Related
I'm in the process of converting an internal C# API that uses a legacy SOBO integration to one that uses OAuth 2.0 as required by DocuSign. The legacy application makes all requests to DocuSign using DocuSign credentials of an application user (a non-person) and injects SOBO data (email address) in the appropriate header when we need to generate an embedded sending URI and have it appear that the envelope was sent by a real person without using their credentials.
I have successfully converted another (non-SOBO) internal API using JWT grant, but I do not know how replicate the SOBO dependent workflow. Have read Matt King's article "From the Trenches: OAuth 2.0 and the new SOBO", but still a bit confused. I know how to extract userId from email address as mentioned in the article, but not sure what do with it. Similar to my legacy application, I am using a application user to get consent and ask for JWT token without prompting internal users for their consent. Is this still possible using OAuth 2.0?
Happy to help here. Once you've retrieved the user's apiUserName / userId you'll want to add it into the JWT assertion's sub line.
When you go to generate the token, if consent has not been provided by or for the user, our system will send back an error of "Consent_Required." See https://www.docusign.com/blog/developers/oauth-jwt-granting-consent for different methods of granting consent.
For individual consent, the user needs to go to a specific URL containing your clientId, redirectUri, and some additional scopes. If they hadn't previously consented to the scopes in your OAuth request they will be prompted to do this once. You can confirm consent has been applied by having them visit the same link afterwards, which will send them directly to your redirectUri.
Domain consent works a little differently -- you need to have an organization, a claimed domain, and the users you're providing consent on behalf of need to have an email address that is part of that claimed domain.
Happy to connect and walk you through it -- if you can open a ticket at support.docusign.com and in the details request they reach out to me I should be able to have the case transferred and work with you from there.
Regards,
Matt King
For the past 10+ days I've read an watched ALL the content I could find on understanding OAuth2 and OpenID Connect, only to find that many people disagree on the implementation, which really confuses me.
To my understanding, all the articles and examples I found assume you want access to eg. google calendar, profile info or emails if you eg. login with google, but I do NOT need to access other than my own API's - I only want to use Google, Facebook etc for logging in, and getting an id which I can link to my user in my own database - nothing more than that.
I'll try illustrate my use case and use that as an example.
A note on the diagram: the Authentication service could probably be built into the API Gateway - not that i matters for this example, since this is not about "where to do it", but "how to do it the best way" possible, for an architecture such as mine, where it's used for my own API's / Microservices, and not accessing Google, Facebook etc. external API's
If you can understand what I'm trying to illustrate with this diagram above, please tell me if I've misunderstood this.
The most basic requirements for this architecture you see here are:
Users can login with Google, Facebook, etc.
The same login will be used for all micro-services
OpenId user will have a linked account in the database
User access is defined in my own db, based on groups, roles and permissions
I do not intend to use external API's after the user is authenticated and logged in. No need for ever accessing a users calendar, email etc. so I really just need the authentication part and nothing else (proof of successful login). All user access is defined in my own database.
So a few fundamental questions comes to mind.
First of all, is OpenID Connect even the right tool for the job for authentication only (I'll have no use for authorization, since I will not need read/write access to google / facebook API's other than getting the ID from authenticating)?
People generally do not agree on whether to use the ID or Access token for accessing your own API's. As far as I understand the ID token is for the client (user-agent) only, and the access token is for eg. accessing google calendar, emails etc.... External API's of the OpenID Provider... but since I'll only be accessing my own API's, do I event need the access token or the ID token - what is the correct way to protect your own API's?
If the ID token is really just for the client, so it can show eg. currently logged in user, without going to the DB, I have 0 use for it, since I'll probably query the user from from the db and store it in redux for my react frontend app.
Dilemma: To store user details, groups, roles and permission inside JWT or not for API authorization?
By only storing the user identifier in the token, it means that I always allow authenticated users that has a valid token, to call endpoints BEFORE authorization and first then determine access based on the db query result and the permissions in my own database.
By storing more data about the user inside the JWT, it means that in some cases, I'd be able to do the authorization / access (group, role, permission) check before hitting the API - only possible with user info, groups, roles and permission stored inside a JWT issued upon login. In some cases it would not be possible due to eg. the CMS content access permissions being on a per-node level. But still it would mean a little better performance.
