I am creating an Oath 2.0 system on my server allowing users to log into their account on my server from the app without having to give the username and password to the app itself. Which as I understand is the purpose of Oath, and it seems to work pretty well, the system is built on compliance with all Oath 2.0 specifications and is fully functional. But what I don't understand is why I have to have tokens expire... I mean I provide a refresh uri and they can easily at any time and at no cost renew the token (or get a new valid one). I dont see any purpose in this, why not just make the token never expire. I don't see the security benefits or any purpose for that matter for token expiration. Can someone explain to me why I have to have my tokens expire and why they can't just be good indefinitely?
In a word, for more safe.
In your question, you said at no cost renew the token, actually, when you refresh token, you need to authenticate with the authorization server(provide your client credential). So refresh token is not equal with access token. It can not give you the access to resource.
Why have token expire?
As OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations says:
3.1.2. Limited Access Token Lifetime
The protocol parameter "expires_in" allows an authorization server
(based on its policies or on behalf of the end user) to limit the
lifetime of an access token and to pass this information to the
client. This mechanism can be used to issue short-lived tokens to
OAuth clients that the authorization server deems less secure, or
where sending tokens over non-secure channels.
5.1.5.2. Determine Expiration Time
Tokens should generally expire after a reasonable duration. This
complements and strengthens other security measures (such as
signatures) and reduces the impact of all kinds of token leaks.
Depending on the risk associated with token leakage, tokens may
expire after a few minutes (e.g., for payment transactions) or stay
valid for hours (e.g., read access to contacts).
I found another use for it. When I store a token in my database at every login. If someone no longer uses a device or deletes their token (uninstalls an app or clears a cache) for any reason without properly "logging out" (logging out removes it from the database). Then there is a token stored on the database that will never be used again. After a while this becomes cumbersome taking up valuable space on the database and slowing down query executions for unused tokens. With token expirations I can run a cron job to scan the database for expired tokens every 15 minutes or so and remove them. Having to refresh tokens does put some strain on the server and the client but not as much as having potentially millions of unused tokens.
Related
Typically an access token is refreshed (using a refresh token) when it is expired. However, it's possible to refresh an unexpired token. I understand the requirements for revoking the refresh token as part of this process, but what I can't make out from the specification is whether the associated access token should be revoked.
From the oauth2 spec, as far as I can tell this is indeed not required. This has some advantages because it lets you do a refresh before your original access token expired, and you can continue to use this token until you get a fresh one.
tl;dr: No I don't think it's need to expire them, and I think this is by design.
It would be a nice feature to make access tokens revokable. But it's quite hard to implement in practice, assuming the system needs high availability and scalability.
There are two main options how access tokens are managed.
First is via a central database. In that case, to validate a token, this database has to be queried. With such central database, it's quite easy to revoke any tokens. But the problem is that this central storage is hard to scale and keep available. It is very rarely when this type of solution is used in practice.
The second approach is to have a self-contained access token. This is by far the most common approach. Such token can be validated without talking to a central storage/service. This makes the system truly scalable and available.
The problem with the second approach is that there is no way to revoke an access token. This is the trade off we do - scale/availability vs revocation support.
Systems tend to mitigate the absence of revocation by making TTL for access tokens very short. Hence, these systems may block access token being refreshed.
I'm not sure I understand the concept of refresh tokens. I know what they do - store them somewhere and whenever the access token expires, get a new access token with them.
It is obviously very important to not leak this refresh token because otherwise a third party could obtain a new access token with it. Therefore it need to be kept extra safe.
My question is: Why not just keep a long lived access token extra safe? Where is the difference in security?
Here is how this fact is described by auth0.com e.g.:
Benefit: Shorter windows of access for leaked access tokens (these expire quickly, reducing the chance of a leaked token allowing access to a protected resource)"
That does not make any sense to me. So the access token expires quickly and therefore it is "not bad" if it is leaked.
On the other hand it is very bad if the refresh token is leaked. So why not just try to keep the access token as safe as the refresh token and have the exact same outcome but one less token to manage?
Sometimes it helps to think of the other side of the problem, e.g. the token issuer, not the token owner.
Example
Imagine someone's account has been removed / blocked by administrators.
