Creating an angularjs single page application trying to use a RESTful API and I came across a problem that I can't seem to find an answer for. I was trying to prevent session hoping, one user logged in watching the requests figures out his account ID is 13. So he performs the same request but this time alters the request to get info for account ID 14.
So after the user logged in I was setting a session variable to his account ID and was going to strip the account ID out of the ajax requests. I then tried to access the Session from a class inheriting from ApiController. After looking around I realize that storing session information is not very RESTful.
So how would I go about ensuring that one account cannot access another account's information just because they watched the ajax requests and figured out how to manipulate the ajax request?
Is restful not meant to be used with users that need to authenticated and authorized? I was thinking of maybe hashing the IDs or something but I am not sure that is the right approach.
UPDATE:
I have token based authentication working now. But I am still in the dark as to how to prevent someone from fiddling with HTTP request and getting information that doesn't belong to him. For Example, I want to retrieve all the users for account with ID 14.
HTTP Get /users/14
I have a token so I know that the person trying to use the web API at some point authenticated themselves. I can lock it down to roles. But there is nothing stopping this authenticated person form fiddling/hacking with the request and doing the following
HTTP Get /users/58
Now the person has got all of account with ID 58's information. This is information does not belong to account 14 but now he can browse through other people's information.
I need someone of knowing that the request that comes from the browser and says it is for account with ID 14 that it really is account 14. I can put that information in the token but how do I check it in a handler or check it in the ApiController?
The problem you have described is not something unique to REST-based services. In fact, this is one of the top 10 OWASP vulnerabilities (Insecure Direct Object References). You will need to first identify the user and then authenticate the user. For identification, an ID is used, such as user ID. The identifier can be anything you want. After identification, you need to authenticate the user. This is done by authenticating the credential presented to the app, such as password. The identifier and the credential can be any thing, say the good old user name/password, or may be a token or may be an API key. It actually does not matter to the problem on hand. Once authenticated, you authorize the requests based on what the user can do in your app. The authz part is a must regardless of whether you use a token, certificate or what not. Hashing user ID or using some method to hide things is security by obscurity and is not a good practice.
Say, you are using a message handler to authenticate the credential submitted by a user. Once authentication is done you can store the account number associated with the authenticated user in the properties collection of HttpRequestMessage. This is done in the server side and no user can make the system store some random account number. Only the account number associated with the authenticated user is stored in the properties collection. With that, you can now authorize requests. Say, you can write an authorization filter that pulls this account number and compare it against the account number in the URI to determine if the request is allowed or not. By applying this filter against a GET action method, you can ensure only right folks can see right data.
For example, a user with user ID 'abc' and password 'pwd1' makes a GET request to /users/14. First step is, you will authenticate the user ID. If there is a user with ID 'abc' and password 'pwd1' in your store, you will consider the user authentic. As part of this authentication, you can pull the account number associated with the user 'abc'. Say it is 15. You will store 15 in request.properties. From your authorization filter, you can get the account number from URI, which is 14 and compare it against the one in the request, which is 15. Obviously the numbers do not match and you reject the request in the OnActionExecuting method of your filter with a 401.
What I described above is a simple approach. Better one (in terms of extensibility) will be to use claims but it will not be possible to explain all that here. You can get good amount of information related to claims-based identity from Dominick's blog.
Every request should be authenticated. If the credentials provided do not allow the user with account 13 to access data from account 14 then the request will be denied. The trick is to find a way to do authZ quickly.
You seem to be missing the information on how you want to implement authentication. As you correctly noted, using session to keep authentication information is not very restful. Here are the alternatives
Implement your own OAuth provider or use third party (for example
Azure ACS)
Implement STS provider (this is only for soap though)
Implement a custom token system, if you don't want to deal with
the above two. Basic system would take user id, salt it and encrypt with private key - but don't quote me on how secure that would be...
In all the cases, the authentication information is stored in the cookie, similar to session cookie. But it is still stateless.
The standard way on the web seems to be the oauth way, in fact the standard VS MVC template even comes with OAuth consumer implemented out of the box. So the question is, how do you link the oauth token to your internal user ID. That's really pretty simple, as you implement the "registration" step after the new user is authenticated - you keep user ID and oauth token in the database table, to link the two.
