I'm learning about O Auth 2 from here
I was wondering in the step of "Authorization server redirects user agent to client with authorization code", why doesn't the server just give the access token instead? Why give an authorization code that then is used to get the access token? Why not just give the access token directly? Is it because there there is a different access token for each resource so that you need to go through O Auth again to access a different resource?
The authorization grant code can pass through unsecured or potentially risky environments such as basic HTTP connection (not HTTPS) or a browser. But it's worthless without a client secret. The client can be a backend application. If the OAuth2 server returned a token, it could get compromised.
There is another OAuth2 flow - the Implicit flow, which returns an access token right after the authentication, but it's designed mainly for JavaScript applications or other deployments where it's safe to use it.
If a malicious app gets hold of the client id of your app(which is easily available, for example one can inspect the source), then it can use that to retrieve the token without the use of the client secret. All the malicious app needs to do is to somehow either specify the redirect URI to itself or to tap into the registered redirect URI.
That is the reason for breaking the flow as such. Note, when the client secret is not to be used as in SPA (Single Page Apps) or Mobile Apps, then PKCE comes to the rescue.
There is a reason for breaking up the authorization flow so as to keep the resource owner's interaction with the authorization server isolated from the client's interactions with the authorization server. Therefore we need to have two interactions with the authorization server. One in which the resource owner authenticates with it's credentials to the authorization server. And another where the client sends in it's client secret to the authorization server.
Please also see PKCE that deals with SPA (SinglePageApp)/Mobile apps.
On all OAuth2 documentations i looked, including the Oauth2 spec, the Oauth2 Authorization Code flow ends in the point where the server side holds both the refresh and access tokens.
As a server-side of a web app, what I wish is to not finish the flow here, but response my web user agent with the access\refresh tokens
This in order to have my user agent later make calls to my app's server-side APIs using the access token for auth (the app's server-side will verify the token against the authorization server).
The implicit flow might be the flow i should have been using here (right?), but the authorization server in my company supports only the authorization code flow (and not the implicit flow) for now.
I thought of adding a redirect url as a query param inside of the redirect url of the authorization API.
This way, when the authorization flow will ends, and my app's server side will get the tokens, it will redirect back to the User agent's url, providing the access\refresh tokens as hash fragments
Is it safe for the server-side to redirect to user agent with the tokens this way?
Is there any better practice for redirect back to the user agent?
In the Google developer console, when you create new app credentials for use in OAuth 2.0, and you specify a web app, it requests that you register callback URI and JavaScript origins.
I don't have a precise understanding of the need to register these.
For the callback URI, presumably this prevents a 3rd party who presents a malicious page to a user from getting the authorization code. However, the client id and secret are still hidden in the app server, so isn't the malicious application unable to do anything anyway?
Furthermore, if the callback URI is already registered, what does registering the JS origins separately accomplish. Unlike the callback URI registration, this is not mentioned by the OAuth 2.0 spec, it's something Google chose to implement.
Thank you for your help!
When you request a token, that token will be passed to the callback URL. By only permitting callback URLs that you have configured in the API console, you are preventing malicious users from spoofing the request and having the token sent to a third party. I suspect the aspect of OAuth that you've missed is that the callback is sent via a browser redirect, so is easy to fake.
Callback URLs are part of the OAuth server flow.
JS Origins come into play when you are using the client (Javascript) OAuth flow. They ensure that any OAuth request has come from a page that originated on your site.
The server flow is ...
OK I think I understand a bit more from reading the spec. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-10.6
It is to prevent an attack by a user of the same client An attacker can create an account at the same client and initiate auth flow, but he replaces the redirect URI with his own URI.
He then tricks a victim into following the link to authorize the same legit client they are using. However, the auth code is now sent to the attacker URI.
The attacker then completes the flow by providing the auth code back to the client, which the client uses to complete the flow obtaining the token. However, this token may be associated by the client with the attacker, allowing him to impersonate the victim.
I am following this tutorial about OAuth2.0 https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3/guides/authentication
It looks quite clear how OAuth2.0 works. But I have a bit confusion at the access token part.
After obtaining an access token for a user, your application can use
that token to submit authorized API requests on that user's behalf.
The API supports two ways to specify an access token: Specify the
access token as the value of the access_token query parameter:
www.googleapis.com/youtube/v3/videos?access_token=ACCESS_TOKEN
if someone acquired this access token during the url transferring they can access this protected resource right?