With a token system, there is no way of invalidating all current tokens - the main point of JWT-style tokens is that possession of a valid token avoids centralised checks (in fact, the same is true of session cookies too really).
Problem with single token system
So to make this more efficient / convenient, in a single-token setup the lifespan of that token is sometimes quite large, meaning that owner (bearer) can have access for hours or days. Oh dear.
Solution: refresh token
A refresh token system, as they Auth0 guide said, allows this normal lifespan to be reduced (e.g. to minutes or seconds) before a refresh needs to be done. At this point, the server / centralised control can check if that account has been blocked or permissions are still good, and issue a new access token accordingly. It's still long enough to provide the performance gains of not calling the auth flow all the time (and of course not sending credentials)
Another use-case
A similar use case is the user losing a phone / device and they need to (effectively) revoke the token it had.
Hope that helps a bit.
I have two clients, one Public Client used by regular end-users logging in via our web page or native apps and one Confidential Client for our admin system. Both issues two JWT's, one Access Token and one Refresh Token.
The Public Client is not allowed to issue admin rights. The Access Token is short lived, and the Refresh Token has infinite life span.
The Confidential Client is allowed to issue admin scopes. The Access Token is short lived, and the Refresh Token lives 24 hrs.
Is it possible, using Spring Security and their oAuth2 implementation, to downgrade the admin user once the refresh token is expired? That is, once the user have been logged in for 24hrs, the user is not totally logged out, but on the next login he gets two new JWT's, one Access Token for regular user access and one matching Refresh Token for that access level. I guess I'm looking for some kind of hook in the Spring Security framework that allows me to handle token expiration in a customised way.
There's a sentence on your question that confuses me a bit, but I wanted to elaborate on other aspects so this did not fit in a comment.
... the user is not totally logged out, but on the next login he gets two new JWT's, one Access Token for regular user access and one matching Refresh Token for that access level.
What do you exactly mean with on the next login? My confusion here is that if the objective is not to logout the user, then there won't be a next login. I guess this could mean that almost to the end of the refresh token expiration you would want to do your downgrade request and use the still valid refresh token to get a new pair of tokens with less permissions.
According to the OAuth specification you can perform a refresh token request and ask the server for an access token that has less scopes than the one you currently have. However, it also dictates that if a new refresh token is returned, then that token needs to have the exact same scope as the refresh token included in the request.
Personally, for this scenario I would consider instead of downgrading tokens just ensure that in order to perform any administrator related operation the user must be an administrator and actually provided his credentials in the last 24 hours. You could accomplish this by tracking the date and time a given user actually performed a login (by providing their credentials) and then authorize administrator actions based on that value. This way you can increase the lifetime of refresh tokens for the confidential client and only force the administrators to login again if they want to perform a privileged tasks and their current tokens aren't fresh enough.
Finally, still on the subject of refresh tokens (with focus on the security considerations section)... when you say web app for the public client I'm assuming it's a browser-based Javascript application. If this is correct it's generally not recommended to use refresh tokens for these applications because refresh tokens are usually long-lived (in your case they seem to never expire) and the browser cannot ensure secure storage for them. This increases the likelihood of them leaking which would give an attacker access to the application for the lifetime of the token. You may have other constraints that make this security consideration not applicable, but I wanted to call your attention to it nonetheless.
I am using Spring Security OAuth2 and JWT tokens. My question is: How can I revoke a JWT token?
As mentioned here
http://projects.spring.io/spring-security-oauth/docs/oauth2.html, revocation is done by refresh token. But it does not seem to work.
In general the easiest answer would be to say that you cannot revoke a JWT token, but that's simply not true. The honest answer is that the cost of supporting JWT revocation is sufficiently big for not being worth most of the times or plainly reconsider an alternative to JWT.
Having said that, in some scenarios you might need both JWT and immediate token revocation so lets go through what it would take, but first we'll cover some concepts.
JWT (Learn JSON Web Tokens) just specifies a token format, this revocation problem would also apply to any format used in what's usually known as a self-contained or by-value token. I like the latter terminology, because it makes a good contrast with by-reference tokens.
by-value token - associated information, including token lifetime, is contained in the token itself and the information can be verified as originating from a trusted source (digital signatures to the rescue)
by-reference token - associated information is kept on server-side storage that is then obtained using the token value as the key; being server-side storage the associated information is implicitly trusted
Before the JWT Big Bang we already dealt with tokens in our authentication systems; it was common for an application to create a session identifier upon user login that would then be used so that the user did not had to repeat the login process each time. These session identifiers were used as key indexes for server-side storage and if this sounds similar to something you recently read, you're right, this indeed classifies as a by-reference token.
