Should I move the auth code to Access Token exchange to the API for a Web API/SPA OpenID Connect implementation? - oauth-2.0

Question

I'm trying to get my head around setting up an OpenID Connect server for SSO authentication. I think my basic setup/requirements are pretty standard, but I'm having a little difficulty putting it all together.
The broad setup is a single page application, a web API, and an identity server. The SPA is served from the same domain name as the web API and the ID server is on a different domain, so I might have several SPA/Web API combinations, but of course every case is the same setup (single host with static content and an API). At the moment I'm working with IdentityServer4 to create the identity server; I'm flexible to trying other providers if there's some kind of problem with that one, but so far so good.
My login requirements are also pretty standard I think; I want to have short-lived access tokens and I also want to use refresh tokens to implement a sliding expiration so users don't have to be redirected off of my SPA until they've been inactive for "a while" (however I end up defining that).
After a bit of research, I think what I want is to use the authorization code flow. So generally, the way I thought this would work is:
A user visits the application host (that serves the web API and SPA); the static SPA is served
The SPA loads and determines that there is no access token in local storage. The SPA kicks off the login process by producing a random identifier and storing it in session storage, then navigates the browser to the ID server host
The user authenticates with the ID server host
The ID server hosts redirects to the client and includes in the redirect the random identifier the SPA originally generated along with an authorization code
Upon loading and detecting that it got an access code, the SPA checks session storage for the identifier stored in step 2. Finding it, the SPA calls the web API to exchange the authorization code for an access token
The web API uses a back channel with the ID server to produce an access token and refresh token
The web API stores the refresh token and access token then issues the access token to the client
In all future requests, the client uses the access token with the Web API. When the SPA determines that the access token it has is expired or about to expire, it request a refresh somehow (I'm going to hand-wave the refresh a bit for now)
So I went through the tutorial on the IdentityServer4 site, and to my surprise I ended up in a bit of a different state. It took me a while to work through it; the step I'm talking about if anyone wants to follow along is "Adding a JavaScript Client", but I'd be willing to be the result is common among people implementing OpenID Connect. The resulting flow differed from what I expected starting with step 5; instead of the SPA calling the web API with an authorization code and requesting an access token, the SPA uses CORS and makes a cross-domain request back to the ID server to request the access token. The tutorial didn't really cover refresh tokens all that much (there's other parts of the docs that do, but only briefly), but I think the implication is that if I wanted to use refresh tokens they'd be issued to the client and it would use local storage to store them; then for future refreshes it'd also do a cross-domain request back to the ID server. As a side note, another bit of surprise was that the tutorial has you use PKCE, which on research seems to be unnecessary for a web application; it's somewhat important as including a SHA-2 implementation client-side increases the size of my application by a fair bit.
I believe it is a bad practice to issue a refresh token to a web client and ask it to store it; I'm somewhat vague on the specific vulnerabilities that opens up, but the general idea is that if someone subverts your client somehow, a refresh token is considerably more powerful than a short-lived access token.
So, getting my head around this, I believe the way I originally though this would work was that the web API is the "Relying party" in OAuth 2 parlance, and the tutorial set it up so that the client is the "Relying party". It makes me think that if I want to get a sliding expiration, I have to go past where the tutorial went and move the functionality for token exchange from the client into the web API like I had originally envisioned. It would end up looking a bit like the web API functionally being a proxy for the SPA to exchange the authorization code for an access token.
Ultimately, my question is: am I getting this right? It looks like there are really two different models for implementing OpenID Connect for SPA/API web applications; one where the API is the RP, and another where the SPA is the RP. If you want to use refresh tokens, I think you should go with option 1, but maybe if you care that the API could impersonate the client you'd go with option 2? That still seems like it wouldn't matter to me; that authorization code/access token swap can only be used for a particular application, so it's not like one API could suddenly authenticate as a different backend in that setup. I'm just nervous about going off on my own to structurally alter the setup the tutorial had since this is security-related.
UPDATE
I used the authorization code flow instead of the implicit flow despite the accepted answer, since that's the most recent recommendation of the IETF (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-parecki-oauth-browser-based-apps-02#section-4, and a great writeup at https://brockallen.com/2019/01/03/the-state-of-the-implicit-flow-in-oauth2/). I accepted that answer because using a silent refresh via iframe instead of a refresh token seems to be the most standard approach for what I'm trying to do; using that I was able to build a working system that looks like the tutorial. In fact, the client library it recommends (oidc-client) has a built-in function to handle the details. For completeness, what I'm starting off with is this service:
import oidc from "oidc-client";
import Url from "url-parse";
let baseUrl = new Url(window.location.href).set("pathname", "").set("query", "").set("hash", "");
let redirectUrl = (new Url(baseUrl)).set("query", "redirect=fromIdentityProvider");
let silentRedirectUrl = (new Url(baseUrl)).set("pathname", "silent-refresh.html");
let identitySettings = {
authority: "[my application's id server domain]",
client_id: "[my client's id]",
redirect_uri: redirectUrl.toString(),
response_type: "code",
scope: "openid profile [my application's resource name]",
post_logout_redirect_uri: baseUrl,
automaticSilentRenew: true,
silent_redirect_uri: silentRedirectUrl.toString()
};
let userManager = new oidc.UserManager(identitySettings);
let user = null;
export default {
async logIn() {
await userManager.signinRedirect();
},
async isLoggedIn() {
return !!(await this.getAccessToken());
},
async logOut() {
await userManager.signoutRedirect();
},
async getAccessToken() {
user = await userManager.getUser();
return user ? user.access_token : null;
},
async initializeApp() {
let url = new Url(window.location.href, true);
if (url.query && url.query.redirect === "fromIdentityProvider") {
await new oidc.UserManager({
response_mode: "query"
}).signinRedirectCallback();
window.location = "/";
return false;
}
user = await userManager.getUser();
return true;
}
};
Then in my application I call initializeApp when the app starts and getAccessToken before any API calls. I still need to eventually add the ability to automatically redirect on 401 from the API, but that's pretty easy.
To make the silent redirect work, I created silent-redirect.html based on instructions here: https://www.scottbrady91.com/OpenID-Connect/Silent-Refresh-Refreshing-Access-Tokens-when-using-the-Implicit-Flow. I also integrated Google authentication as an external provider and verified that it also works for silent refreshes, so no trade-off there.
To round it out, for me the answer to my original question is basically "no", I don't want to move the exchange step to the backend. I did also decide to use PKCE even though it seems to me like it shouldn't be necessary, it's in the IETF recommendation I mentioned, so I'll stick with that.

Answer 1

There is a special OAuth2 flow for SPAs - the Implicit grant. If you want just an access token, specify &response_type=token when accessing the /auth endpoint. Alternatively, you can ask for an ID token as well with &response_type=token id_token&scope=openid. The SPA gets the token in the redirect URL from the autorization provider (in the hash part #access_token=...) along with its life-time expires_in=.... So the token stays in your browser - the hash part doesn't get sent to the server hosting the SPA files.
Your SPA should validate and keep both values and before the token expiration, it should call the /auth endpoint in an iframe with &prompt=none parameter. If your authorization provider supports Single Sign On (SSO), then you should get a fresh access token without the user noticing it. So it works similarly to a refresh token, without requiring CORS, PKCE or a client secret.
If you wanted to implement some more sophisticated SSO management, take a look at the OpenID Connect Session management RFC.