We wish to return custom attributes from LDAP server as part of OAuth access token.
Is this possible.
Is it advisable? Is it a valid use of OAuth? Does the RFC discourage it?
I could not find a concrete answer, please avise.
Thank you.
Yes you can add custom attributes in addition to standards properties like , (access_token,refresh_token, expiry) etc.
The spec does not impose strict property usage , check the sample response mentioned in spec OAuth2 Spec
Yes
Yes
It's indeed both possible and advisable, for example the spring security implementation provides an interface allowing to enrich the access token with custom properties.
See http://docs.spring.io/spring-security/oauth/apidocs/org/springframework/security/oauth2/provider/token/TokenEnhancer.html
Related
I have a default Spring authorization Server implementation. i want to modify it as per my project requirements.
I want to implement customized introspection endpoint in new spring authorization server.
I will be having different kinds of tokens, based on token type I want to validate them differently.
So I found out by default spring authorization server uses 'OAuth2TokenIntrospectionEndpointFilter', is there a way to use this class or we have to write a new class and add it to server configuration?
Thank you.
I tried doing the following.
authorizationServerConfigurer.tokenIntrospectionEndpoint(
t -> t.authenticationProvider(customTokenAuthProvider)
.introspectionResponseHandler(successHandler));
I want to know if this the right way to do or any other method exists.
It seems you have two goals:
Customize a jwt, by adding custom claims.
Obtain those claims via the introspection endpoint from a resource server.
There is actually nothing to code for on the authorization server side to achieve #2, as the introspection endpoint returns all claims for a jwt by default. I’m not clear on what you mean by “validate” here, so I’m assuming you mean validate the token and then obtain claims from it. This is what the introspection endpoint does, no customization required. Do note however that the introspection endpoint is not usually called if the resource server is decoding the jwt locally. This would only happen if the resource server is treating the token as opaque.
In order to achieve #1, simply provide an OAuth2TokenCustomizer #Bean as demonstrated in the reference documentation.
Note: I don’t see a need for a custom AuthenticationProvider. If you feel you do have a need for one, then I think some details of your use case are missing.
I'm trying to add OTP/2FA support into OAuth2, but after much reading through the RFC6749, it's still not clear how OTP/2FA could be cleanly added without violating the specification.
Although OTP/2FA entry can be added into the authorize dialog flow, there is no provision for adding it into token. For example, public client apps with Resource owner password-based privileges may want to provide the token directly when requesting a new access_token, rather than having to embed a HTML dialog box.
Therefore my questions are;
Does the RFC allow for custom grant_type? Should this be used to provide 2FA/OTP functionality?
Does the RFC allow for additional attributes on an existing grant_type? For example, grant_type=token&otp_code=1234 (RFC does not make it clear if additional attributes are allowed on grant_type's within the specification)
Should OTP functionality be placed into headers? This is the approach that Github used, but it feels really ugly/hacky.
Are there any other approaches that I have overlooked?
Thank you in advance
The RFC allows for an extension (custom) grant, see section https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-8.3. That grant could define additional attributes.
OAuth 2.0 does not define how the Resource Owner authenticates to the Authorization Server, with the exception of the Resource Owner Password Credentials grant. Your proposal could be designed as an extended variant of that grant.
I'm working on something similar. I've got an endpoint at which you can request certain metadata for a user such as whether or not 2fa / mfa / otp is turned on and the salt (and iterations and algorithm) for Proof of Secret / Secure Remote Password.
If you go that route you can simply extend the grant types with an mfa or totp field (that's what I'm doing). You could also create a custom grant type as mentioned above (perhaps more proper).
Another solution is to check for MFA / 2FA / OTP during the authorization dialog step.
If I were done with my OAuth2 implementation I'd link you to that code too, but here are some libraries for an Authenticator:
Browser Authenticator has the components you need to generate and verify a key and token in the browser: https://git.coolaj86.com/coolaj86/browser-authenticator.js
Node Authenticator has the complementary server-side code: https://git.coolaj86.com/coolaj86/node-authenticator.js
You would still need to provide your own database storage mechanism and link it in to your OAuth implementation or you could make a very simple one and run it as a microservice.
I agree with Hanz Z.: you can design your own grant type to consume OTP.
But OTP can also be used for client authentication (confidential clients as you have to store credentials).
For example, we could imagine an header in the token request (X-OAuth2-OTP = 01234567). Client authentification will fail if the client activated OTP but no header is set.
Based on specifc SCOPE (Ex. OTP) you can mark bearer(access_token) as ""verified_otp = false"" on the backend, then after authorization server received valid otp for that session mark your bearer(access_token) as ""verified_otk = true"". For your resource server, check verified_otk field befores authorize calls that depends this verification.