Using the same analogy, understanding revocation for by-reference tokens is trivial; we just delete the server-side storage mapped to that key and the next time the key is provided it will be invalid.
For by-value tokens we just need to implement the opposite. When you request the revocation of the token you store something that allows you to uniquely identify that token so that next time you receive it you can additionally check if it was revoked. If you're already thinking that something like this will not scale, have in mind that you only need to store the data until the time the token would expire and in most cases you could probably just store an hash of the token so it would always be something of a known size.
As a last note and to center this on OAuth 2.0, the revocation of by-value access tokens is currently not standardized. Nonetheless, the OAuth 2.0 Token revocation specifically states that it can still be achieved as long as both the authorization server and resource server agree to a custom way of handling this:
In the former case (self-contained tokens), some (currently non-standardized) backend interaction between the authorization server and the resource server may be used when immediate access token revocation is desired.
If you control both the authorization server and resource server this is very easy to achieve. On the other hand if you delegate the authorization server role to a cloud provider like Auth0 or a third-party component like Spring OAuth 2.0 you most likely need to approach things differently as you'll probably only get what's already standardized.
An interesting reference
This article explain a another way to do that: Blacklist JWT
It contains some interesting pratices and pattern followed by RFC7523
The JWT cann't be revoked.
But here is the a alternative solution called as JWT old for new exchange schema.
Because we can’t invalidate the issued token before expire time, we always use short-time token, such as 30 minute.
When the token expired, we use the old token exchange a new token. The critical point is one old token can exchange one new token only.
In center auth server, we maintain a table like this:
table auth_tokens(
user_id,
jwt_hash,
expire
)
user_id contained in JWT string.
jwt_hash is a hash value of whole JWT string,Such as SHA256.
expire field is optional.
The following is work flow:
User request the login API with username and password, the auth server issue one token, and register the token ( add one row in the table. )
When the token expired, user request the exchange API with the old token. Firstly the auth server validate the old token as normal except expire checking, then create the token hash value, then lookup above table by user id:
If found record and user_id and jwt_hash is match, then issue new token and update the table.
If found record, but user_id and jwt_hash is not match , it means someone has use the token exchanged new token before. The token be hacked, delete records by user_id and response with alert information.
if not found record, user need login again or only input password.
when use changed the password or login out, delete record by user id.
To use token continuously ,both legal user and hacker need exchange new token continuously, but only one can succeed, when one fails, both need to login again at next exchange time.
So if hacker got the token, it can be used for a short time, but can't exchange for a new one if a legal user exchanged new one next time, because the token validity period is short. It is more secure this way.
If there is no hacker, normal user also need exchange new token periodically ,such as every 30 minutes, this is just like login automatically. The extra load is not high and we can adjust expire time for our application.
source: http://www.jianshu.com/p/b11accc40ba7
This doesn't exactly answer you question in regards to the Spring framework, but here's an article that talks about why if you need the ability to revoke JWT's, you might not want to go with JWT's in the first place, and instead use regular, opaque Bearer tokens.
https://www.dinochiesa.net/?p=1388
One way to revoke a JWT is by leveraging a distributed event system that notifies services when refresh tokens have been revoked. The identity provider broadcasts an event when a refresh token is revoked and other backends/services listen for the event. When an event is received the backends/services update a local cache that maintains a set of users whose refresh tokens have been revoked.
This cache is then checked whenever a JWT is verified to determine if the JWT should be revoked or not. This is all based on the duration of JWTs and expiration instant of individual JWTs.
This article, Revoking JWTs, illustrates this concept and has a sample app on Github.
