I have two client applications : Asp.Net MVC Core web app and an Android native mobile app, and an IdentityServer4 Server as an OpenID Server`.
I know that I have to create two client records for both of them (in the IS4's Clients table) :
a Hybrid Flow for the web app
a Hybrid/Authorization Code + PKCE for the native mobile app
But I'm wondering if I can create only one Client info for both of them or not?
I think you should create one client definition for each client, so you better can separate them and better evolve them as needed over time. Also makes it easier to separate them in the logs for example.
A question is however why/if you really need to support the hybrid flow? I think both clients only need to use the authorization code flow.
If you want to follow OAuth 2.1, then there are only two flows to use, either authorization code flow or client credentials flow. All other flows are not recommended due to various security issues. See https://oauth.net/2.1/
Tore's answer gives good reasons to keep those clients separated. If you're still not convinced, I would turn the question around - why do you want to have one logical client data used by two separate clients? This will cause some weird issues in the future. For example, at some point you might want to rate-limit one of those clients, or change client authentication method, or even block one of them completely. You will have to do it for both your apps if you don't create a separate client.
From the security point of view, there is a good reason to keep those two separated: the web client can be a confidential client with a secret assigned. The mobile client will be a public client, without a secret*. This is a solid reason not to mix those two, as you will lower the strength of your security considerably.
*In fact, best practice would be to use DCR and register a new client for each device where your app runs.
Related
I’m developing my own OAuth2 + OpenID Connect implementation. I am a bit confused about how to handle OAuth flows for native (specifically, Mobile) clients. So far, I am seeing that I need to use an Authentication Code Flow. However, based on my research, there are some details that seem to contradict each other(at least based on my current understanding).
First, standard practice seems to say that mobile apps are not inherently private and, as such, standard flows that make use of a back channel should not be used. As a work around, the PKCE extension can be used (and utilize the built-in device browser as opposed to a web view so the tokens and sensitive information are less likely to be leaked).
However, under the Protocol’s Dynamic Client Registration specification, it is also mentioned that mobile apps should use this method of client registration to get a valid client ID and client secret... But, why would we do this when in an earlier section it was established that mobile applications were indeed public clients and couldn’t be trusted with confidential information like a client secret (which we are getting by using this DCR mechanism...
So, what am I not understanding? These two things seem to contradict one another. One claims mobile apps are public shouldn’t be trusted with a secret. Yet, in the recommended DCR mechanism, we assign them the secret we just established they can’t be trusted with.
Thanks.
A bit late, but hope it helps. So part of the OAuth2.0 protocol is two components, the client_id, and client secret. The client and server must agree on those two values outside the protocol i.e. before the protocol start. Usually, the process is as follows. The client communicates with the Authorization Server using an out-of-bound communication channel to get these values and be registered at the server. There is two way this client registration can happen, statically and dynamically. Statically mean the client_id and secret do change, i.e. the client gets them once when he registers with the server. Dynamic client registration refers to the process of registering a client_id every time the client wants to use to protocol, i.e. a client secret will be generated for him every time (also by an outbound communication).
Now, Why use dynamic registration?
Dynamic client registration is better at managing clients across replicated authorization servers., The original OAuth use cases revolved around single-location APIs, such as those from companies providing web services. These APIs require specialized clients to talk to them, and those clients will need to talk to only a single API provider. In these cases, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect client developers to put in the effort to register their client with the API, because there’s only one provider.
Does Dynamic Client registration offer any security advantages?
No, both are vulnerable if used with a JavaScript or a Native Mobile Client (JavaScript client can be inspected, and Mobile apps can be decompiled). Hence, both of them require PKCE as an extra layer of security.
I am creating a new React SPA. Users of a legacy app need be able to use the new app without re-authenticating. So I need to support SSO.
It's important to note that it is also required that users of other (currently unspecified) apps should also be able to use the new app without re-authenticating, so whatever approach I take needs to be sufficiently decoupled to potentially allow this.
The legacy app supports authentication via Shibboleth, the new app currently has no authentication method, but uses JWT for authorisation.
I'm wondering if anyone has any experience of such a scenario? It seems to me that I probably need to be create an OAuth2 authorisation server for the new app to talk to and I need to somehow bring Shibboleth into the mix for the authentication, maybe with the authorisation service acting as a Shibboleth Service Provider. Googling around hasn't revealed much useful info.
Is what I've described along the right lines? I know it's very high level and woolly, but I'm really not sure of the approach to take. Any advice, information or experience in this area would be gratefully received!
GOALS
It's a little bit of a subjective question, but the main goals are usually as follows:
Focus on building your UI and API security in a future facing manner
Also provide good Login Usability
Also deliver on non functional requirements such as availability / reliability
AUTHORIZATION SERVER
On the first point, the modern option is to integrate UIs and APIs with an Authorization Server - perhaps as in My Tutorial. Your architecture is then good, but the migration is not trivial.
FEDERATING TO SHIBBOLETH
The Authorization Server can then redirect to Shibboleth and talk SAML2.0 to achieve Single Sign On, as you suggest. It is a complex solution though, and may be a backwards step in some ways.
AVAILABILITY
This is usually a big concern, and most companies use a cloud provider such as Azure / AWS due to its high availability / low maintenance / low cost. Would this be a better option for you?
We are building our applications in micro-services based architecture to implement our applications. As true with micro-services, we now see a lot of cross service interactions happening between services.
