I am new to security domain, so don't know whether this question is valid to be asked here. I am currently using OpenAM for the security of my web application with J2ee agent, now I find that OpenAM can do authorization with OAUTH as well as on the basis policies defined, now both openam and oauth develops tokens for valid users, and do not share user credential with the application, so how different are the two? My second question is if my application does not support oauth like google and facebook what basic things I need to do to implement oauth into my application.
OpenAM supports OAuth based authorization if that is what your confusion is about. It also supports
1) OpenID Connect
2) SAML
Your application can use either of these to get authorization from OpenAM. Your application can also use the REST APIs for this purpose. The choice is yours.
As far as the tokens go, OAuth tokens are different from OpenAM Tokens. OAuth tokens include
1) refresh_token
2) access_token
The access_token is used for making oauth based calls. However, OpenAM tokens are basically what is there in the cookie or what you get via the REST API.
Regarding your second question, to support OAuth, you would need to use a oauth client library and enable oauth on the server side (in this case OpenAM). This client library would be dependent on the language you choose to write this application.
Related
I have a authorization server which generates and store bearer tokens for username and password log in using the oauth2 password grant. I want to integrate social sign in (Google and facebook) to my existing authorization server. Since my other resources are protected by authorization server how do I generate a Bearer tokens for google/facebook signed in users ? so i can access my protected resources using that token.
Note: Bearer tokens are stored in mysql db. (Using JdbcTokenStore)
Since I already have password grant implementation, I'am glad if you can give me direction to do with the current authorization service using spring-boot and spring security.
Thank you.
There are 2 main ways to implement this:
Federation, so that the Authorization Server manages integration with social identity providers
Handle different providers in your apps, which will add complexity to both your UIs and APIs
Personally I much prefer the first option, which only requires configuration changes - and no code changes in UIs and APIs. My Federated Logins Blog Post may help you to understand your architectural choices.
It is worth doing some early technical testing to see if these steps work:
Adding an OAuth web client to Google / Facebook
Adding an Identity Provider to your Authorization Server
I'm struggling theese days on the possible way to configure an Authentication + authorization system to consume a REST API from a mobile application.
Scenario:
We've developed 3 independent portals for a big customer that serves several users.
To enable a SSO for the 3 portals we've implemented a SAML authentication system using SimpleSAMLphp.
Every portal has a service provider and they make assertion requests against a central IdP.
The IdP checks username and password against a database where passwords are hashed and stored during registration.
After the login, the authorization on the portals is handled by the session on the server, and so far everything was fine.
Now the customer asked us to develop a mobile application that will require the users to login and access several of their protected resources collected during the usage of the 3 portals.
We've decided to develop a frontend application using ionic that will consume a REST API made in node.js that will serve all the data (both protected and unprotected resources).
Now here comes the question: to authorize access to protected resources on the Api we'd like to use JWT to easily achieve a stateless system.
The doubt is how to perform the authentication? We've the opportunity to check the credentials directly against the database skipping the SAML process, otherwise we've to implement a solution where the SSO IdP acts as authentication provider and then when an attempt is successful the API app will get the response from the idp and then issue a signed jwt to the consumer client. Is this second way a common implementation? Is it possible?
What path do you suggest to follow? The first could be very easy to achieve, but since we're using html+js for the app's frontend, if we decide to use the second solution probably in the near future we could recycle some code from the app to modernize some functions on the web portals, maintaining the jwt pattern and consuming the new Api also on the web.
I believe that in this case will be easier to ask a token to the new api using someway the logged in user's data already in the session of the portal. Sounds possible?
I hope that everything was clear, any help will be appreciated!
Thanks
The key goal here is to code your apps in the best way, via
the latest security standards (OAuth 2.0 and Open Id Connect).
SAML is an outdated protocol that is not web / mobile / API friendly, and does not fit with modern coding models.
Sounds like you want to do OAuth but you do not have an OAuth Authorization Server, which is a key part of the solution. If you could migrate to one you would have the best future options for your apps.