For Googlers:
If you implement pure stateless authentication there is no way to revoke the token as the token itself is the sole source of truth
If you save a list of revoked token IDs on the server and check every request against the list, then it is essentially a variant of stateful authentication
OAuth2 providers like Cognito provides a way to "sign out" a user, however, it only really revokes refresh token, which is usually long-lived and could be used multiple times to generate new access tokens thus has to be revoked; the existing access tokens are still valid until they expire
What about storing the JWT token and referencing it to the user in the database? By extending the Guards/Security Systems in your backend application with an additional DB join after performing the JWT comparison, you would be able to practically 'revoke' it by removing or soft-deleting it from the DB.
In general, the answer about tokens by reference vs. tokens by value has nailed it. For those that stumble upon this space in future.
How to implement revocation on RS side:
TL;DR:
Take a cache or db that is visible to all your backend service instances that are verifying tokens. When a new token arrives for revocation, if it's a valid one, (i.e. verifies against your jwt verification algo), take the exp and jti claims, and save jti to cache until exp is reached. Then expire jti in cache once unixNow becomes > exp.
Then on authorization on other endpoints, you check everytime if a given jti is matching something in this cache, and if yes, you error with 403 saying token revoked. Once it expires, regular Token Expired error kicks in from your verification algo.
P.S. By saving only jti in cache, you make this data useless to anyone since it's just a unique token identifier.
The best solution for JWT revocation, is short exp window, refresh and keeping issued JWT tokens in a shared nearline cache. With Redis for example, this is particularly easy as you can set the cache key as the token itself (or a hash of the token), and specify expiry so that the tokens get automatically evicted.
I found one way of resolving the issue, How to expire already generated existing JWT token using Java?
In this case, we need to use any DB or in-memory where,
Step 1: As soon as the token is generated for the first time for a user, store it in a db with the token and it's "issuedAt()" time.
I stored it in DB in this JSON format,
Ex: {"username" : "username",
"token" : "token",
"issuedAt" : "issuedAt" }
Step 2: Once you get a web service request for the same user with a token to validate, fetch "issuedAt()" timestamp from the token and compare it with stored(DB/in-memory) issued timestamp.
Step 3: If stored issued timestamp is new (using after()/before() method) then return that the token is invalid (in this case we are not actually expiring the token but we are stop giving access on that token).
This is how I resolved the issue.
I am just getting started working with Google API and OAuth2. When the client authorizes my app I am given a "refresh token" and a short lived "access token". Now every time the access token expires, I can POST my refresh token to Google and they will give me a new access token.
My question is what is the purpose of the access token expiring? Why can't there just be a long lasting access token instead of the refresh token?
Also, does the refresh token expire?
See Using OAuth 2.0 to Access Google APIs for more info on Google OAuth2 workflow.
This is very much implementation specific, but the general idea is to allow providers to issue short term access tokens with long term refresh tokens. Why?
Many providers support bearer tokens which are very weak security-wise. By making them short-lived and requiring refresh, they limit the time an attacker can abuse a stolen token.
Large scale deployment don't want to perform a database lookup every API call, so instead they issue self-encoded access token which can be verified by decryption. However, this also means there is no way to revoke these tokens so they are issued for a short time and must be refreshed.
The refresh token requires client authentication which makes it stronger. Unlike the above access tokens, it is usually implemented with a database lookup.
A couple of scenarios might help illustrate the purpose of access and refresh tokens and the engineering trade-offs in designing an oauth2 (or any other auth) system:
Web app scenario
In the web app scenario you have a couple of options:
if you have your own session management, store both the access_token and refresh_token against your session id in session state on your session state service. When a page is requested by the user that requires you to access the resource use the access_token and if the access_token has expired use the refresh_token to get the new one.
Let's imagine that someone manages to hijack your session. The only thing that is possible is to request your pages.
if you don't have session management, put the access_token in a cookie and use that as a session. Then, whenever the user requests pages from your web server send up the access_token. Your app server could refresh the access_token if need be.
Comparing 1 and 2:
In 1, access_token and refresh_token only travel over the wire on the way between the authorzation server (google in your case) and your app server. This would be done on a secure channel. A hacker could hijack the session but they would only be able to interact with your web app. In 2, the hacker could take the access_token away and form their own requests to the resources that the user has granted access to. Even if the hacker gets a hold of the access_token they will only have a short window in which they can access the resources.
Either way the refresh_token and clientid/secret are only known to the server making it impossible from the web browser to obtain long term access.