In order to safeguard the endpoints we plan to implement JWT based authentication between such secure exchanges.
There are 2 approaches we see helping us achieve it:
Embed an JWT engine in each application to generate the token (#consumer side) and evaluate (#provider side). With an initial exchange of keys, the token exchange shall work smooth for any future comms.
Have an external (to application) JWT engine, that sits in between all micro-service communications for the distributed application, and takes care of all token life cycle, including its encryption-decryption and validation.
There are lot of options to do it as per option #1 as listed on https://jwt.io but considering the over-head token generation and management adds to a micro-service, we prefer to go with 2nd option by having de-centralised gateway.
After quite some research and looking at various API gateways we have not yet come across a light weight solution/tool that can serve to our need and help us get centralised engine for one applications comprised of many micro-services.
Do anyone know about one such tool/solution?
If you have any other inputs on this approach, please let me know.
I prefer also option 2, but why are you looking for a framework?
The central application should only be responsible of managing the private key and issuing the tokens. Including a framework for solve one service could be excessive
You can also think to implement a validation service, but since applications are yours, I suggest to use an assymetric key and verify the token locally instead of executing remote validation requests to central application. You can provide a simple library to your microservices to download the key and perform the validation. Embed any of the libraries of JWT.io or build It from scratch. Validating a JWT is really simple
If you would need to reject a token before expiration time, for example using a blacklist, then It would be needed a central service. But I do not recommend this scheme because breaks JWT statelessness
Both scenarios could be implemented in Spring Cloud Zuul.
For more info:
http://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-static/Brixton.SR7/#_router_and_filter_zuul
http://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-static/Brixton.SR7/#_configuring_authentication_downstream_of_a_zuul_proxy
I'm currently building a mobile application (iOS at first), which needs a backend web service to communicate with.
Since this service will be exposing data that I only want to be accessed by my mobile clients, I would like to restrict the access to the service.
However I'm in a bit of a doubt as to how this should be implemented. Since my app doesn't require authentication, I can't just authenticate against the service with these credentials. Somehow I need to be able to identify if the request is coming from a trusted client (i.e. my app), and this of course leads to the thought that one could just use certificates. But couldn't this certificate just be extracted from the app and hence misused?
Currently my app is based on iOS, but later on android and WP will come as well.
The web service I'm expecting to develop in nodejs, though this is not a final decision - it will however be a RESTful service.
Any advice on best practice is appreciated!
Simple answer: You cannot prevent just anybody from acecssing your web site from a non-mobile client. You can, however, make it harder.
Easy:
Send a nonstandard HTTP header
Set some unique query parameter
Send an interesting (or subtly non-interesting) User Agent string
(you can probably think of a few more)
Difficult:
Implement a challenge/response protocol to identify your client
(Ab)use HTTP as a transport for your own encrypted content
(you can probably think of a few more)
Of course anybody could extract the data, decompile your code, replay your HTTP requests, and whatnot. But at some point, being able to access a free Web application wouldn't be worth the effort that'd be required to reverse-engineer your app.
There's a more basic question here, however. What would be the harm of accessing your site with some other client? You haven't said; and without that information it's basically impossible to recommend an appropriate solution.
I'm starting a new system creating using .NET MVC - which is a relatively large scale business management platform. There's some indication that we'll open the platform to public once it is released and pass the market test.
We will be using ExtJs for the front-end which leads us to implement most data mining work return in JSON format - this makes me think whether I should learn the OAuth right now and try to embed the OAuth concept right from the beginning?
Basically the platform we want to create will initially fully implemented internally with a widget system; our boss is thinking to learn from Twitter to build just a core database and spread out all different features into other modules that can be integrated into the platform. To secure that in the beginning I proposed intranet implementation which is safer without much authentication required; however they think it will be once-for-all efforts if we can get a good implementation like OAuth into the platform as we start? (We are team of 6 and none of us know much about OAuth in fact!)
I don't know much about OAuth, so if it's worth to implement at the beginning of our system, I'll have to take a look and have my vote next week for OAuth in our meeting. This may effect how we gonna implement the whole web service thing, so may I ask anyone who's done large-scale web service /application before give some thoughts and advice for me?
Thanks.
OAuth 1 is nice if you want to use HTTP connections. If you can simply enforce HTTPS connections for all users, you might want to use OAuth 2, which is hardly more than a shared token between the client and server that's sent for each single request, plus a pre-defined way to get permission from the user via a web interface.
If you have to accept plain HTTP as well, OAuth 1 is really nice. It protects against replay attacks, packet injection or modification, uses a shared secret instead of shared token, etc. It is, however, a bit harder to implement than OAuth 2.
OAuth 2 is mostly about how to exchange username/password combinations for an access token, while OAuth 1 is mostly about how make semi-secure requests to a server over an unencrypted connection. If you don't need any of that, don't use OAuth. In many cases, Basic HTTP Authentication via HTTPS will do just fine.
OAuth is a standard for authentication and authorization. You can read about it in many places and learn; Generally the standard lets a client register in the authentication server, and then whenever this client attempts to access a protected resource, he is directed to the auth-server to get a token (first he gets a code, then he exchanges it with a token). But this is only generally, there are tons of details and options here...
Basically, one needs a good reason to use oAuth. If a simpler authentication mechanism is good for you - go for it.