I feel silly even asking this question, but am at the limits of my understanding, and am hoping someone can provide some context.
I'm looking at the following (https://stormpath.com/blog/token-auth-for-java/) which states:
The access_token is what will be used by the browser in subsequent requests... The Authorization header is a standard header. No custom headers are required to use OAuth2. Rather than the type being Basic, in this case the type is Bearer. The access token is included directly after the Bearer keyword.
I'm in the process of building a website, for which I'll be coding both the back-end REST service, as well as the front-end browser client. Given this context, why do I need to follow any of the guidelines given above? Instead of using the access_token, Authorization and Bearer keywords, what's stopping me from using any keywords I like, or skipping the Bearer keyword entirely in the header? After all, as long as the front-end and back-end services both read/write the data in a consistent manner, shouldn't everything work fine?
Are the keywords and guidelines given above merely best-practice suggestions, to help others better understand your code/service? Are they analogous to coding-styles? Or is there any functional impact in not following the above guidelines?
Given this context, why do I need to follow any of the guidelines given above?
Because they are standardized specifications that everyone is meant to conform to if they want to interact with each other.
Instead of using the access_token, Authorization and Bearer keywords, what's stopping me from using any keywords I like, or skipping the Bearer keyword entirely in the header?
Nothing, except that it won't be OAuth anymore. It will be something custom that you created for yourself that noone else will understand how to use, unless you publish your own spec for it.
After all, as long as the front-end and back-end services both read/write the data in a consistent manner, shouldn't everything work fine?
Who is to say that you alone will ever write the only front-end? Or that the back-end will never move to another platform? Don't limit yourself to making something custom when there are open standards for this kind of stuff.
Are the keywords and guidelines given above merely best-practice suggestions, to help others better understand your code/service?
No. They are required protocol elements that help the client and server talk to each other in a standardized manner.
Authorization is a standard HTTP header used for authentication. It has a type so the client can specify what kind of authentication scheme it is using (Basic vs NTLM vs Bearer, etc). It is important for the client to specify the correct scheme being used, and for the server to handle only the schemes it recognizes.
Bearer is the type of authentication that OAuth uses in the Authorization header. access_token is a parameter of OAuth's Bearer authentication.
If you use the Authorization header (which you should), you must specify a type, as required by RFCs 2616 and 2617:
Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials
credentials = auth-scheme #auth-param
auth-scheme = token
auth-param = token "=" ( token | quoted-string )
So, in this case, Bearer is the auth-scheme and access_token is an auth-param.
Are they analogous to coding-styles?
No.
Or is there any functional impact in not following the above guidelines?
Yes. A client using your custom authentication system will not be able to authenticate on any server that follows the established specifications. Your server will not be able to authenticate any client that does not use your custom authentication system.
I am going through http://aiten.github.com/grails-oauth-scribe/guide/usingThePlugin.html
My main problem is, I have my linkedin access token, but this API forces me to use
Token linkedInAccessToken = oauthService.findSessionKeyForAccessToken('linkedin')
I want to init Token object with a string.
I could not find the API documentation anywhere, please help
Edvinas has it - the Token object (from Scribe) allows init as he specifies.
There is also an optional third parameter, which is the entire raw oauth response from the server, useful if you want to grab/store expiration info etc.
Also as Jeff says, the plugin is designed such that you can happily use the token throughout without worrying about it - it's much cleaner to store objects as object rather than a String, and might help avoid strange runtime errors in your code.
If you want to store it as a Map you should serialize it as such first.
Source:
I wrote the plugin.
If you already have the access token you wouldn't need to really do the oauth request you could just make the request with token you have. Below change linkedInAccessToken to the string that has the token.
oauthService.postLinkedInResource(linkedInAccessToken, 'http://api.yourprovider.com/users/list')
I guess you want to persist the token object. It consists two Sting fiekds: token and secret. When you have them stored in the database you can always create the token simply:
Token linedInAcessToken = new org.scribe.model.Token(token, secret)
This can be later used in oauthService.
I would like implement spring acl for my object fields.
does anyone has an idea what do i have to implment for it?
for example, i have Purchase object.
i would like admin_role to have read on all the fields, and secretary_role to have read only on username and address field
Can you clarify at what point you need the security?
If this is part of a webapp, I frequently use stripes security interceptors in combination with spring to control access to what the user sees based on role.
If it's not part of a webapp and you're looking to control what a user can change there's a number of methods available from custom annotations to database control. I've found the project itself usually dictates which path I should follow.
extend org.springframework.security.acls.domain.BasePermission and introduce your own Permission flag (up to 32 bits are supported)