OPTION 1
Use the most standard and simple option - but users have to login with a new login screen + credentials:
Mobile or Web UI uses Authorization Flow (PKCE) and redirects to an Authorization Server to sign the user in
Mobile or Web UI receives an access token after login that can be sent to the API
Access token format is most commonly a JWT that the API can validate and identify the user from
The API is not involved in the login or token issuing processes
OPTION 2
Extend option 1 to federate to your SAML Identity Provider - enables users to login in the existing way:
The Authorization Server is configured to trust your SAML based identity provider and to redirect to it during logins
The SAML idp presents a login screen and then posts a SAML token to the Authorization Server
The Authorization Server issues OAuth based tokens based on the SAML token details
OPTION 3
Use a bridging solution (not really recommended but sometimes worth considering if you have no proper authorization server - at least it gets your apps using OAuth tokens):
Mobile or Web UI uses Resource Owner Password Grant and sends credentials to a new OAuth endpoint that you develop
OAuth endpoint provides a /oauth/token endpoint to receive the request
OAuth endpoint checks the credentials against the database - or translates to a SAML request that is forwarded to the IDP
OAuth endpoint does its own issuing of JWT access tokens via a third party library (if credentials are valid)
Web or Mobile UI sends JWT access token to API
API validates received JWT access token
I'm new to OAuth 2.0 and OpenIDConnect
I want to ask if is it necessary to implement OAuth 2.0 and OpenIDConnect for our login, register flow of our own created client application (mobile apps and server side app)?
Because I've been searching tutorial to implement login, register flow the best practice right now is using OAuth 2.0 and OpenIDConnect but their implementation is toward to securing our API against other people client application. Is this auth flow is just used to secure another people client application to access our API?
Thank you
OAuth 2.0 is both elegantly simple or extremely complex depending on your understanding of the technology and how to implement authorization.
I'm new to OAuth 2.0 and OpenIDConnect I want to ask if is it
necessary to implement OAuth 2.0 and OpenIDConnect for our login,
register flow of our own created client application (mobile apps and
server side app)?
No, it is not necessary to implement. There are many methods of authentication and authorization. OAuth is just one of the more popular methods.
A simpler and terrible method is to just implement username and passwords for your users. Simpler, in this case, is a relative term as now you need to worry about keeping usernames and passwords stored somewhere securely.
OAuth can be used to secure public access to your website, applications (REST endpoints), and more. OAuth can be used for server to server authorization. In the end, OAuth is just a method of creating a token that is presented to a service. The service verifies the access rights of that token and denies or proceeds with the request.
Authorization and Authentication are domains that require a lot of experience to implement correctly. There are many nuances to consider. That is why so many companies are breached, they do it wrong or implement weak methods. At one company I visited for an audit, I wrote down 10 usernames and passwords because everyone had yellow postit notes on their monitors. Even the best OAuth implementation will have problems with that level of security.
OAuth terminology has been bothering me a long time now. Is OAuth Authorization as some would suggest or is it Authentication?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have always read Authorization as being the act of allowing someone access to a resource yet OAuth doesn't seem to have any implementation that actually allows access to users to a given resource. All OAuth implementations talk about is providing a user a token (signed and sometimes encrypted). This token is then passed with every call to a back-end service endpoint where it is checked for validity, again not an OAuth concern.
Is OAuth Authentication (every article says it isn't) which I take it requires a user to provide credentials which in turn proves a user should/shouldn't have access?
So it seems that OAuth is not Authorization NOR Authentication since these have to be performed by other processes. So what the heck is it? Is it a process for communicating a token? Is it fluff word that really has no specific meaning?
It's hard to ask a question about this subject without sounding enigmatic and superstitious (ghosts and goblins) so I expect that answering this question won't be a simple thing either. Enter at your own risk.
OAuth is a specification for authorization
OAuth 2.0 is a specification for authorization, but NOT for authentication. RFC 6749, 3.1. Authorization Endpoint explicitly says as follows:
The authorization endpoint is used to interact with the resource owner
and obtain an authorization grant. The authorization server MUST first
verify the identity of the resource owner. The way in which the
authorization server authenticates the resource owner (e.g., username
and password login, session cookies) is beyond the scope of this
specification.