How the server know if the request is coming from the client initially requested the access token?
UPDATE:
after reading this post Are HTTPS headers encrypted? my confusion is cleared. I thought query string is not encrypted during transmission in the network.
Generally I think the consensus is that OAuth 2.0 is a server side technology and all access tokens and communication should be transmitted using SSL as the bearer tokens need to be kept as secure as possible.
Also, you need to know that there are 2 types of flows in OAuth 2.0
i) Implicit grant flow - This is the flow where the user logs in to the service provider and his browser gets the access token. Say you have X.com and Log in via Facebook. Once the user keys in his FB credentials, the access token is sent to his browser.
ii) Authorization Code flow - In this flow (consider the above situation again), facebook will pass an authorization code to the user's browser. If anyone, somehow, intercepts the authorization code there is nothing he can do. An authorization code can be exchanged for an access when passed with valid client credentials. So, when the user logs in, his browser gets an authorization code which is passed to your server at X.com. from there you would hit the code-token exchange endpoint provided by FB and get the access token returned to your server!
Authorization code flow adds another layer of security, where the access token is visible only to the client + server and not to the user agent. And as you figured out yourself, the token is passed via HTTPS.
OAuth 2.0 has multiple workflows. I have a few questions regarding the two.
Authorization code flow - User logs in from client app, authorization server returns an authorization code to the app. The app then exchanges the authorization code for access token.
Implicit grant flow - User logs in from client app, authorization server issues an access token to the client app directly.
What is the difference between the two approaches in terms of security? Which one is more secure and why?
I don't see a reason why an extra step (exchange authorization code for token) is added in one work flow when the server can directly issue an Access token.
Different websites say that Authorization code flow is used when client app can keep the credentials secure. Why?
The access_token is what you need to call a protected resource (an API). In the Authorization Code flow there are 2 steps to get it:
User must authenticate and returns a code to the API consumer (called the "Client").
The "client" of the API (usually your web server) exchanges the code obtained in #1 for an access_token, authenticating itself with a client_id and client_secret
It then can call the API with the access_token.
So, there's a double check: the user that owns the resources surfaced through an API and the client using the API (e.g. a web app). Both are validated for access to be granted. Notice the "authorization" nature of OAuth here: user grants access to his resource (through the code returned after authentication) to an app, the app get's an access_token, and calls on the user's behalf.
In the implicit flow, step 2 is omitted. So after user authentication, an access_token is returned directly, that you can use to access the resource. The API doesn't know who is calling that API. Anyone with the access_token can, whereas in the previous example only the web app would (it's internals not normally accessible to anyone).
The implicit flow is usually used in scenarios where storing client id and client secret is not recommended (a device for example, although many do it anyway). That's what the the disclaimer means. People have access to the client code and therefore could get the credentials and pretend to become resource clients. In the implicit flow all data is volatile and there's nothing stored in the app.
I'll add something here which I don't think is made clear in the above answers:
The Authorization-Code-Flow allows for the final access-token to never reach and never be stored on the machine with the browser/app. The temporary authorization-code is given to the machine with the browser/app, which is then sent to a server. The server can then exchange it with a full access token and have access to APIs etc. The user with the browser gets access to the API only through the server with the token.
Implicit flow can only involve two parties, and the final access token is stored on the client with the browser/app. If this browser/app is compromised so is their auth-token which could be dangerous.
tl;dr don't use implicit flow if you don't trust the users machine to hold tokens but you do trust your own servers.
The difference between both is that:
In Implicit flow,the token is returned directly via redirect URL with "#" sign and this used mostly in javascript clients or mobile applications that do not have server side at its own, and the client does not need to provide its secret in some implementations.
In Authorization code flow, code is returned with "?" to be readable by server side then server side is have to provide client secret this time to token url to get token as json object from authorization server. It is used in case you have application server that can handle this and store user token with his/her profile on his own system, and mostly used for common mobile applications.
so it is depends on the nature of your client application, which one more secure "Authorization code" as it is request the secret on client and the token can be sent between authorization server and client application on very secured connection, and the authorization provider can restrict some clients to use only "Authorization code" and disallow Implicit
Which one is more secure and why?
Both of them are secure, it depends in the environment you are using it.
I don't see a reason why an extra step (exchange authorization code
for token) is added in one work flow when the server can directly
issue an Access token.
It is simple. Your client is not secure. Let's see it in details.