As you can see on the diagram I'm sending all API requests through the gateway, which will (in itself or with an authentication service) translate the opaque access token into some JWT with an identifier, so I can identify the user in the graph database - and then verify if the user has the required groups, roles and permissions - not from an external API, but from my own database like you see on the diagram.
This seems like a lot of work on every request, even if the services can share the JWT in case multiple services should need to cross call each other.
The advantage of always looking up the user, and his permissions in the db, is naturally that the moment the user access levels change, he is denied/granted access immediately and it will always be in sync. If I store the user details, groups, roles and permission inside a JWT and persist that in the client localstorage, I guess it could pose a security issue right, and it would be pretty hard to update the user info, groups, roles and permissions inside that JWT?
One big advantage of storing user access levels and info inside the JWT is of course that in many cases I'd be able to block the user from calling certain API's, instead of having to determine access after a db lookup.
So the whole token translation thing means increased security at the cost of performance, but is is generally recommended and worth it? Or is it safe enough to store user info and groups, roles, permissions inside the JWT?
If yes, do I store all that information from my own DB in the ID Token, Access token or a 3rd token - what token is sent to the API and determines if the user should be granted access to a given resource based on his permissions in the db? Do I really need an access token if I don't need to interact with the ID providers API? Or do I store and append all my groups, roles, permissions inside the ID token (that doesn't seem clean to me) issued by OpenID connect, and call the API and authorize my own API endpoints using that, even if some say you should never use the ID token to access an API? Or do I create a new JWT to store all the info fetched from my database, which is to be used for deciding if the user can access a given resource / API endpoint?
Please do not just link to general specs or general info, since I've already read it all - I just failed to understand how to apply all that info to my actual use case (the diagram above). Try to please be as concrete as possible.
Made another attempt to try and simply the flow:
The following answer does only apply for a OpenID Connect authentication flow with a 3rd party IDP (like Google). It does not apply for an architecture where you host your own IDP.
(There are some API gateways (e.g Tyk or Kong) which support OpenID Connect out of the box.)
You can use JWTs (ID token) to secure your APIs. However, this has one disadvantage. JWTs cannot be revoked easily.
I would not recommend this. Instead you should implement an OAuth2 authorization server which issues access tokens for your API. (In this case, you have two OAuth2 flows. One for authentication and one for authorization. The ID and access token from the IDP are used only for authentication.)
The following picture shows a setup where the API gateway and authentication/authorization server are two separate services. (As mentioned above, the authentication/authorization can also be done by the API gateway.)
The authentication flow (Authorization Code Grant) calls are marked blue. The authorization flow (Implicit Grant) calls are marked green.
1: Your web app is loaded from the app server.
2a: The user clicks on your login button, your web app builds the authorization URL and opens it. (See: Authorization Request)
2b: Because the user hasn't authenticated and has no valid session with your authorization server, the URL he wanted to access is stored and your authorization server responds with a redirect to its login page.
3: The login page is loaded from your authorization server.
4a: The user clicks on "Login with ...".
4b: Your authorization server builds the IDP authorization URL and responds with a redirect to it. (See: Authentication Request)
5a: The IDP authorization URL is opend.
5b: Because the user hasn't authenticated and has no valid session with the IDP, the URL he wanted to access is stored and the IDP responds with a redirect to its login page.
6: The login page is loaded from the IDP.
7a: The user fills in his credentials and clicks on the login button.
7b: The IDP checks the credentials, creates a new session and responds with a redirect to the stored URL.
8a: The IDP authorization URL is opend again.
(The approval steps are ignored here for simplicity.)
8b: The IDP creates an authorization and responds with a redirect to the callback URL of your authorization server. (See: Authentication Response)
9a: The callback URL is opened.
9b: Your authorization server extracts the authorization code from the callback URL.
10a: Your authorization server calls the IDP's token endpoint, gets an ID and access token and validates the data in the ID token. (See: Token Request)
(10b: Your authorization server calls the IDP's user info endpoint if some needed claims aren't available in the ID token.)
11a/b: Your authorization server queries/creates the user in your service/DB, creates a new session and responds with a redirect to the stored URL.
12a: The authorization URL is opend again.
