We're integrating with a system that has the behavior that the refresh token we get is only valid after the access token has been at least used once. Is this a normal behavior? Can add that the behavior was not documented.
Related
I am able to generate OAuth tokens from this URL successfully.
However, I can see both refresh token and access token is generated in the call.
Can we remove the refresh token during the OAuth call so that only access token is generated.
I have seen this feature of suppressing and disabling refresh token in other OAuth servers.
Does it apply in RingCentral too?
Yes, refresh tokens can be disabled by setting the TTL (time to live) for the refresh_token_ttl to zero:
refresh_token_ttl=0
example:
username=<username>&password=<password>&extension=<extension>&grant_type=password&refresh_token_ttl=0
I am using Spring oath to secure my RESP API's and successfully generated the oauth token. Now I am stuck in 2 place mentioned below.
1) Logout: I didn't find any URL in specification which I can call to logout/invalidate the token. One option I got is to write own implementation of logout and delete the token from the token store from that method. But is there any other way to logout/invalidate the token like we retrieve the token.
2) Validation of Token: Is there any url where I can pass my token and can validate that the token is valid or not. One way is to write a own method from which I will validate token. If own method returns 200 then valid token else invalid token(401). But like to know that , is Spring OAUth provide any such url.
The most common usage is to integrate Spring security with a standards based cloud authorization server, in which case you can use these options:
Logout occurs when a UI calls the End Session Endpoint
Tokens can be validated by APIs either in memory or via an Introspection Endpoint
Note however that not all Authorization Servers implement these endpoints in a standard way.
Deleting tokens on logout is the most standard option, along with keeping tokens short lived so that they expire soon anyway.
I see most of people saying when we use refresh token to exchange for a new access token, the auth server would issue a new refresh token and invalid the previous one. Refer
OAuth Refresh Token Best Practice
But from the OAuth website
https://www.oauth.com/oauth2-servers/access-tokens/refreshing-access-tokens/
It says the auth server can "optionally issue a new fresh token in response, or if we don't include a new refresh token, the client assumes the current refresh token will continue to be valid"
So, it looks like both options (keep or renew refresh token) are acceptable to OAuth2 standard.
My questions are:
1) Do both options are equally secure?
2) If the auth server returns a new refresh token but the client fails to receive (e.g. network error), the client has no way to re-gain access token with existing refresh token, which already invalidated. Correct?
3) If the refresh token has been leaked to someone else, both the attacker and the victim client can use it. If the auth server takes the renewal approach, then only the first one to use the refresh token can re-gain access token. So, if the victim found the refresh token is no longer valid, it may think that the refresh token has been compromised. Is this the reason for the "renewal approach"?
2.) Yes, that's correct.
3.) That's correct too. You can take a look at the OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps RFC which discusses the refresh token regeneration. It's important mainly for public clients - the ones without client_secret, since a refresh token can be exchanged for an access token right away.
1.) Refresh token regeneration is a security feature - it shortens validity of a stolen refresh token and it enables the auth server to detect that refresh token had been compromised. So it's more secure to use it than not. But it may be more convenient for private clients not to get a new refresh token on each use - for example to prevent the refresh token loss due to network error - as you described it in point #2.
I am building a (set of) web application; the backend has REST-like API, the frontend will be some REST JS app, android apps etc; and I'm trying to come up with an SSO functionality.
Looking at Oauth2/OIDC it seems the best way would be to use Implicit flow; however, the access tokens in implicit flow (in oidc) have a set expiration. The refresh token is not part of implicit flow.
How do I ensure that the user will stay logged in? I.e. when the access token expires, the frontend application will try to obtain a new one from an auth server; that is supposed to ask for username/password. Alternatively, it can build a session with the frontend (using cookies), but how is that different from a refresh token?
It seems to me that getting the access token e.g. from the android app means at least opening the web browser; depending on the expiry length, that could be quite often. Is that the correct flow or am I missing something?
You are right, the issuance of a refresh token is not allowed with the Implicit grant type.
However, the refresh token and the access token are not needed to know if the user is logged in or not (the access token only allows you to access on protected resources). You have to use the ID Token which is issued in the authorization response.
You can verify if the user is still logged in by sending an authorization request with the query parameter prompt=none (see section 3.1.2.1. Authentication Request). I recommend you to send the current ID Token using the id_token_hint query parameter as mentioned in the same section:
ID Token previously issued by the Authorization Server being passed as a hint about the End-User's current or past authenticated session with the Client. If the End-User identified by the ID Token is logged in or is logged in by the request, then the Authorization Server returns a positive response; otherwise, it SHOULD return an error, such as login_required. When possible, an id_token_hint SHOULD be present when prompt=none is used
If you receive an error (login_required or interaction_required) then the user may be logged out.
Another way could be to use the Session Management feature. But as this specification is not yet approved (draft 27), it may be subject to changes and may not be available. However it is a very simple way to know the status of the user.
I'm fairly new to Oauth and I am wondering if a specific flow is supported by any of the Oauth flows. I want to be able to identify a user and allow that user to perform unsecure actions even after their token has expired. The user would only be forced to reauthenticate if they request to perform a secure operation. I currently do not see any flow that will support this.
I have thought of the following solution using refresh tokens but not sure I am possibly violating any oauth patterns or if there is a better way.
1) Issue access token for X amount of time. Lets say 2 hours.
2) Upon token expiration, refresh token is used to get a new access token. The new token will contain a claim that identifies that the user only has unsecure access.
3) If secure resource is requested, request will be denied with a 401 response code indicating that the token is invalid.
4) Application will have to ask for user credentials in order to receive a new access token.
Any thoughts on this?
This is really up to the interaction between the Resource Server and the Client and certainly with the boundaries of standard OAuth 2.0 . The only thing that OAuth 2.0 standardizes in that interaction is the way in which the access token is presented. All other behavior is left up to the application implementor.
The Resource Server would allow access to unsecure resources/operations regardless of the validity of the access token, or even if there's no access token presented at all. Only upon accessing a secured resource the flow would would as you describe.
I don't see value in producing access tokens that identifies "unsecure access". That token would have the same semantics as an expired token or no token at all, so there's no need for an access token to cover that case.