That link is quick to retrieve, and can be cached for speed. I have heard some people implement that type of credentials caching for some very big systems (google docs).
Related
I currently have a backend running on AWS Lambda and I'm using DynamoDB as a database. In Dynamo, there is a list of users and each user has specific permissions as to what routes they have access to through the API. There is no issue here.
I have not built the front end yet, but I will be logging in users using Google Auth, more specifically with the react-google-login component.
My question is: Once a user is logged in to the site, should I trust the JWT from Google (after verifying its legitimacy
here with the Google API) which returns the user information (Name, Email), lookup the user item inside of Dynamo to retrieve their permissions, and then serve their request?
This seems like the logical thing to do but I was looking for some confirmation. My one worry is that someone could use a supervisors name & email to authorize a request but if the lambda must accept a JWT created by Google as entry, I believe this problem is solved correct?
I have API Keys as well for every user for some external functionality, but I have that covered since it's just a Dynamo call away. My only concern is with the front end requests to Lambda since I do not want to roll my own auth/jwt.
Here is what I was envisioning.
Thank you!
Normally you should use access tokens for that purpose. The ID token should be meant only to authenticate the user, and the access token should be used to authorize access.
The best scenario would be to have a separate Authorization Server which could issue access tokens, and there are some open source solutions out there which you can use.
If you really don't want to setup your own AS then you could follow the scenario you outlined - the part with verifying JWT from Google and checking permissions in the DynamoDB is what the Authorization Server would normally do to issue an access token.
Just remember to thoroughly validate the incoming JWT - not only the signature with Google, but also check if that is a token created for your client / audience, etc. Otherwise someone could take a Google ID token JWT from their client and gain access to your API. This article lists best security practices when working with JWTs.
Also remember that ID tokens might have short expiration times and there are no means of automatically refreshing them (like you can do it with a refresh token in case of an access token), so you might end up having to reauthenticate quite often.
If I'm integrating authentication from a third party service into my app, such as github or slack for example, when a user goes to sign up on my app and successfully authenticates with the third party service, what does the data look like that I will receive?
Specifically, if this is a user's second or third time signing in, and they've already signed up before, how do I know they're already signed up? What data do I need to store in my database to know who they are?
Are there common maintenance or upkeep I need to perform on the data about a user's identity? Does it go stale?
The data you receive depends on the response_type and scope parameters of the request uri you are constructing when contacting the third party services. The id_token received is always a JSON Web Token (JWT).
When you request the "openid" scope, the id_token will have "iss", "sub" claims as part of the token payload. These two claims uniquely identify the user by who the provider is and the unique id for that user in that provider. The combination of these two values can be saved in your database to identify if the user is already signed up or not.
When you use a third party provider and save just the bare minimum information (iss, sub), then you do not have to keep up with any information. This would be a nice approach when you don't want to deal with any maintenance. If you need user profile related information you could request the "profile" scope as part of your request which will have more information about the user.
Thank you,
Soma.
I am writing an application which will connect to multiple email servers using OAuth. As part of initial connection establishment, user will be prompted to give access to application. After granting access, it will redirect to the url provided while registering the application in OAuth API.
Now i want to identify for which user the access token and refresh token belongs after redirect url comes to my application. I want to treat all requests happening in one user session as unique. Can someone help me.
I'm not 100% sure I followed your question, but my understanding is that you want to determine some of the information about the user that's just logged into your API client. You can get email addresses by requesting the https://www.googleapis.com/auth/userinfo.email scope and running a oauth2/userinfo GET request:
gapi.client.oauth2.userinfo.get().execute(function(resp,raw)...
Depending on which scopes you have access too, you will also get a display name and some other info. Best bet is just to console.log(resp) and pick out what you want to use.
After a real brain bending session today I feel like I understand 3-legged OAuth authentication fairly well. What I'm still having trouble understanding is the use of the User ID. The examples I have seen so far all seem to just arbitrarily assign a user ID at the top of the sample script and go. That confuses me.
Most of the sample code I have seen seems to center around the concept of using a user ID and the OAuth server's consumer key for managing an OAuth "session" (in quotes because I'm not trying to conflate the term with a browser "session"). For example, the database sample code I've seen stores and retrieves the tokens and other information involved based on the user ID and consumer key field values.
