. This flow doesn't support some new auth features like multifactor auth and you'll have to be very careful about securely storing your credentials.
The other option is to use V2 auth client credential flow. In this case, the tenant admin consents to the application on behalf of the tenant. Afterwards, the application can run without a user present. One benefit of this flow as opposed to the V1 resource owner credential grant is that you pass a client credential which can be revoked and re-generated if needed (rather than dealing with raw user credentials).
I understand the OAuth 2.0 spec. allows third-party applications to grant limited access to the application, either on behalf of a resource owner or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.
I have a scenario, where I have an application and I need the user to get authenticated with some IAM provider. The roles and privileges are configured in the authorization server for each user. I can query the introspection point of the authorization server and based on the scope details, my application can decide the access to any resource for the user.
In this case, the user is not the resource owner. The types of resources the user can access is decided by my application, instead of the user allowing/denying the application to access resources.
Since the user is not the resource owner, can OAuth/OpenId Connect be used in this scenario ? Is it possible with WSO2 IAM?
I tried the playground sample which is available in WSO2. Once the user logs in, there is a window which asks "playground requests access to your profile information" and requesting the user to allow/deny. Can this be avoided, since in my case the user is not allowed to make any decisions ?
If not, what are the other options to authorize/limit access to resources which is decided by the authorization server/resource server, instead of user granting access ?
Thanks,
Albie Morken
In this case, the user is not the resource owner. The types of resources the user can access is decided by my application, instead of the user allowing/denying the application to access resources.
In your scenario, you are relying on tokens issued by authorisation server to access a protected resource. The protected resource is your application. And this application must have internal mechanisms to verify the tokens it receives to grant access.
Short answer to your question is - YES
You can use openID connect for this scenario. And you have two options to adopt,
1. Use access tokens with introspection end point
You can use access tokens to grant access to your application. The client should send the access token as a bearer token as described in RFC6750. When the application end point receives a request, this access token can be validated against introspection endpoint RFC7662
2. Use ID token
ID tokens too can be used as bearer tokens.ID token is a JWT (RFC7519) and is self contained. It contains validation mechanisms as described by OpenID connect spec which are self sufficient to allow grant. And also to you can check claims it contains to authorise the end user. More can be found from this link.
I tried the playground sample which is available in WSO2. Once the user logs in, there is a window which asks "playground requests access to your profile information" and requesting the user to allow/deny. Can this be avoided, since in my case the user is not allowed to make any decisions ?
Consent page can be disabled. According to spec. it can be done by configuring identity.xml as follow,
<SkipUserConsent>true</SkipUserConsent>
It is described in their documentation too.
Hope this helped.
p.s - WSO2IS contains inbuilt XACML engine. XACML is the standard for access control. You can fine more information from this link.
Our team is starting to build out a SMART on FHIR (SoF) application. SoF uses OAuth2 access_tokens to represent authorizations. Our app is using the code grant to get a token (https://oauth2.thephpleague.com/authorization-server/auth-code-grant/).
I'm pretty new to OAuth2 (used to SAML) and have been reading up on the standard. I think we may be conflating what the access_token is intended to represent.
Is the intent in OAuth2 that the access_token represents the permissions the resource owner (end user) has granted to the client (web application) to perform on their behalf?
Or is the intent to rely that the resource owner (end user) is allowed to preform certain operations?
For example say the auth token request has a scope called 'contacts-update'. If we get an access_token back with this scope, does that mean the user has allowed the application to attempt to update contacts (on their behalf) or does it mean that the user has the underlying requirements (they are in the update contacts role) to be able to update contacts?
As you wrote, the OAuth2 access token represents a permission delegation from a resource owner to a client (application), so the client can perform operations on behalf of the resource owner. That's also why there is a consent page - the user agrees on giving the application permissions (scopes) it requested.
Sometimes, people want to use OAuth2 as a central authentication server and a permission configuration for their applications. They want each application to see all permissions the user has configured for it. Then it doesn't make sense for application to ask for specific scopes, but to configure the OAuth2 server to return all relevant for that application (identified by a client_id). But I don't think this is the intended way of usage and the OAuth2 specification doesn't cover this scenario.
OAuth2 can also be used for authentication only, if it supports OpenID Connect extension. Then applications can ask for ID tokens. ID token proves identity of a user and the permissions are handled in each application separately.
When using Azure AD client credentials flow, should the oauth2 endpoint (of azure ad) produce a bearer token if the client application has NOT been granted permission to access the requested resource? I was certain it used to error in this case, but I'm now seeing different behavior (a valid bearer token is now provided even if the client application does NOT have permission to the resource application).
We have always allowed tokens to be issues between two services when using the client credential flow. This scenario is basically S2S between Daemon Services.
The important thing to note here is that the built in authorization model for AAD takes advantage of SCP and ROLE claims, which appear in the token and can help your API understand what permissions it has been granted by the user.
However, we want to also allow you, in this situation, to use your own authorization layer. For example, you could simply white-list the App ID of the client application to allow it to make S2S calls to your API, without the presence of any ROLE claims in the token. The token issuance behavior here enables this scenario.