(The approval steps are ignored here for simplicity.)
12b/+13a/b: Your authorization server creates/gets the authorization (creates access token) and responds with a redirect to the callback URL of your web app. (See: Access Token Response)
14a: The callback URL is opened.
14b: Your web app extracts the access token from the callback URL.
15: Your web app makes an API call.
16/17/18: The API gateway checks the access token, exchanges the access token with an JWT (which contains user infos, ...) and forwards the call.
A setup where the authorization server calls the API gateway is also possible. In this case, after the authorization is done, the authorization server passes the access token and JWT to the API gateway. Here, however, everytime the user infos change the authorization server has to "inform" the API gateway.
This is a very long question. But I believe most can be summarised by answering below,
To my understanding, all the articles and examples I found assume you want access to eg. google calendar, profile info or emails if you eg. login with google,
You do not necessarily use Access token (ID token in some occasions) to access the services offered by token issuer.You can consume tokens by your own APIs. What these Identity Providers (synonym to Authorization server, or IDP in shorthand) is to hold identities of end users. For example, typical internet have a Facebook account. With OAuth and OpenID Connect, the same user get the ability to consume your API or any OAuth/OIDC accepted service. This reduce user profile creation for end users.
In corporate domain, OAuth and OIDC serves the same purpose. Having a single Azure AD account lets you to consume MS Word as well as Azure AD's OIDC will issue tokens which can be used to Authorise against an in-house API or an third party ERP product (used in organization) which support OIDC based authentication. Hope it's clear now
A note on the diagram is that the Authentication service could probably be built into the API Gateway - not sure if that would be better?
If you are planning to implement an API gateway, think twice. If things are small scale and if you think you can maintain it, then go ahead. But consider about API managers which could provide most of your required functionalities. I welcome you to read this article about WSO2 API manger and understand its capabilities (No I'm not working for them).
For example, that API manager has built in authentication handling mechanism for OAuth and OIDC. It can handle API authentication with simple set of configurations. With such solution you get rid of the requirement of implement everything.
What if you can't use an API manager and has to do it yourself
OpenID Connect is for authentication. Your application can validate the id token and authenticate end user. To access APIs through API Gateway, I think you should utilise Access token.
To validate the access token, you can use introspection endpoint of the identity provider. And to get user information, you can use user-info endpoint.
Once access token is validated, API gateway could create a session for a limited time (ideally to be less or equal to access token lifetime). Consequent requests should come with this session to accept by API gateway. Alternatively, you can still use validated access token. Since you validated it at the first call, you may cache for a certain time period thus avoiding round trips to validations.
To validate user details, permission and other grants, well you must wither bind user to a session or else associate user to access token from API gateway at token validation. I'm also not super clear about this as I have no idea on how your DB logic works.
First Appreciate your patience in writing a very valuable question in this forum
we too have same situation and problem
I want to go through ,as images are blocked in our company in detail
Was trying to draw paralles to similar one quoted in the book
Advance API In Practise - Prabath Siriwerdena [ page 269]Federating access to API's Chapter. Definitely worth reading of his works
API GW should invoke Token Exchange OAUTH2.0 Profile to IDP [ provided the IDP should support TOken Exchange profile for OAUTH 2.0
The Absence of API Gateway , will result in quite bespoke development
for Access Control for each API Check
you land up in having this check at each of the api or microservice [ either as library which does work for you as a reusable code]
definitely will become a choking point.]
We are setting up a OAuth 2.0 via PingFederate in our organization. The scenario in question is as follows - We have a website in which the customer would be logging in using user name and password. There are are also links within the site to redirect the customer to a partner site. The partner site would be securely passed some basic information via SSO payload.
The partner site would also need to be able to call back to our Apis (call made in the background) to get additional information about our customer which they will then use to display on their site.
Our Api’s are currently setup to be accessed via access token which the consumers of the Api get by following the Authorization Grant flow.
In the partner redirect scenario we want partner site not go through the Authorization code flow when it makes the Api call because the customer would have already logged into our site to start with using their credentials but instead when we redirect to the partner site provide it securely (SSO payload) the access and refresh token which it can then use to make the Api calls ?.
