Imagine you're going through a standard OAuth2 process to retrieve an access_token for some third-party API. This is the usual process.
User is redirected to http://some-service.com/login
User successfully logs in and is redirected to some destination http://some-destination.com. In this step, there's usually a code parameter that comes with the request. So the actual URL looks like http://some-destination.com?code=CODE123
I need to use CODE123 to request an access_token that can be used to authorize my future API calls. To do this, there's an endpoint that usually looks like this (I am using Nylas as an example but should be generic enough):
As you can see, it requires me to POST the code from above (CODE123) along with client_id and client_secret like this: http://some-service.com/oauth/token?code=CODE123&client_secret=SECRET&client_id=ID. As a response, I get an access_token that looks like TOKEN123 and I can use this to make API calls.
QUESTION
Until step 2, everything happens in the client side. But in step 3, I need to have client_id and client_secret. I don't think it's a good idea to store these values in the client side. Does that mean I need to have a backend server that has these two values, and my backend should convert CODE123 to TOKEN123 and hand it to the client side?
As you probably know, the question describes the most common (and usually, the more secure) OAuth "Authorization Code" flow. To be clear, here's an approximation of the steps in this flow:
User indicates that they wish to authorize resources for our application (for example, by clicking on a button)
The application redirects the user to the third-party login page, where the user logs in and selects which resources to grant access to
The third-party service redirects the user back to our application with an authorization code
Our application uses this code, along with its client ID and secret to obtain an access token that enables the application to make requests on behalf of the user only for the resources that the user allowed
Until step 2, everything happens in the client side. But in step 3, I need to have client_id and client_secret. I don't think it's a good idea to store these values in the client side. Does that mean I need to have a backend server that has these two values[?]
You're correct, it's certainly not a good idea to store these values in the client-side application. These values—especially the client secret—must be placed on a server to protect the application's data. The user—and therefor, the client application—should never have access to these values.
The server uses its client ID and secret, along with the authorization code, to request an access token that it uses for API calls. The server may store the token it receives, along with an optional refresh token that it can use in the future to obtain a new access token without needing the user to explicitly authorize access again.
...and my backend should convert CODE123 to TOKEN123 and hand it to the client side?
At the very least, our server should handle the authorization flow to request an access token, and then pass only that token back to the client (over a secure connection).
However, at this point, the client-side application (and the user of that client) is responsible for the security of the access token. Depending on the security requirements of our application, we may want to add a layer to protect this access token from the client as well.
After the server-side application fetches the access token from the third-party service, if we pass the access token back to the client, malware running on the client machine, or an unauthorized person, could potentially obtain the access token from the client, which an attacker could then use to retrieve or manipulate the user's third-party resources through privileges granted to our application. For many OAuth services, an access token is not associated with a client. This means that anyone with a valid token can use the token to interact with the service, and illustrates why our application should only request the minimum scope of access needed when asking for authorization from the user.
To make API calls on behalf of a user more securely, the client-side application could send requests to our server, which, in turn, uses the access token that it obtained to interact with the third-party API. With this setup, the client does not need to know the value of the access token.
To improve performance, we likely want to cache the access token on the server for subsequent API calls for the duration of its lifetime. We may also want to encrypt the tokens if we store them in the application's database—just like we would passwords—so the tokens cannot be easily used in the event of a data breach.
Related
I have a rest API service that enables API calls for some resources.
The API calls can be done from an API server using a secret, or from a web client using a bearer token.
In order to get to the web client flow, a URL must be generated by the API server call:
https://www.someapi.com/somelink
The response will be a link with a token I call "action token". This token is passed with the link, for example:
https://www.somepage.com/?action_token=somejwttoken
By entering the link, the action token will be exchanged with an access token, that enables a client to access some pre-defined resources.
I wonder if there is a best practice for such flow.
ONE TIME TOKENS
If using tokens in URLs you should also ensure that:
The token has a one time use
The token is short lived
The token is not guessable - eg make it a UUID
The final access token returned has limited privileges and also a short lifetime
The one time action token may then be available in the browser history or server logs, so be aware of that. Make the actual swap for the proper token a JSON to JSON POST operation, after the page has loaded.
Typically each action token issued would also be stored by the API in a database along with its expiry time, then used to verify links later.
This type of URL solution is sometimes used in operations such as verify email or to enable magic links, where users can quickly access limited data.
OAUTH FLOWS
One time tokens should not be overused and they are of course no substitute for signing the user in properly via OpenID Connect standards, then running an authenticated user session.
SCOPES AND API TO API FLOWS
A more secure option may be to forward JWTs from the original client to downstream APIs, as described in Scopes Best Practices. This enables user context to flow securely and also simplifies code. This may eliminate or reduce the need for any token exchange operations.
Watching this video, it details in OAuth2 that the client application first has to get the authorization grant from the Authorization server and then use that grant to get a token before being able to access the resource server. What purpose does the grant serve? Why not give the client the token right away after the user signs on with his/her username and password?
