I am trying to understand OAuth2 and its grand types. I just want to know what is the propper grant type flow for authorize a browserless application (a job for example) with a REST API.
authorization_code and implicit flow require user interaction (writing the username and password in the browser), hence both are not suitable for browserless authorization.
client_credentials could work, but there is no user in the authorization process, so what happend if the REST API needs to know the user to check for permission/roles/scopes? Maybe creating a client for each user could work, but sound like a bad thing.
passwordgrant type will be deprecated in the OAuth2.1 specification, so this is not an option.
You may thing that OAuth2 is not the framework to use in this case, because you don't need authorization delegation, but what about if you have both (it is so common), a single page application where you could delegate authorization and also a REST API. What is the propper way to authorize a REST API using Oauth2?
Given that this is a background job, Client Credentials Grant is the best OAuth 2.0 related approach. And, it does not use any end user credential (End users and clients are two different entities with respect to OAuth 2.0). Hence you simply need a credential for the given client application.
Other approach is to enable API tokens. But this will require a manual step where you will insert the token to the background job. Again, this is independent from any end users.
p.s - Read about roles (i.e - client vs end-user/resource owner) - OAuth 2.0 roles
Related
I have my REST API server which stores user data and handles all the requests. The front-end lives on another server and then there's also a mobile app. I would like to integrate OAuth2 but have my doubts on what grant type to choose. On one hand, the ROPC grant type is best in my situation since I don't allow any third party apps, and I don't want user to be redirected anywhere and the user never gets to use my endpoints directly, only with some kind of interface (front-end, or mobile GUI). So, what are the possible options here?
Normally Authorization-Code Grant is the way to go. I assume you are asking this question, because you heard that ROPC is rather unsafe to use and should be avoided when possible? And that would be true.
Use Authorization Code Grant. Better: use Authorization Code Grant with PKCE. (PKCE is mandatory on mobile Apps and a good practice on WebApps too)
I know that the Authorization Code can seem complicated at first, but it is really the way to go with OAuth.
Okta Blog to PKCE
As far as I understand, applications that we can login with our different accounts use OpenID Connect(A profile of OAuth2.0).
OAuth is for Authorization and OIDC is for authentication(It has ID Token-User Info Endpoint).
So, was it not possible to login to an application from another application account using OAuth before OIDC? (If possible, how?)
If plain OAuth can't be used for authentication, what is/was it used for?
I mean what does it do with 'authorization' exactly?
What does it get from the resource service with the access token?
I have always found the jargon around this unhelpful so I understand your confusion. Here is a plain English summary:
OAuth 2.0
Before OIDC apps used OAuth 2.0 to get tokens, and this involved optional user consent. The process of getting tokens was termed 'delegation'.
In practical terms though all real world OAuth 2.0 providers also included authentication in order for their system to be secure. How authentication was done is not defined in OAuth specifications.
OAuth is primarily about protecting data, where scopes and claims are the mechanisms. These links provide further info:
IAM Primer
Scope Best Practices
Claims Best Practices
OIDC
This just adds some clearer definition around how authentication messages before and after authentication should work:
A client simply includes an openid scope to use OpenID Connect
A client may force a login during a redirect via a prompt=login parameter
A client may request an authentication method via an acr_values parameter
The client receives an ID token (assertion) once authentication is complete, can digitally verify it if required, then use the information in it (eg a user name)
OIDC still does not define how the actual authentication works though.
Use them together
Pretty much all OAuth secured apps (and libraries) these days use both together, so that the authentication and delegation both use standards based solutions. It gives you the best application features and design patterns for doing the security well.
Currently building up a microservice for handling auth-related stuff using OIDC.
Now, we think about access control and how to be as future-proof as possible. This auth server is only used for first-party applications (3x SPA, 2x native mobile App). On mobile, we use the authorization_code grant. Each resource server validates the supplied token (access token as JWT) itself. But what happens when (in future), we add a service which needs its own scope to check (e.g. notifications:read)? As mobile app users are not used to logging in and out everytime (when we would update the requested scopes via an app update -> bad solution) is there any sweet solution to manage this scenario?
Per specification, it's possible to change the required scopes when refreshing a token but this is limited to require less scopes than originally requested and not more so that's not an option.
For example, Facebook is providing only four scopes for Instagram e.g. instagram_basic or instagram_content_publish. Zalando for example includes only a scope NORMAL_USER in their tokens whereas Wolt includes the users roles as a claim.
I think there is some confusion as this scenario is not covered directly by OAuth2 or OIDC. What are your thoughts about this?
There is one standard for doing OAuth 2.0 Incremental Authorization, but your challenge is to find a token provider that supports it or similar standards.
