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?
Related
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.
I have an application that uses personal access token to access to GET the list of items. I want to switch to using OAuth, the application will use ITEMS_READ only.
My application is a daemon running on an instance of secure Ubuntu server dedicated to this application(s). Regarding the "application server" is there anything that square recommends - what are typical best practices with the "application server"?
Thank you
The API documentation is fairly extensive, and includes a helpful section about OAuth. A few common pitfalls I've noticed with OAuth implementations in the past lead me to call these things out:
If you are only building a one-off integration for your own use, it is probably not worth using OAuth.
Make sure you understand how OAuth works. If you find yourself asking for users' client secrets or personal access tokens, or anything else that requires them to open the app management dashboard at connect.squareup.com, you need to rethink your implementation. Only you, the developer, should need to understand access tokens and other API credentials.
You can generally ask for more OAuth scopes than the bare minimum that you need. I'd recommend getting MERCHANT_PROFILE_READ as well. That can be useful to manage accounts, and so you can hit /v1/me to get various IDs you'll need.
The Square OAuth access tokens expire as described here. They last for thirty days, so this can tend to creep up on developers who aren't aware of it. You will need to use a scheduled task to renew access tokens that are about to expire and purge your old tokens after doing so. Something as simple as a cronjob should be fine.
In terms of the technology stack you use, that's entirely up to you. The Square Connect team is happy to help and provide recommendations when we can.
I have been using Cookies for authentication and session control in my web apps, and am content with its functionalities.
I was introduced by an iOS app developer that the new hot thing is JWT (JSON Web Token). He told me that JWT is the way of doing authentication and sessions for native mobile apps, and without giving specific examples, he suggested that both iOS and Android apps have various problems with Cookies.
So I looked up JWT, e.g. http://angular-tips.com/blog/2014/05/json-web-tokens-introduction/ and https://auth0.com/blog/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs-token/, and I failed to see why it is significant better (or even that different) than Cookies, and more specifically, why it does better in native mobile apps. It seems that, at least iOS, handles Cookies just fine (Persisting Cookies In An iOS Application?).
So my question is, for a native mobile app that interacts with a server-side API, what are the specific advantages and associated use cases for using JWT over Cookies for authentication and sessions? Please highlight the ones that Cookies simply cannot do or does it much worse.
We software developers (sometimes) have the tendency to apply the new hot thing everywhere we look; it's possibly a variation of the saying if all we have is an hammer, everything looks like a nail where in this case we just feel a desperate urge to use this new thing we learned about.
One interesting point about this comparison is that neither JWT or Cookies are in fact authentication mechanisms on their own; the first just defines a token format and the second is an HTTP state management mechanism. Only this is sufficient to give us an indication that advocating that one is better than the other is wrong.
It's true however that both are vastly used in authentication systems.
Traditional server-side web application have used cookies to keep track of an authenticated user so that they were not forced to provide their credentials at every request. Normally, the content of the cookie would be an (hopefully) random generated unique identifier that the server would use to find session data stored on the server.
However, for a new type of web application - the API - it's more much more common to accept a token (in JWT format most of the times) as a way for the server to decide if it should grant access to who's making the request. The reason for this is possibly because while a traditional web application had one major type of client, the web browser, which has full support for cookies, the API's are generally used by much simpler HTTP clients that don't natively support cookies.
I think this is also why we could possibly argue that token based authentication makes more sense for native mobile applications. These applications generally depend on a server-side Web API and we've seen that if the API supports tokens it will increase the range of clients that can use it, so it's just the most practical thing to do.
In conclusion and to try to answer your concrete question, I would say JWT's do have an advantage over cookies on native mobile applications just because of the fact they are currently in very common use, this means more learning resources, SDK's, known pitfalls (mostly because someone else already did it and failed), etc.
Nonetheless, only use them if they give you the security assurances you need and end up simplifying your scenario. If you haven't gone through it already, I think you'll also appreciate Cookies vs Tokens: The Definitive Guide.
I cannot speak for Android but on iOS cookies work with URLSession as good as headers. Once you can utilize the (standard) API right (e.g. dedicated, properly configured session with cookie storage per web app...), iOS should be a rather negligible factor to this decision.
I feel a bit overwhelmed right now with how to approach building an SSO solution for a project I'm taking on. I understand that I need a centralized login site, but, I'd like input on what framework I should be using to achieve this. I've been reading a bit about Windows Identity Foundation (WIF), but, the lack of documentation and code samples is quite disappointing. DotNotOpenAuth sounds like it has much more usage by the community than WIF, but, I'm not sure if that's the right framework for me to use given that I am not going to be letting third-party accounts be used for logging in.
There are multiple user data stores to take into account as well; active directory and a SQL Server database.
I really don't care what framework I use so long as it's simple and intuitive; I don't want an overly complex solution. Documentation and samples are also a plus! I already have experience with creating custom role providers and membership providers; those were a breeze and easy to do.
Here is a very quick visual of the structure I'm dealing with:
Refer: Claims Based Identity & Access Control Guide and Identity Developer Training Kit. There's WIF samples there.
In terms of what you want to achieve, ADFS v2.0 will get you most of the way but it can only authenticate against AD. For SQL server, use IdentityServer and then federate ADFS and IdentityServer.
Have a look at SAML. It is designed to address SSO. You may also want to look into OpenID.
There are enterprise products out there, such as CA Site Minder or IBM Tivoli for this kind if thing. They are not cheap because building a custom solution for this will be quite a feat.
If you are .NET based - then .NET 4.5 (which includes WIF) is the way to go.
But the framework will be you simplest problem. Building that kind of security infrastructure is hard. Have a look at both the book and idenitity server from nzpcmad's answer as a starting point.
As far as cross-platform goes, SAML tends to lead the pack. There are many implementations (java, php, perl). As Dominick (#leastprivilege) mentioned, if every application is .Net based, WS-Fed via WIF is the way to go. (btw, Dominick is the man when it comes to WIF - definitely hit his blog and forums up if you plan on exploring that route)
OpenId and OAuth are alternatives that you will hear about. They are somewhat less secure (the trust is in the user, rather than the infrastructure) and you will find that you will have to build a provider in order to support sign-in using your own user store.
Regardless of the route you choose, be prepared to do a lot of reading and learning. Check out the wikipedia articles above for a nice overview of how these technologies work, and don't be afraid to ask questions..
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.