I've got my head around OAuth and the whole redirect-to-authorize concept.
It makes sense to have third party applications do this, however what about the 'actual' website or app of a company?
For example, the Facebook website/app are not going to force you through a redirect flow to login even though they may be sitting on an OAuth API under the hood.
From an OAuth perspective it would seem exceptions need to be made for these types of consumers. Namely, there are a select few applications are essentially automatically authorized.
Does that make sense or am I missing something?
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but basically, the primary goal of OAuth 2.0 is to allow third-party applications to access resource owners' (= end users') protected resources without passing resource owners' credentials (ID and password) to the third-party applications.
From a viewpoint of Facebook server, Facebook official website and application are not third-party applications. That is, all the entities (server, applications and users) belong to Facebook. Therefore, Facebook server and Facebook official applications do not have to use OAuth 2.0. They can communicate in their special, custom and cryptic way as they like.
Likewise, from a viewpoint of Photobucket server, the official Photobucket application is not a third-party application. So, the application is allowed to accept end users' credentials directly via the application's UI components. On the other hand, from a viewpoint of PhotoFolio, the Photobucket application is a third-paty application. Because PhotoFolio want to let the Photbucket application access PhotoFolio service but does not want to let the Photobucket application gather PhotoFolio's end users' credentials, PhotoFolio requires the Photobucket application to use OAuth 2.0.
In OAuth 2.0 flows (except Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant), third-party applications cannot know end users' credentials. This is the point. Non-third-party applications which are eligible to know end users' credentials do not have to use OAuth 2.0.
Related
There is a food ordering system. There are around 12 or 13 APIs.
The end-user can search for restaurants, foods, filter things, etc. without logging in to the system. The login is only necessary for placing an order, see past orders etc. So, for like 10 APIs I don't need the user to login.
10 APIs (need to verify the third-party)
The rest (need to verify the third-party as well as the user)
The oAuth 2.0 solutions I have seen so far, they instantly asks for the users to login which is something I don't want.
It'd be really helpful for me if someone takes the time to explain a possible solution and how all those could fit together.
If no Authentication is required, then the information is "Public" and does not need protection from OAuth 2.0.
It would not be unusual for a APIs to be called by a WEB Application where the WEB Application needs to use OAuth 2.0 to access the APIs, but the end-user has no relation to the APIs. So the WEB Application needs an OAuth 2.0 client_id for access to the APIs. The client credentials grant is designed for this use-case: (RFC 6749 Section 1.3.4)
when the authorization scope is limited to the protected resources
under the control of the client ... when the client is acting on its
own behalf
The WEB Application may then at some point use OpenID Connect to Authenticate the end-user for access to some of the "protected resources".
At my company we are developing several web applications that uses a REST API server.
First a little introduction.
The app provides the ability to manage users through the REST API and allows the users to login to the app.
Right now the REST API is for internal use only because we plan to develop more apps and communicate to the REST API as the central point of data access. We are handling the REST API authentication with a "Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" implementation for the internal apps.
What we need is a Single-Sign on service for all the apps, we want a user to login to an app and if he/she access to another of our apps he/she will be already loged in.
We have been experimenting with the CAS protocol, with the CASino library specifically and it works great.
The problem is we don't know how to handle the flow between the apps, the REST API and the SSO service, also I don't know if there is a better choice regarding SSO services.
My questions are...
How we could handle the flow between the apps, the REST API and the
SSO service, because the REST API should be stateless it should not
communicate to the SSO service? or is there a way to communicate the
REST API to the SSO service?
Is there a better choice to implement a Single-Sign on service,
maybe OAth or OpenID and are this options suitable for REST APIs?
Thanks in advance!
Your REST API will have to talk to the SSO server to validate the Access Token, unless all the information it needs is encrypted inside the Access Token. Not sure what you mean by "flow between the apps", you should have all apps talking to a central SSO server.
When a user wants to create an account on WebApp1, the account should be created on the SSO server, either by redirecting them there or if you need a differently styled signup form for each web app, then via an AJAX call to the SSO server's REST API. I would recommend the latter as redirecting is more difficult to debug and it can make a bad user experience.
Make sure the messaging is clear, i.e. not "Sign up for a WebApp1 account", but "Sign up for a MyCompany account to get access to WebApp1".
OAuth 2.0 is very popular and people have more experience with it, so it's easier to get help or integrate with apps created by others.
The doorkeeper gem is a good server library.
OAuth 2.0 is normally used when the SSO server doesn't trust the client apps (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), but it can be implemented in such a way to skip the client authorization step (where the user is asked to approve the client app), and you can use the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant via a REST API.