I am now in that state of uncertainty where a few competing fragments of understanding are competing and conflicting:
1) If my understanding of the OAuth session details record or "OAuth store" lookups is correct, via the consumer key and user ID fields, then doesn't that mandate that I have a disparate user ID for each user using my application that connects with an OAuth server?
2) If #1 is correct, then how do I avoid having to create my own user accounts for different users, something I am trying to avoid? I am trying to write software that acts as a front end for an OAuth enabled service, so I don't need to have my own user records and the concomitant maintenance headaches. Instead I'll just let the OAuth server handle that end of the puzzle. However, it seems to follow that the downside of my approach would be that I'd have to reauthorize the user every session, since without my own persistent user account/ID I could not lookup a previously granted "good to revoked" access token, correct?
3) What bothers me is that I have read about some OAuth servers not permitting the passing of a dynamically specified callback URL during the requesting of the unauthorized token, making the passing of a consumer key and a user ID back to yourself impossible. Instead you specify the callback URL when you register as a developer/consumer and that's that. Fortunately the OAuth server I'm dealing with does allow that feature, but still, if I was dealing with one that wasn't, wouldn't that throw a giant monkey wrench into the whole idea of using the consumer key and user id pair to index the OAuth session details?
This is an answer to the question by Lode:
Is it correct that not only the provider needs to have user ids (that sounds logical) but also the client? So the client (using OAuth as a login system) needs to create a user (with an ID) before successfully authenticating them via the OAuth server. Making you have a lot of empty user accounts when authentication fails or access is not granted.
It's possible to use OAuth for authentication of users without having local accounts at the consumer application, but you've got to have some kind of session mechanism (cookies/get params) in order to have some internal session representation in which you would store the oauth_token.
For example, if someone has landed to your web application, and your application is a consumer of some OAuth provider, you will have to create a local session at your site for the end-user: for example with a cookie. Then you send the end-user to the OAuth provider for authorization of a token, so that your application can get protected resources from the provider. Currently you know nothing about the user and you don't care about his identity. You just want to use some protected information from the provider.
When the user comes back from the provider after successful authorization and brings back the oauth_token, you now have to store this token in the session that you previously created for the user. As long as you keep your session (and the token if it's needed for further requests for resources), you can consider that the end-user is logged in. In the moment that you delete his session or the token expires, you can consider him no more logged-in. This way you don't have to make your own users DB table or storage mechanism.
However, if you need to have some persistent information about the users in your application, that will be used between user sessions (logins), you have to maintain your own users in order to know with which user to associate the information.
As for the difference between openid and oauth - from the perspective of local accounts, there is no difference. It's all the same. The difference is only that with openid you receive immediately some basic user info (email, etc.) while with oauth you receive a token and you have to make one more request to get the basic user info (email, etc.)
There is no difference however in regard to local accounts, if you're going to use OpenID or OAuth.
I will try to tell my view on the issues that you raised and hope that will clear things a little bit...
First, the idea is that the OAuth server is protecting some API or DATA, which third party applications (consumers) want to access.
If you do not have user accounts or data at your API behind the OAuth server, then why would a consumer application want to use your service - what is it going to get from you? That being said, I can't imagine a scenario, where you have an OAuth server and you don't have user accounts behind it.
If you just want to use OAuth for login of users, without providing user data through API, then it's better to use OpenID, but again you will have to have user accounts at your side.
Your point is correct that you make lookups via Consumer Key and (Your) User ID, and that is because of the protocol design.
The general flow is:
OAuth server (Provider) issues unauthorized Request Token to consumer application
Consumer sends the end-user to authorize the Request Token at the OAuth server (Provider)
After end-user authorizes the token, an access token is issued and given to the consumer (I've skipped some details and steps here, as they are not important for what I want to say, e.g. the consumer receives valid access token at the end)
On the authorization step, it's your OAuth server that create and save as a pair - which local user (local for the provider) authorized which consumer (consumer key-user id pair).
After that, when the consumer application want to access end-users DATA or API from Provider, it just sends the access token, but no user details.
The OAuth server (Provider) then, can check by the token, which is the local USER ID that has authorized that token before that, in order to return user data or API functionallity for that user to the consumer.