Consider you are developing an application against Instagram API, so you register your APP with Instagram and define which API's you need. Instagram will provide you with client_id and client_secrect
On you web site you set up a link which says. "Come and Use My Application". Clicking on this your web application should make two calls to Instagram API.
First send a request to Instagram Authentication Server with below parameters.
1. `response_type` with the value `code`
2. `client_id` you have get from `Instagram`
3. `redirect_uri` this is a url on your server which do the second call
4. `scope` a space delimited list of scopes
5. `state` with a CSRF token.
You don't send client_secret, You could not trust the client (The user and or his browser which try to use you application). The client can see the url or java script and find your client_secrect easily. This is why you need another step.
You receive a code and state. The code here is temporary and is not saved any where.
Then you make a second call to Instagram API (from your server)
1. `grant_type` with the value of `authorization_code`
2. `client_id` with the client identifier
3. `client_secret` with the client secret
4. `redirect_uri` with the same redirect URI the user was redirect back to
5. `code` which we have already received.
As the call is made from our server we can safely use client_secret ( which shows who we are), with code which shows the user have granted out client_id to use the resource.
In response we will have access_token
The implicit grant is similar to the authorization code grant with two distinct differences.
It is intended to be used for user-agent-based clients (e.g. single page web apps) that can’t keep a client secret because all of the application code and storage is easily accessible.
Secondly instead of the authorization server returning an authorization code which is exchanged for an access token, the authorization server returns an access token.
Please find details here
http://oauth2.thephpleague.com/authorization-server/which-grant/
Let me summarize the points that I learned from above answers and add some of my own understandings.
Authorization Code Flow!!!
If you have a web application server that act as OAuth client
If you want to have long lived access
If you want to have offline access to data
when you are accountable for api calls that your app makes
If you do not want to leak your OAuth token
If you don't want you application to run through authorization flow every time it needs access to data. NOTE: The Implicit Grant flow does not entertain refresh token so if authorization server expires access tokens regularly, your application will need to run through the authorization flow whenever it needs access.
Implicit Grant Flow!!!
When you don't have Web Application Server to act as OAuth Client
If you don't need long lived access i.e only temporary access to data is required.
If you trust the browser where your app runs and there is limited concern that the access token will leak to untrusted users.
Implicit grant should not be used anymore, see the IETF current best practices for details. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics-18#section-2.1.2
As an alternative use a flow with response type code; for clients without possibility to securely store client credentials the authorization code with PKCE flow should be your choice.
From practical perspective (What I understood), The main reason for having Authz code flow is :
Support for refresh tokens (long term access by apps on behalf of User), not supported in implicit: refer:https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.2
Support for consent page which is a place where Resource Owner can control what access to provide (Kind of permissions/authorization page that you see in google). Same is not there in implicit . See section : https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1 , point (B)
"The authorization server authenticates the resource owner (via the user-agent) and establishes whether the resource owner grants or denies the client's access request"
Apart from that, Using refresh tokens, Apps can get long term access to user data.
There seem to be two key points, not discussed so far, which explain why the detour in the Authorization Code Grant Type adds security.
Short story: The Authorization Code Grant Type keeps sensitive information from the browser history, and the transmission of the token depends only on the HTTPS protection of the authorization server.
Longer version:
In the following, I'll stick with the OAuth 2 terminology defined in the RFC (it's a quick read): resource server, client, authorization server, resource owner.
Imagine you want some third-party app (= client) to access certain data of your Google account (= resource server). Let's just assume Google uses OAuth 2. You are the resource owner for the Google account, but right now you operate the third-party app.
First, the client opens a browser to send you to the secure URL of the Google authorization server. Then you approve the request for access, and the authorization server sends you back to the client's previously-given redirect URL, with the authorization code in the query string. Now for the two key points:
The URL of this redirect ends up in the browser history. So we don't want a long lived, directly usable access token here. The short lived authorization code is less dangerous in the history. Note that the Implicit Grant type does put the token in the history.
The security of this redirect depends on the HTTPS certificate of the client, not on Google's certificate. So we get the client's transmission security as an extra attack vector (For this to be unavoidable, the client needs to be non-JavaScript. Since otherwise we could transmit the authorization code via fragment URL, where the code would not go through the network. This may be the reason why Implicit Grant Type, which does use a fragment URL, used to be recommended for JavaScript clients, even though that's no longer so.)
With the Authorization Code Grant Type, the token is finally obtained by a call from the client to the authorization server, where transmission security only depends on the authorization server, not on the client.