Because it is more secure, for some application types.
What you describe is so called authorization-code-flow. It is normally used for "classical" web applications, where only the backend needs to access resource server. The exchange of authorization code to access token happens on the backend and access token never leaves it. Exchange can be done only once and in addition client id and secret (stored on the backend) are necessary.
Single-Page-Applications often use implicit-flow where access token is delivered to the frontend directly in the URL.
See more here:
IdentityServer Flows
EDIT: Q: "I still don't see how it is more secure given that you have to have the grant in order to get the token. Why need 2 things instead of just 1 thing to access the resource? If someone steals the token, they can access the resource anyway – stackjlei"
"Stealing" access token will work independent on how your application acquires it. However, stealing access token on the backend is much more difficult than on the frontend.
Authorization code is delivered to the backend also over the frontend but the risk that someone intercepts and uses it is tiny:
It can be exchanged only once.
You need client-id and client-secret in order to exchange it. Client-secret is only available on the backend.
Normally, authorization code will be exchanged by your backend to access-token immediately. So the lifetime of it is just several seconds. It does not matter if someone gets hold of used authorization code afterwards.
In your scenario there could be two servers, an Authorization and a Resource one.
It could be only one as well, but let's imagine this scenario.
The purpose of the Authorization Server is to issue short lived access tokens to known clients. The clients identify themselves via their CLientID and CLientSecret.
The Authorization Server ( AS ) holds the list of clients and their secrets and first checks to make sure the passed values match its list. If they do, it issues a short lived token.
Then the client can talk to the Resource Server ( RS ), while the token is valid. Once the token expires, a new one can be requested or the expired one can be refreshed if that is allowed by the Authorization Server.
The whole point here is security, Normally, the access tokens are passed in the Authorization header of the request and that request needs to be over https to make sure that the data can't be stolen. If, somehow, someone gets hold of an access token, they can only use it until it expires, hence why the short life of the tokens is actually very important. That's why you don't issue one token which never expires.
You have different type of OAuth. On type doesn't require to use the 'grant' authorization. It depend who are the user/application, the ressource owner and the server API.
This way, you - as a user - don't send the password to the application. The application will only use the grant token to gain access to your ressources.
I think this tuto is a pretty good thing if you want more details
https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/an-introduction-to-oauth-2
I am writing some code to get Twitter and Instagram feed. Before I can write any code, I keep wanting to get a good understanding of oAuth because I have this nagging feeling that it is not all that secure and that most times, for instance when accessing public tweets, it is an unnecessary hassel. I started reading the oAuth 2 specification to get a better understanding, I am still in the middle of it. And I have a host of questions.
Let's use Twitter as an example.
A user accesses your site. You redirect them to Twitter for authentication and to obtain the authorization_grant code.
I understand this part is secure because the user authentication and the redirect to your website will happen over ssl. Is it enough for Twitter to support SSL or does your site also have to support SSL for the redirect to be secure? You wouldn't want the authorization code to be transferred insecurely, right?
Now that you have your authorization_grant code, your site will send a request to Twitter to obtain an access token. When making this request your site will send the authorization_grant code, your client id and client secret. Again I guess the communication is secure because this will happen over ssl. But what if the site has included the client id and secret somewhere in its HTML or Javascript, especially if it is a static site with no server side code?
Should the redirect url always be handled by server side code and the server side code should make the request for access token without ever going through HTML or Javascript?
Once you have the access token, you will include it in your request to obtain the user's tweets, to post tweets on their behalf etc. Again if the site in question were to include the access token inside its HTML or JavaScript along with the client id and secret, that would be pretty insecure, right?
It seems all the security of oAuth stems from ssl and the client's ability to keep their client secret secret. Am I right in this conclusion?
Another thing - in the first step of the process, when the client redirects the user to Twitter to authenticate and obtain the authorization_grant code, they could send in their client id and secret and get the access token directly instead of making a second request for it. I think this is what they mean by the implicit method in the specification.
So, why was this extra step of sending a second request to obtain access token added in the specification? Does it increase security?
I am not sure about twitter API, I am talking with respect to stackexchange API
https://api.stackexchange.com/docs/authentication
Again I guess the communication is secure because this will happen
over ssl. But what if the site has included the client id and secret
somewhere in its HTML or Javascript, especially if it is a static site
with no server side code?
client_secret is send only in the case of explicit flow. Explicit flow should be used by server side application and care should be taken to keep the client_secret safe.
So, why was this extra step of sending a second request to obtain
access token added in the specification?
Well, Implicit flow is less secure than explicit flow since access toke is send to the user agent. But there is an attribute expire in the case of implicit flow which will get expired unless you have specified scope as no_expiry. Also server side flow can be used only by the apps that are registerd
It seems all the security of oAuth stems from ssl and the client's
ability to keep their client secret secret. Am I right in this
conclusion?