I don't think that you can go without local users at your side, if you are a provider.
About the callback question, I think there's no difference if you have dynamic or static (on registration) callback URL in regard to how you handle OAuth sessions with consumer keys and user id. The OAuth specification itself, does not mandate to have a callback URL at all - it's an optional parameter to have, optional to send every time, or optional to register it only once in the beginning. The OAuth providers decide which option is best for them to use, and that's why there are different implementations.
When the provider has a static defined callback URL in the database, connected with a consumer, it is considered a more secure approach, because the end-user cannot be redirected to a 'false' callback URL.
For example, if an evil man steals the consumer key of a GreatApp, then he can make himself a consumer EvilApp that can impersonate the original GreatApp and send requests to the OAuth server as it was the original. However, if the OAuth server only allows static (predefined) callback URL, the requests of the EvilApp will always end at the GreatApp callback URL, and the EvilApp will not be able to get Access Token.
Goal:
Allow a user to authentication with Facebook into an iOS application which requires access to a protected web service that I'm running.
Assumptions:
There is a native authentication (and registration) system in place for those users that opt not to use Facebook for sign in.
Details:
Assume we want to offer the option for a user to sign in with Facebook without creating a separate account/credential for our system.
Because we support our own native auth mechanism (username and password) we have our own user IDs and issue an authentication token that is used for subsequent interactions after the initial credential validation.
I'm surprised that Facebook doesn't have best practices for this in their developer documentation. All the existing documentation is either assuming you are building FB auth into a website, or a standalone mobile app with no service that requires authentication.
Here's my initial thoughts on how this would be designed but want validation on whether it's correct.
Client pops the Facebook iOS Login
UI User signs in with Facebook credentials and gets access token
iOS App passes access token to our server
Our server talks to FB graph API using access token to (a) validate the token and (b) get the FB user ID for that access token.
e.g. Our server would call https://graph.facebook.com/me/?access_token=XYZ which would return profile info in a JSON object
Assuming it's valid, our server extracts the User ID from the JSON object and checks whether the user already has an account. If so, we issue our own auth ticket to client to use for that session. If user doesn't have an account, we create a new one with the Facebook User ID, assign our own unique UserID and issue our auth ticket.
Client then passes auth ticket back on subsequent interactions that need authentication.
This seems like the right approach to me but not sure if I'm missing something insanely basic and going down the wrong (complicated) path.
I just dealt with this myself, and here's the part that bit me:
In your step 5... It's possible for a user to register for an account with you entirely separate from their Facebook ID, right? Then some other time they log in with Facebook.... And you just created them a second account and lost their first one.
There needs to be a way to be logged in to your web service, then log in to facebook, and capture the association between the facebook ID and the local account.
Apart from that, your plan sounds solid.
Update: Facebook has added a doc outlining such a scenario HERE
Use https to transmit the auth token to your server, as stated by Facebook
Sharing of Access Tokens
Our Data Policies explicitly prohibit any sharing of an Access Token
for your app with any other app. However, we do allow developers to
share Tokens between a native implementation and a server
implementation of the same App (ie. using the same App ID) as long as
the transfer takes place using HTTPS.
One problem I can see with this strategy, is that somebody can give you an access token obtained for a different facebook app. As far as I know, there's no way to verify that the access token is for your application, so you'll just go on and use it.
It doesn't sound very harmful, though. Generally people/apps try to protect the access tokens, rather than sharing them.
One possible exploit of this would be, for somebody to create their own site or mobile app, obtain access tokens for their users and try to authenticate them, using your API. If this succeeds (the user is has a facebook account in your site), the malicious site will be able to use your API impersonating the user.
It's a bit of a long shot, but I think it could work.
Edit: It looks like there is a way to validate the access token after all. See the answer by #Daaniel on question Get application id from user access token (or verify the source application for a token).
your solution totally works.
Maybe an alternative: why not just get the email on the client from the initial social service request and send to your web service? The web service could just store the email, and maybe a social_provider as well. I understand that your web service will not be able to validate where the email came from, but isn't there a high-trust relationship between your web service and your client? If there is, seems like you can depend on the email coming from the right place. Someone please let me know what obvious thing I'm missing that makes the email-based approach silly...