Is there a grant type that I can invoke telling my authorization provider (PingFederate) that I trust the customer based on the information that he has already provided now give me access token and refresh token and then redirect using that information (None of the grant types that I am aware is able to support it - does Ping OAuth setup support a flow wherein I can say I trust this customer give me access and refresh token )?
It sounds like you'd be combining SAML and OAuth to meet your business need. While it's not defined as a standard grant type, one potential solution is to include an Access Token in the SAML Assertion attribute payload so the partner application can then make calls without going through additional redirects. PingFederate does offer the ability to do this by using OGNL to create an access token in the attribute contract fulfillment. An example of how to do this is in our SDK documentation: https://www.pingidentity.com/content/dam/developer/documentation/pingfederate/server-sdk/9.3/index.html?com/pingidentity/sdk/oauth20/AccessTokenIssuer.html
If you need more guidance on selecting the right OAuth grant type, we have information on our developer portal that covers this. Please refer to: https://www.pingidentity.com/content/developer/en/resources/oauth-2-0-developers-guide.html#get_token
We want to use Google Doc API to generate Document (In our own business account) when our end users do some actions on our site.
The problem is that we've tried to implement the OAuth 2.0 protocol, as suggested in the v3.0 protocol documentation. The apiClient::authentication method do a redirection. This is a major problem because our users doesn't know the access to our own business account.... and we don't want to give them access anyway ;)
(In other word, we're not creating an application that allow our users to edit their own data, but to interact with our data, like a database.)
I've read that the point of OAuth 2.0 was to avoid that we manage the credential of our users. I'm personally O.K. with the concept, but in our case, we don't want to get authenticated in the google account of our users ...
So, what would be the best approach to get a valid authentication without any interaction from the end user ?
What you describe is not how 3-legged OAuth was designed to be used.
3-legged OAuth is all about delegated authentication where a user (who knows his password) can grant limited and revokable resource access to application. That application never sees the user's password. There is a bunch of work involved to safely allow the application to impersonate the user.
What you probably want is to use the (2-legged) OAuth flow, where the consumer_id/consumer_secret credentials are embedded in your application. Here your application is not impersonating your end user and there would be no browser redirection involved.
Here's some further info on using 2-legged OAuth in Google Apps:
http://googleappsdeveloper.blogspot.com/2011/07/using-2-legged-oauth-with-google-tasks.html
And this is a good description of 3- vs 2- legged OAuth:
http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2011/01/10/2-legged-vs-3-legged-oauth/
You will need to use a SERVICE ACCOUNT. Basically you are hard coding access to this account into your server application. Then you use sharing to give access to the to account for the content you want. For example you can share a Google Doc or an Analytics profile with the SERVICE ACCOUNT.
Here is a complete example implementation of setting up a service account, logging and and then using it.
Updated 2018-12-12: https://gist.github.com/fulldecent/6728257
Why not get one OAuth authorization for your business account and have all users use that account. Since it sounds like you want everyone accessing the data for one account, the details can be hid from the end user.
The access token would be shared by all users and they would all hit the same account back end without any authorization for each user's own account.
What exactly is OAuth (Open Authorization)?
I have gleaned some information from
OAuth
Twitter Tutorial: What is OAuth And What It Means To You
What is OAuth
But I want to learn and know more. I'm looking for info on the lifecycle. Why do most of the social networks rely on this open protocol?
Will it become a de facto in near future with the various technologies (e.g. ASP.NET)?
What exactly is OAuth (Open Authorization)?
OAuth allows notifying a resource provider (e.g. Facebook) that the resource owner (e.g. you) grants permission to a third-party (e.g. a Facebook Application) access to their information (e.g. the list of your friends).
If you read it stated plainly, I would understand your confusion. So let's go with a concrete example: joining yet another social network!
Say you have an existing Gmail account. You decide to join LinkedIn. Adding all of your many, many friends manually is tiresome and error-prone. You might get fed up halfway or insert typos in their e-mail address for the invitation. So you might be tempted not to create an account after all.
Facing this situation, LinkedIn™ has the good idea to write a program that adds your list of friends automatically because computers are far more efficient and effective at tiresome and error-prone tasks. Since joining the network is now so easy, there is no way you would refuse such an offer, now would you?