Again client_secret will be available in server side flow. But yes, client should take care that access_token is not given out
Check out this link. It gives an example of possible vulnerability in ouath.
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.
Using oAuth 2.0, in "authorization-code" Authorization Grant, I first call to "/authorize", get the code, and then use this code within a call to "/token" to get the access-token.
My question: why this is the flow? I guess it is from a security reason, but I cannot figure it out. Why the implementation is this way, and not getting the access-token immediately after the first call ("/authorize")?
Why do we need this code for?
Could it also be that by having this intermediate step prevents the client from seeing the access token?
From O'Reilly book:
Authorization code This grant type is most appropriate for server-side web applications. After the resource owner has
authorized access to their data, they are redirected back to the web
application with an authorization code as a query parameter in the
URL. This code must be exchanged for an access token by the client
application. This exchange is done server-to-server and requires
both the client_id and client_secret, preventing even the resource
owner from obtaining the access token. This grant type also allows for
long-lived access to an API by using refresh tokens.
Implicit grant for browser-based client-side applications The implicit grant is the most simplistic of all flows, and is optimized
for client-side web applications running in a browser. The resource
owner grants access to the application, and a new access token is
immediately minted and passed back to the application using a #hash
fragment in the URL. The application can immediately extract the
access token from the hash fragment (using JavaScript) and make API
requests. This grant type does not require the intermediary
“authorization code,” but it also doesn’t make available refresh
tokens for long-lived access.
UPDATE - yes indeed:
When Should the Authorization Code Flow Be Used? The Authorization
Code flow should be used when
Long-lived access is required.
The OAuth client is a web application server.
Accountability for API calls is very important and the OAuth token shouldn’t be leaked to the browser, where the user may have access to
it.
More:
Perhaps most importantly—because the access token is never sent
through the browser— there is less risk that the access token will be
leaked to malicious code through browser history, referer headers,
JavaScript, and the like.
The authorization code flow is meant for scenarios where 3 parties are involved.
These parties are:
Client
The user with his web browser. He wants to use your application.
Provider
Has information about the user. If somebody wants to access this data, the user has to agree first.
Your (web) application
Wants to access information about the user from the provider.
Now your app says to the user (redirecting his browser to the /authorize endpoint):
Hey user, here is my client id. Please talk to the provider and grant him to talk to me directly.
So the user talks to the provider (requests the authorization code and returns it to your app by opening your callback URL in his browser):
Hey provider, I want to use this app, so they require to access my data. Give me some code and I give this code to the application.
Now your app has the authorization code which is already known by client AND the provider. By handing this over to the provider your app can now prove, that it was allowed by the client to access his data. The provider now issues your (web) app an access token, so your (web) app won't have to redo these steps each time (at least for a while).
In case of other application types where your app is running directly at the client side (such as iPhone/Android apps or Javascript clients), the intermediate step is redundant.
Data on client side is generally considered unsafe. In the case of implicit calls where token is granted in the initial step itself, anyone with the access_token can request for data, the API doesn't know who is calling that API.
But, in the case of web-server apps where the application wants to identify itself, client_id with client_secret is sent along with authorization_code to get access_token, which in future can be sent independently.
Suppose, if access_token is granted initially itself then as client_id and access_token will still be considered exposed, so the app will have to send client_secret in addition to access_token every time to assure that request is really coming from it.
While in the current scenario, after getting access_token, further requests can be made independently without needing client_secret.
One important point is
Perhaps most importantly—because the access token is never sent through the browser— there is less risk that the access token will be leaked to malicious code through browser history, referer headers, JavaScript, and the like.
I think it is like this;
When we use the authorization code, we have 2 verification parts;
1; to verify ownership of the user, because he logs in
2; we know that the client, is really who he says he is because the client is sending his client_secret.
So if we would return the access token on the moment when the user authenticates instead of the authorization code, we know that it is the user requesting it but we dont know that it will be used for the registered client. So for example your webapp.
When we use the 'implicit grant'; (or return the access token instead of authorization code)
1; We know it is the user who is receiving the access token, but there is no need in getting a authorization code because the 'user-agent' based application is not checkable. It is checkable, if you think about it but it is usable for everyone. The client_secret is publicly viewable in the source code of the 'user-agent' based application so everyone can just 'view source code' and copy the client_secret and use this method to verify ownership of the client.
#ksht's answer is basically correct. For those looking for the simple,brief answer it is this:
Because the client app, (browser or native app), can have the delivered token intercepted. The oauth implicit flow does allow this but only under very specific circumstances. In all other cases either the browser can leak info (hacks in the OS, browser bugs , plugins) or for native apps your custom url scheme that maps the redirect url to the app can be intercepted. So the workaround is send back a code instead of a token (over tls) and use PKCE to ensure that the code can be securely exchanged for a token.