CAS is easier than OAuth. It is fairly easy to implement the basic endpoints and that way you can customize it as you wish.
I worked on a CAS-based server with a custom implementation (not sure if it was even really CAS-compliant). The authentication was done with Devise (I don't recommend Devise if you're going to customise it a lot, make your own in this case). The original flow was that the user went to the website, clicked Login/Register and then was redirected to the SSO server and after the user logged in, redirected back with a one-time ticket that the website's backend exchanged to an access token via a REST API call.
Then we added a REST API that was called from each website with AJAX. You send the username/password/captcha/etc and get back an auth token, which the site sends to its own backend. The SSO REST API can also set a cookie on its own domain, so that if the user visit another of our web apps it makes a call on pageload to check if the user is logged in. This way you're automatically logged in on every webapp without the redirect mess.
All tokens issued + the associated user info were sent to a fast Node.js app that would save them to Redis, and the app backends would call this app to validate the access tokens really fast, without putting load to the SSO Rails app.
Before you put me down for asking too basic a question without doing any homework, I'd like to say that I have been doing a lot of reading on these topics, but I'm still confused.
My needs seem simple enough. At my company, we have a bunch of Ruby on Rails applications. I want to build an SSO authentication service which all those applications should use.
Trying to do some research on how to go about doing this, I read about CAS, SAML and OAuth2. (I know that the "Auth" in OAuth stands for authorization, and not authentication, but I read enough articles saying how OAuth can be used for authentication just fine - this is one of them.)
Could someone tell me in simple terms what these 3 are? Are they alternatives (competing)? Is it even right to be comparing them?
And there are so many gems which all seem to be saying very similar stuff:
https://github.com/rubycas/rubycas-server and https://github.com/rubycas/rubycas-client
https://github.com/nbudin/devise_cas_authenticatable
https://github.com/onelogin/ruby-saml
CASino and https://github.com/rbCAS/casino-activerecord_authenticator
And I am sure there are hundreds of OAuth related gems.
I just want a separate Rails application which handles all the authentication for my other Rails apps.
Note: I do not want to allow users to use their Google / Facebook accounts to login. Our users already have accounts on our site. I want them to be able to login using that account once and be able to access all our apps without signing in again. Signing out in any app should sign them out of all apps.
UPDATE
I have come across these two OAuth solutions:
http://dev.mikamai.com/post/110722727899/oauth2-on-rails
http://blog.yorkxin.org/posts/2013/11/05/oauth2-tutorial-grape-api-doorkeeper-en/
They seem to be describing something very similar to what I want. But I haven't found any guide / blog post / tutorial showing how to do this with SAML / CAS.
Suggestions welcome.
UPDATE 2
More details about our use-case.
We do not have any existing SAML architecture in place. Primarily, it is going to be OUR users (registered directly on our website) who are going to be accessing all our applications. In the future, we may have third-party (partner) companies calling our APIs. We may also have users from these third-party (partner) companies (registered on their websites) accessing our apps.
CAS-Server:
A stand-alone central login page where the user enters their credentials (i.e. their username and password).
CAS supports the standardized SAML 1.1 protocol primarily to support
attribute release to clients and single sign-out.
(a table in a SQL database, ActiveDirectory/LDAP, Google accounts, etc.)
Full compatibility with the open, multi-platform CAS protocol (CAS clients are implemented for a wide range of platforms, including PHP, various Java frameworks, .NET, Zope, etc.)
Multi-language localization -- RubyCAS-Server automatically detects the user's preferred language and presents the appropriate interface.
SAML :
Security Assertion Markup Language is an XML-based, open-standard data format for exchanging authentication and authorization data between parties, in particular, between an identity provider and a service provider.
SAML authorization is a two step process and you are expected to implement support for both.
OAuth 2.0:
The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party
application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.
Important Note :
SAML has one feature that OAuth2 lacks: the SAML token contains the user identity information (because of signing). With OAuth2, you don't get that out of the box, and instead, the Resource Server needs to make an additional round trip to validate the token with the Authorization Server.
On the other hand, with OAuth2 you can invalidate an access token on the Authorization Server, and disable it from further access to the Resource Server.
Both approaches have nice features and both will work for SSO. We have proved out both concepts in multiple languages and various kinds of applications. At the end of the day OAuth2 seems to be a better fit for our needs (since there isn't an existing SAML infrastructure in place to utilize).
OAuth2 provides a simpler and more standardized solution which covers
all of our current needs and avoids the use of workarounds for
interoperability with native applications.
When should I use which?
1.If your usecase involves SSO (when at least one actor or participant is an enterprise), then use SAML.
2.If your usecase involves providing access (temporarily or permanent) to resources (such as accounts, pictures, files etc), then use OAuth.
