I'm working on an command line utility that requires access to a backend server over a REST API.
I'm trying to avoid implementing my own authentication mechanism and use one (or more) of the public auth services (like google, Facebook, amazon).
I am trying to make the client accept credentials and authenticate against the authentication provider and do that without asking the user go open a web browser and provide back a token. The client will be open sourced in order to avoid trust issues (i.e. the user credentials are not sent to my backend server).
I am not interested in authorization, I only care of authenticating against my backend server without having the user keep yet another set of credentials (and without sending the user credentials to my backend server).
How can I have my client authenticate with the auth provider and get a token to communicate back with my server without having the user use a web browser?
I realize you said "not open a web browser", but what about if that browser is on another device (e.g. their mobile?).
If that is acceptable, you can use the OAuth 2.0 for Devices approach, whereby you present the user a short alphanumeric code, which they enter on http://google.com/device to authenticate the request from another device. This OAuth flow is designed to work in environments which don't have browsers (like a command line).
To see a demo of this authentication flow in action, visit the YouTube TV site, press the ← key on your keyboard, and select Sign In.
It's also easy to try out yourself – create a OAuth client in the developers console (of type "installed application" -> "other"), and follow the curl examples in the docs (be sure to replace the demo code in the token request with the device_code received from the initial request to the code endpoint). Decode the resulting id_token using any of the example JWT decoders, like this one.
In your case, you should request the profile scope, which will return an id_token in the response to your token endpoint call, from which you can extract the user's Google profile id (the id token's sub field).
Related
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.]
I'm building a web app that uses the Oauth2.0 protocol. I have registered my app with the authorization server and received my client id and client secret.
I'm now working on Authorization part and specifically using the Authorization Code grant type. In that process i'm sending the user to the authorize endpoint with the following query parameters:code, client_id, redirect_uri, scope and state. (omitting the client_secret)
The problem that i'm dealing with is i'm getting an error back saying I need to provide the client_secret as well.
I was under the impression the client_secret is not needed at this part and shouldn't be sent in this request but rather when the client sends the authorization code (along with id & secret) to obtain the access token.
So my question is, Is it wrong (against oauth 2 protocol) that the authorization server requires the client secret to be sent in the request for the authorization code?
I am not 100% sure of this, but I did some research myself and what I found is that is not a real problem not to keep the "client secret" a secret. The only possibility of someone malicious being able to get through the Authorization specs is prevented by some facts:
1. Client need to get authorization code directly from the user, not from the service
Even if user indicates the service that he/she trusts the client, the
client cannot get authorization code from the service just by showing
client id and client secret. Instead, the client has to get the
authorization code directly from the user. (This is usually done by
URL redirection, which I will talk about later.) So, for the malicious
client, it is not enough to know client id/secret trusted by the user.
It has to somehow involve or spoof user to give it the authorization
code, which should be harder than just knowing client id/secret.
2. Redirect URL is registered with client id/secret
Let’s assume that the malicious client somehow managed to involve the
user and make her/him click "Authorize this app" button on the service
page. This will trigger the URL redirect response from the service to
user’s browser with the authorization code with it. Then the
authorization code will be sent from user’s browser to the redirect
URL, and the client is supposed to be listening at the redirect URL to
receive the authorization code. (The redirect URL can be localhost
too, and I figured that this is a typical way that a “public client”
receives authorization code.) Since this redirect URL is registered at
the service with the client id/secret, the malicious client does not
have a way to control where the authorization code is given to. This
means the malicious client with your client id/secret has another
obstacle to obtain the user’s authorization code.
// copy paste of hideaki answer
Concluding
OAuth2 specify that you need to inform your secret into a request if your application is a server-side based app (different than a single-page application or mobile) which does not make its source code available. However, if you can't control your base code, like in an native mobile application, you should look for another solution.
References
OAuth2 Documentation
Bear similar stack question
Simplifying OAuth2
I am trying to write a web app which uses sign in with google. I am a bit confused about the sequence of steps which should be followed. According to google docs , the normal flow for signing in a user is:
What i intend to figure out is:
1.) Am i supposed to send the IdToken with each and every subsequent API request from web to my server.
2.) what to do if someone steals this access token and sends a call to my server with it?
Quintessential information from your sketch is presented in Google's official publications:
A volatile token is generated and signed by the issuer (Google) and usually
expires after a rather short lifespan (related post, while not google-login-specific: What is intent of ID Token expiry time in OpenID Connect?). The Google docs describe how to send a token XYZ123 via https to
https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v3/tokeninfo?id_token=XYZ123
As #ian-barber writes here: "Be sure to always send ID tokens over HTTPS - though they can't be used maliciously in themselves, an attacker could use one to establish themselves a session with your app server if they could intercept it, so its important they aren't sent in plain text."
(Refreshed) tokens are to be used to authenticate users. Then your backend logic (the blue server part) can grant further privileges or e.g. transmit data in a post response. The API (JavaScript version) provides a toolset to monitor the user's session status.
As stated here, you must specify "authorized origins". Only authorized
origins may validate their client users through the Google Identity
API. Please note that even the port
matters, i.e. if you allow localhost:8080 as an authorized origin,
then localhost:9999 is not included! Additionally, the client ID per se is no secret and is naturally exposed in your html document or app. But only authorized origins are eligible to traverse the login workflow and transmit the token to the backend, where it is validated through calls to the API.
I am working on a AngularJS web app and I am trying to implement single sign on. I had a nice implementation using Identity server and authorization server with implicit flow and oAuth tokens, however I need a mechanism to sign the user out of all apps they are signed into.
I am currently redirecting the user to authorization server, this then redirects the user to identity server. The user logs on and it shown a consent screen, a Json web token is then sent to the app via the query string and is put into local storage. This token is attached to the Authorization header which the web api (that is on a different domain) receives and either allows or denies the request.
The problem is oAuth has no way of singing a user out of all apps. I have now looked at WS-Federation using Json web tokens but this approach still appears to use cookies which I would like to avoid as the api and client app are on different domains.
Does Thinktecture Identity Server have any way to do this and if so are there any examples I could take a look at.
Thanks
As you already said - OAuth2 is not an authentication protocol and hence does not have the concept of (single) signout.
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.