In a micro service architecture, the question is if you should use the access token from the authorization code flow everywhere, or if for service-to-service communication, you should use client credentials flow instead.
See also https://www.gmass.co/blog/oauth-incremental-authorization-is-useless/
It seems like you could use Token Exchange for that.
For example it could work like that - whenever your resource server gets a token without the notifications:read scope, issued before date x (so before you were issuing that scope) it performs an exchange with the authorization server and (if the server decides that it can perform the exchange) it gets a new access token that contains that scope. If the token was issued after date x you can safely assume that the token was not granted this scope.
Another solution would be to use claims for authorization decisions instead of scopes. The authorization server can issue e.g. a claim notifications_read: true, or something like that. Whenever you refresh tokens you can issue more claims in the new access token, the spec does not prevent that. Then your resource servers should check claims in the access token, they can ignore scopes. The resource server would just check whether the token contains the notifications_read claim with value true, or not. This solution gets a bit more complicated if you require your users to give consent to scopes, but as you said you're using this only for 1st-party, so I assume you're not using consent screens.
You can have a look at this free course - this topic of using claims in authorization is covered in part 4.
OAuth 2.0 protocol provides permissions delegation of a user so that third-party apps can operate on its behalf. A typical way this is done on the OAuth flow is requesting a user consent to either approve or deny access for the app (Okta example). Here is an official spec describing how it works in general concepts.
I'm looking for the standardized approach to perform the same flow but for the user groups (e.g. organizations). GitHub does that in some way for organizations, so it looks like organizations represent just a group of user accounts. Are there any standardized approaches to this problem?
If not maybe there are any recommended ways how its typically done architecturally or can fit into OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect protocols.
The OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect protocols do not cover how access control is performed.
You can, within the OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect protocols, pass OAuth Scopes or use the OIDC user info endpoint data to allow the resource server to make determination for Access Control.
Many of the commercial products within this area allow the use of LDAP as a back-end for authentication and will even convert LDAP Groups to Scopes.
I would assume, but I do not know, that GtHub stores data with a link (like a group) for the on Organization and/or the user. I know GitHub exposes this using OAuth Scopes.
Oh, and the OAuth Spec is at: https://oauth.net/2/
But if you require Authentication of users then you need to be using OpenID Connect which is built on-top of OAuth 2.0.
Remember that "OAuth 2.0 is NOT an Authentication protocol"
-jim
There are limits to what you can show on the consent screen and dynamically calculated data is not usually supported.
You ought to be able to express a high level scope that you can present to the user though.
In terms of authorizing based on a user's organisations the claims caching technique here can be useful:
https://authguidance.com/2017/10/03/api-tokens-claims/
That is:
* Use OAuth for user identification and high level checks
" Then do the real Authorization based on your back end data
I'm making some assumptions here, but I believe the issue arises from trying to authenticate two things at once.
If the organization is what you need, then go ahead and create a flow to authenticate the organization as the principal subject (via a user who has access to it), instead of actually authenticating the user itself.
Once the access token is generated, you do not necessarily need to know which user generated it anymore (or at least, the token itself does not need to know). If your user needs to be able to view and/or revoke access tokens, they should still be able to do that, since they have access to the organization in your app.
I am learning oAuth2 for the first time. I am going to use it to provide authentication for some simple web services using a two-legged approach.
According to what I have read, the flow should go like this: the web service client supplies some kind of credential to the oAuth server (I'm thinking of using JWT). If the credentials are valid, the oAuth server returns an access token. The web service client then supplies the access token when attempting to use the web service end point.
Here is my question, why not just supply the JWT when making a request to the end point? Why is oAuth's flow conceived this way. Why not just supply to JTW to the end point and use that for authentication? What is the advantage of having the extra step of getting an access token?
Thanks!
You can certainly supply the JWT directly to the web service. The questions is how do you generate it in a way that the service trusts.
A JWT is and access_token, but not all access_tokens are JWTs.
Your client can issue a JWT, sign it with a key (or a cert) and then send it to the API. The advantage of having a 3rd party (an Issuer) is that you can separate authentication from issuing tokens. Clients can authenticate in multiple ways (e.g. usr/pwd, certs, keys, whatever) and then use the JWT to call your API.
The additional abstraction gives you more flexibility and management scalability. For example: if you have 1 consumer of your API, then you are probably ok with a single credential (or JWT, or whatever). If you plan your APIs to be consumed by many clients, then handing that responsibility to a specialized component (e.g. the the issuer) makes more sense.
OAuth BTW, was designed for a specific use case: delegate access to an API to another system on your behalf. You grant access to system-A to access resources on system-B on your behalf with a permission scope.