3.If you need to provide access to a partner or customer application to your portal, then use SAML.
4.If your usecase requires a centralized identity source, then use SAML (Identity provider).
5.If your usecase involves mobile devices, then OAuth2 with some form of Bearer Tokens is appropriate.
Reference 1,Reference 2,Reference 3
If you need to authenticate for LDAP or ActiveDirectory then a solution like one of the CAS gems you mentioned above is right for you (RubyCAS, CASino).
If you can afford it, one of the commercial vendors (like Okta) is your best option because they will stay on top of security patches and manage your authentication needs for you. In particular, if you have to support ActiveDirectory, they've already implemented it.
OAuth is most useful for third party authentication, though it can do SSO. So if you wanted to support Google / Facebook logins or be a third party authenticator then it's a great choice. Since you don't want to support Google / Facebook then OAuth is probably not what you want.
If you are only intending to use HTTP POST for your SSO needs then the ruby-saml gem could be the way to go. You would have to implement your own Identity provider and add a service provider component to all your websites (possibly in the form of a gem.) Part of what you would need is a rails api to act as your identity provider. This gem helps support writing API's in rails.
EDIT
You mention the possibility that future third party users might be logging on to your site. This changes your calculus away from rolling your own ruby-saml solution.
The best way to share your authentication API is to implement an OAuth layer. Doorkeeper is a popular solution and is fast becoming the standard for Rails authentication. It's community support, flexibility and ease of use make it the best way to go for a consumable authentication API.
Railscast for implementing doorkeeper
Anjan.
I've used CAS and OAuth in my work. Here are some of my opinions, and hope to help.
Basically
Both CAS and SAML aim to solve SSO situation. And CAS is a service or an authentication system, which can support SAML protocol.
OAuth aims to solve authorization and authentication.
And in practice,
Both CAS and SAML act as an gateway in front of a group of applications which belong to one organization. Just like your case.
OAuth is used to authorize and authenticate between different organizations.
Just my thoughts, and hope to hear more voices.
We have used CAS and SAML in our architecture (Mobile App, Online Portal, and MicroServices) and both are used for different purpose.
Our Online Portal is like online banking that runs in public domain and has to be secure. We don't want to store password and other secure token's in the DB of the online portal, therefore, we use CAS for authentication and authorization. During registration, when user chooses the password, we store the password in CAS and store corresponding token in the DB of Portal
When user login next time, User enters the user name and password in Portal. Portal fetches the token corresponding to user from DB and sends User_name, password, and token to CAS for validation.
But, in case user has already logged in into one application and we redirect user to our another application then we dont want to user to enter username and password again for second application. We use SAML to solve this. First application shares user details with SAML server and gets token in return. First application passes the token to second application. Second application sends token to SAML server to get user details and on success lands user to desired page. Our first application can be Mobile App and second can be Portal in the scenario of App2Web.
Since you have got lot of answers for this question, I would like to suggest you an identity product that can be cater these kind of all protocol in one hand with lot of authentication and user management features. You can just try WSO2 Identity Server version for this.
I'm looking for some guidance on what people think are the best set of technologies to use. We are looking to create a web portal to allow customers to register/login with standard credentials or their social accounts (Google, Twitter etc).
Once they are registered and logged in to the portal they can access our different web apps which will know who they are and what permissions they have based on a token. We will also need to secure a set of web APIs using some sort of OAuth mechanism, so the user would possibly create an account on the web app and then create an application which would give them the keys they need to access the API from their own app.
We have a basic portal app using MVC 4 and DotNetOpenAuth which allows a user to create an account and login with either a username and password or their Google, Facebook account etc.
The APIs would be MVC 4 Web APIs
Ideally the whole set up needs to be as simple as possible, I've briefly looked into using Windows Azure Access Control (ACS) as a way to cut out some of the heavy lifting but its hard to tell where exactly it all fits together.
Currently we run an ADFS 2.0 server and WIF to allow web login to our apps but it doesn't seem like it would be an ideal choice when integrating the social login and for securing the web APIs
I guess it could be two quite seperate parts, once they are logged into the portal, how would we go about providing some sort of claims token to the other apps they then access to understand who the user is and what they are allowed to do. And maybe the web API authentication/authorisation is its own entity?
Thanks for your time
We ended up using the built in MVC 4 login system and also added JWT token support, when a user is logged in a JWT token containing their claims is stored as a cookie. This is then automatically passed around our sites on the same domain by the browser, when the web API is called from javascript it checks for the token in the headers sent by the browser and either validates it and returns the correct data or returns an unauthorised response.
It doesn't cover all the bases, we can't give trusted third parties access to our web services yet
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.