Let's imagine you are implementing oauth2 and set a long timeout on the access token:
In 1) There's not much difference here between a short and long access token since it's hidden in the app server. In 2) someone could get the access_token in the browser and then use it to directly access the user's resources for a long time.
Mobile scenario
On the mobile, there are a couple of scenarios that I know of:
Store clientid/secret on the device and have the device orchestrate obtaining access to the user's resources.
Use a backend app server to hold the clientid/secret and have it do the orchestration. Use the access_token as a kind of session key and pass it between the client and the app server.
Comparing 1 and 2
In 1) Once you have clientid/secret on the device they aren't secret any more. Anyone can decompile and then start acting as though they are you, with the permission of the user of course. The access_token and refresh_token are also in memory and could be accessed on a compromised device which means someone could act as your app without the user giving their credentials. In this scenario the length of the access_token makes no difference to the hackability since refresh_token is in the same place as access_token. In 2) the clientid/secret nor the refresh token are compromised. Here the length of the access_token expiry determines how long a hacker could access the users resources, should they get hold of it.
Expiry lengths
Here it depends upon what you're securing with your auth system as to how long your access_token expiry should be. If it's something particularly valuable to the user it should be short. Something less valuable, it can be longer.
Some people like google don't expire the refresh_token. Some like stackflow do. The decision on the expiry is a trade-off between user ease and security. The length of the refresh token is related to the user return length, i.e. set the refresh to how often the user returns to your app. If the refresh token doesn't expire the only way they are revoked is with an explicit revoke. Normally, a log on wouldn't revoke.
Hope that rather length post is useful.
In addition to the other responses:
Once obtained, Access Tokens are typically sent along with every request from Clients to protected Resource Servers. This induce a risk for access token stealing and replay (assuming of course that access tokens are of type "Bearer" (as defined in the initial RFC6750).
Examples of those risks, in real life:
Resource Servers generally are distributed application servers and typically have lower security levels compared to Authorization Servers (lower SSL/TLS config, less hardening, etc.). Authorization Servers on the other hand are usually considered as critical Security infrastructure and are subject to more severe hardening.
Access Tokens may show up in HTTP traces, logs, etc. that are collected legitimately for diagnostic purposes on the Resource Servers or clients. Those traces can be exchanged over public or semi-public places (bug tracers, service-desk, etc.).
Backend RS applications can be outsourced to more or less trustworthy third-parties.
The Refresh Token, on the other hand, is typically transmitted only twice over the wires, and always between the client and the Authorization Server: once when obtained by client, and once when used by client during refresh (effectively "expiring" the previous refresh token). This is a drastically limited opportunity for interception and replay.
Last thought, Refresh Tokens offer very little protection, if any, against compromised clients.
It is essentially a security measure. If your app is compromised, the attacker will only have access to the short-lived access token and no way to generate a new one.
Refresh tokens also expire but they are supposed to live much longer than the access token.
I've written a little about this because I was pondering the reasoning myself today.
https://blog.mukunda.com/cat/2023/refreshing-access-tokens.txt
Essentially, I think the main security boost is only there if the refresh token does not remain the same over its lifetime.
Let's say someone steals your tokens from your browser cookies because they had access to your device temporarily.
If they use the refresh token, and the refresh token changes, then you have feedback – you are logged out. That can seem rightfully suspicious to careful users who can then take action and revoke all tokens.
If the refresh token doesn't update upon each use, then it is harder to notice that someone has access in tandem. (Chances are, if does update, then it might update from your device automatically before the attacker can even get to use it.)
If the refresh token does not get updated each time you use it, then I don't see any boost in security from the strategy, since it will be right next to the access token and client secrets.
So, why access tokens? It is so you can check that your credentials are valid regularly.
Do refresh tokens expire? Yes, but usually after a few months if you have "remember me" ticked. There's no expiration time in the spec, so you just go until it fails. Services that require longer unmonitored sessions might have secret credentials so they can refresh their refresh token.
Update:
I also glossed through the OAuth 2.0 specification and see the same reasoning, though it emphasizes that the invalid authentication feedback can be caught on the server side. That is a great point – the server can automate revoking the token if it is compromised.
If a refresh token is compromised and subsequently used by both the attacker and the legitimate client, one of them will present an invalidated refresh token, which will inform the authorization server of the breach.