Without an API for exchanging this list of contacts, you would have to give LinkedIn the username and password to your Gmail account, thereby giving them too much power.
This is where OAuth comes in. If your GMail supports the OAuth protocol, then LinkedIn can ask you to authorize them to access your Gmail list of contacts.
OAuth allows for:
Different access levels: read-only VS read-write. This allows you to grant access to your user list or bi-directional access to automatically synchronize your new LinkedIn friends to your Gmail contacts.
Access granularity: you can decide to grant access to only your contact information (username, e-mail, date of birth, etc.) or to your entire list of friends, calendar and whatnot.
It allows you to manage access from the resource provider's application. If the third-party application does not provide a mechanism for canceling access, you would be stuck with them having access to your information. With OAuth, there is a provision for revoking access at any time.
Will it become a de facto (standard?) in near future?
Well, although OAuth is a significant step forward, it doesn't solve problems if people don't use it correctly. For instance, if a resource provider gives only a single read-write access level to all your resources at once and doesn't provide a mechanism for managing access, then there is no point to it. In other words, OAuth is a framework to provide authorization functionality and not just authentication.
In practice, it fits the social network model very well. It is especially popular for those social networks that want to allow third-party "plugins". This is an area where access to the resources is inherently necessary and is also inherently unreliable (i.e. you have little or no quality control over those applications).
I haven't seen so many other uses out in the wild. I mean, I don't know of an online financial advisory firm that will access your bank records automatically, although it could technically be used that way.
What is OAuth?
OAuth is simply a secure authorization protocol that deals with the authorization of third-party applications to access the user data without exposing their password. (e.g. login with Facebook, gPlus, Twitter in many websites) all work under this protocol.
Parties involved
The Protocol becomes easier when you know the involved parties. Basically, there are three parties involved: OAuth Provider, OAuth Client, and Owner.
OAuth Client (Application Which wants to access your credential)
OAuth Provider (eg. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Owner (the person with Facebook, Twitter, etc. account )
How It Works
I have supposed a scenario where a website (Stack Overflow) needs to add a login with the Facebook feature. Thus Facebook is OAuth Provider and the Stack Overflow is OAuth Client.
This step is done by the app's developer. At the very beginning, Facebook (OAuth Provider) has no idea about the Stack Overflow (OAuth Client) because there is no link between them. So the very first step is to register Stack Overflow with Facebook developers site. This is done manually where developers need to give the app's information to Facebook like the app's name, website, logo, redirectUrl (important one). Then Stack Overflow is successfully registered, has got client Id, client secret, etc from Facebook, and is up and running with OAuth.
Now when Stack Overflow's user clicks login with Facebook button. Stack Overflow requests Facebook with ClientId (Facebook uses it to recognize the client) and redirectUrl (Facebook will return back to this URL after success). Thus the user gets redirected to the Facebook login page. This is the best part user(owner) is not giving their Facebook credential to Stack Overflow.
After Owner allows Stack Overflow to access the information. Then Facebook redirects back to Stack Overflow, along with authcode using the redirectUrl provided at step 2.
Then Stack Overflow contacts Facebook along with the obtained authcode to make sure everything is okay.
Only then Facebook will give access token to Stack Overflow. Then access token is used by Stack Overflow to retrieve the owner's information without using a password. This is the whole motive of OAuth, where actual credentials are never exposed to third-party applications.
For More:
Quick video
Web Link
Simply put OAuth is a way for applications to gain credentials to your information without directly getting your user login information to some website. For example if you write an application on your own website and want it to use data from a user's facebook account, you can use OAuth to get a token via a callback url and then use that token to make calls to the facebook API to get their use data until the token expires. Websites rely on it because it allows programmers to access their data without the user having to directly disclose their information and spread their credentials around online but still provide a level of protection to the data. Will it become the de facto method of authorization? Perhaps, it's been gaining a lot of support recently from Twitter, Facebook, and the likes where other programmers want to build applications around user data.
OAuth(Open Authorization) is an open standard for access granting/deligation protocol. It used as a way for Internet users to grant websites or applications access to their information on other websites but without giving them the passwords. It does not deal with authentication.
Or
OAuth 2.0 is a protocol that allows a user to grant limited access to their resources on one site, to another site, without having to expose their credentials.