OAuth authentication?
Authentication deals information about "who one is". Authorization deals information about "who grants what permissions to whom". Authorization flow contains authentication as its first step. It is the reason people are often confused.
There are many libraries and services that use OAuth 2.0 for authentication. It is often called "social login" and It makes people more confused. If you see "OAuth authentication" (not "OAuth authorization"), it is a solution using OAuth for authentication.
OpenID Connect
OpenID 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 are old specifications for authentication. Those who made the specifications expected people to use OpenID for authentication. However, some people began to use OAuth 2.0 for authentication (not for authorization) and OAuth authentication has prevailed rapidly.
From a viewpoint of OpenID guys, authentication based on OAuth was not secure enough, but they had to admit that people preferred OAuth authentication. As a result, OpenID guys decided to define a new specification, OpenID Connect, on top of OAuth 2.0.
Yes, this has made people much more confused.
One-sentence definitions of OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect
OAuth 2.0 is a framework where a user of a service can allow a third-party application to access his/her data hosted in the service without revealing his/her credentials (ID & password) to the application.
OpenID Connect is a framework on top of OAuth 2.0 where a third-party application can obtain a user's identity information which is managed by a service.
(Sorry, these definitions are excerpts from the overview page of my company)
Definitions from a viewpoint of implementors
Authentication is a process to determine the subject (= unique identifier) of an end-user. There are many ways to determine the subject. ID & password, fingerprints, iris recognition, etc.
Authorization is a process to associate the subject with the requested permissions and the client application that requested the permissions. An access token represents the association.
See Also
Full-Scratch Implementor of OAuth and OpenID Connect Talks About Findings
Diagrams And Movies Of All The OAuth 2.0 Flows
Diagrams of All The OpenID Connect Flows
The Simplest Guide To OAuth 2.0
OAuth is an authorization protocol. It is not designed for authentication. Yes, there is a step in the OAuth process where the identity server authenticates a resource owner. The way it happens does not belong to the OAuth protocol. That is why OAuth does not concern itself about authentication.
OAuth performs authorization by giving an access token to a third party (service provider) and that party will be able to authorize access to the resource by presenting the token.
Let's say there is a requirement that a service provider wants to access resources (protected by an identity server) on behalf of the resource owner. So the resource owner will first authenticate and then will grant permission for the service provider to access specific resource. Then the identity server will issue an access token for service provider. Later the service provider can access the resource with that token.
Here, OAuth does not care about who is carrying the access token or trying to access the resources. It validates the access token, and lets the third party access the resources.
We're building a new app that requires access to specific customer data, and OAuth appears to be absolutely perfect for our requirements - long-lived access tokens, ability to grant access to specific resources or scopes, and so on. We are not looking for 'log in with Facebook' type capabilities here; we want to expose a single, specific OAuth authentication server based on our existing customer login database, and allow web and native apps to authenticate users via this endpoint.
I've been looking at the DotNetOpenAuth code samples, and it appears that all of the OAuth 2 examples use OpenID to perform the initial authentication and then use OAuth to actually authorise access to resources.
My understanding is that you can use a 'no-op authorisation' to perform the initial authentication, allowing you to use OAuth2 for the whole process; since we don't want to support federated authentication, OpenID doesn't actually offer anything, and so I'd rather stick to a single protocol for simplicity if possible.
Is there a good example anywhere of a pure OAuth2 authentication server built using .NET? Have I misunderstood the example code supplied with DotNetOpenAuth? Or is OpenID still required for the initial authentication phase?
There's no coupled relation between OAuth2.0 and OpenId.
You can implement your custom login strategy in your OAuth2.0 implementation.
Since you gonna be the "Resource Owner"(as far as I understood your application owns the user base), you can simply replace in the DNOA authorization server sample the openid login with the standard asp.net login.
OAuth2.0 protocol simply needs to verify a user identity in order to emit an access token: how that identity will be verified is totally up to you.