Analogy 1: Many luxury cars today come with a valet key. It is a special key you give the parking attendant and unlike your regular key, will not allow the car to drive more than a mile or two. Some valet keys will not open the trunk, while others will block access to your onboard cell phone address book. Regardless of what restrictions the valet key imposes, the idea is very clever. You give someone limited access to your car with a special key, while using your regular key to unlock everything. src from auth0
Analogy 2: Assume, we want to fill an application form for a bank account. Here Oauth works as, instead of filling the form by applicant, bank can fill the form using Adhaar or passport.
Here the following three entities are involved:
Applicant i.e. Owner
Bank Account is OAuth Client, they need information
Adhaar/Passport ID is OAuth Provider
Oauth is definitely gaining momentum and becoming popular among enterprise APIs as well.
In the app and data driven world, Enterprises are exposing APIs more and more to the outer world in line with Google, Facebook, twitter.
With this development a 3 way triangle of authentication gets formed
1) API provider- Any enterprise which exposes their assets by API, say Amazon,Target etc
2) Developer - The one who build mobile/other apps over this APIs
3) The end user- The end user of the service provided by the - say registered/guest users of Amazon
Now this develops a situation related to security - (I am listing few of these complexities)
1) You as an end user wants to allow the developer to access APIs on behalf of you.
2) The API provider has to authenticate the developer and the end user
3) The end user should be able to grant and revoke the permissions for the consent they have given
4) The developer can have varying level of trust with the API provider, in which the level of permissions given to her is different
The Oauth is an authorization framework which tries to solve the above mentioned problem in a standard way. With the prominence of APIs and Apps this problem will become more and more relevant and any standard which tries to solve it - be it ouath or any other - will be something to care about as an API provider/developer and even end user!
OAuth is all about delegating Authorization (choosing someone who can do Authorization for you). Note that Authentication and Authorization are different things. OAuth is Authorization (Access control), and if you want to implement Authentication (ID verification) also, OpenID protocol can be used on top of OAuth.
All big companies like Facebook, Google, Github,... use this kind of authentication/authorization nowadays. For example, I just signed in on this website using my Google account, this means Stackoverflow doesn't know my password, it receives the allowance from Google where my password (hashed obviously) is saved. This gives a lot of benefits, one of them is; In the near future you won't have to make several accounts on every website. One website (which you trust most) can be used to login to all other websites. So you'll only have to remember one password.
OAuth happened when we sign up SO account with Facebook/ Google
button.
Application (SO) redirecting user to the provider's authorization URL. ( Displaying a web page asking the user if he or she wishes to grant the application access to read and update their data).
User agree to grant the application process.
Service provider redirects user back to application (SO), passing authorization code as parameter.
SO exchanges the code for an access grant.
Source : OAuth1 service providers
OAuth is an open standard for authorization, commonly used as a way for Internet users to log into third party websites using their Microsoft, Google, Facebook or Twitter accounts without exposing their password.
Authorization: OAuth as it name suggests is simply a standard for Authorization.
Used for log into third party websites: With OAuth, you can log into third party websites with your Google, Facebook, Twitter or Microsoft accounts without having the necessity to provide your passwords.
Remembering passwords: Using OAuth you can avoid creating accounts and remembering passwords on each and every web application that you use on the Internet.
Access token: OAuth is based on an access token concept. When a person authenticate hinself using his Google account, to a third party web application. Google authorization server issues an access token for that web application the person is using. Thus, the web application can use that access token to access his data hosted in the resource server. In the case of Google, your Gmail inbox, contacts, photos etc. are the resources. So, any third party application can access those resources, for an example view his Gmail inbox using OAuth. Hence, OAuth is a simple way to publish and interact with protected resource data. It’s also a safer and more secure way for people to give you access to their resource data.
OAuth2 and HTTPS: OAuth2 uses HTTPS for communication between the client and the authorization server because of confidential data for example client credentials. passing between the two applications.
OAuth is a protocol that is used from Resource Owner(facebook, google, tweeter, microsoft live and so on) to provide a needed information, or to provide a permission for write success to third party system(your site for example). Most likely without OAuth protocol the credentials should be available for the third part systems which will be inappropriate way of communication between those systems.