I recently stumbled upon JSON Web Tokens (JWT), and as far as I have understood it, they are just a compact form of a token that can easily be serialized (as it is JSON).
Now, my question is: Are JWTs related to OAuth in any form, or are they two completely independent concepts?
The OAuth2 spec doesn't actually require the use of JWTs, since it treats tokens as opaque, but they are a convenient standard for implementers to use. If you look at the OpenID Connect Specificiation, which builds on top of OAuth2 to provide an authentication system, then you'll find that it does make explicit use of JWTs, for example in the definition of the ID Token.
JWTs can also support signing and encryption in a standard way (see the accompanying JWE and JWS specs).
Related
I have familiarity with OAuth 2.0 / OpenID Connect but am new to WebAuthn. I am trying to understand how a scenario using those OAuth flows and connections would work using WebAuthn. I thought by mapping concepts from oauth to webauthn I would be able better understand the concepts.
I think similar to how in OAuth implicit grant flow a client may receive an id_token and access_token, in WebAuthn a client may receive a credential object from the Authenticator using navigator.credential.create.
The part I do not understand is how this credential can reliably be consumed by downstream services. In OAuth a client or server may send "access_tokens" and the receiving servers may request the public keys from the authorities to validate that it hasn't been tampered, is not expired, has correct audience, etc. This relies on the authorities having a publicly available /.well-known endpoint with the public keys.
However, I think because the keys are specific to the authenticator instead of a single shared public key it is not possible to have these be discoverable.
This is where I don't understand how credentials could be consumed by services. I thought the client would have to send the public key WITH the authenticator and client data but this is 3 pieces of information and awkward. Sending a single access_token seems actually cleaner.
I created a graphic to explain visually.
(It may have technical inaccuracies, but hopefully the larger point is made clearer)
https://excalidraw.com/#json=fIacaTAOUQ9GVgsrJMOPr,yYDVJsmuXos0GfX_Y4fLRQ
Here are the 3 questions embedded in the image:
What data does the client need to send to the server in order for the server to use the data? (Similar to sending access_token)
How would sever get the public key to decrypt data?
Which piece of data is appropriate / standardized to use as the stable user id?
As someone else mentioned - where there are a lot of commonalities between how WebAuthn and something like OpenID Connect work, they aren't really useful for understanding how WebAuthn works - they are better to explore after you understand WebAuthn.
A WebAuthn relying party does not have its own cryptographic keys or secrets or persistent configuration - it just has a relying party identifier, which is typically the web origin. The client (browser and/or platform) mediate between the relying party and authenticators, mostly protecting user privacy, consent, and providing phishing protection.
The relying party will create a new credential (e.g. key pair) with the authenticator of a user's choosing, be it a cell phone or a physical security key fob in their pocket. The response is the public key of a newly created key pair on the authenticator. That public key is saved against the user account by the RP.
In a future authentication, the authentication request results in a response signed by that public key. The private portion is never meant to leave the authenticator - at least not without cryptographic protections.
This does pair well with something like OpenID Connect. The registration is normally by web domain, which means that there could be a lot of manual registrations necessary (and potentially management, and recovery, and other IAM type activities) necessary. With OpenID Connect, you can centralize the authentication of several applications at a single point, and with it centralize all WebAuthn credential management.
I thought by mapping concepts from oauth to webauthn I would be able better understand the concepts.
This seems to be working against you - you're trying to pattern match WebAuthn onto a solution for a different kind of problem (access delegation). Overloaded terminology around "authentication" doesn't help, but the WebAuthn specification does make things a bit more clear when it describes what it means with "Relying Party":
Note: While the term Relying Party is also often used in other contexts (e.g., X.509 and OAuth), an entity acting as a Relying Party in one context is not necessarily a Relying Party in other contexts. In this specification, the term WebAuthn Relying Party is often shortened to be just Relying Party, and explicitly refers to a Relying Party in the WebAuthn context. Note that in any concrete instantiation a WebAuthn context may be embedded in a broader overall context, e.g., one based on OAuth.
Concretely: in your OAuth 2.0 diagram WebAuthn is used during step 2 "User enters credentials", the rest of it doesn't change. Passing the WebAuthn credentials to other servers is not how it's meant to be used, that's what OAuth is for.
To clarify one other question "how would sever get the public key to decrypt data?" - understand that WebAuthn doesn't encrypt anything. Some data (JS ArrayBuffers) from the authenticator response is typically base64 encoded, but otherwise the response is often passed to the server unaltered as JSON. The server uses the public key to verify the signature, this is either seen for the first time during registration, or retrieved from the database (belonging to a user account) during authentication.
EDIT: Added picture for a clearer understanding of how webauthn works, since it has nothing to do with OAuth2 / OpenID.
(source: https://passwordless.id/protocols/webauthn/1_introduction)
Interestingly enough, what I aim to do with Passwordless.ID is a free public identity provider using webauthn and compatible with OAuth2/OpenID.
Here is the demo of such a "Sign in" button working with OAuth2/OpenID:
https://passwordless-id.github.io/demo/
Please note that this is an early preview, still in development and somewhat lacking regarding the documentation. Nevertheless, it might be useful as working example.
That said, I sense some confusion in the question. So please let me emphasize that OAuth2 and WebAuthN are two completely distinct and unrelated protocols.
WebAuthN is a protocol to authenticate a user device. It is "Hey user, please sign me this challenge with your device to prove it's you"
OAuth2 is a protocol to authorize access to [part of] an API. It is "Hey API, please grant me permission to do this and that on behalf of the user".
OpenID builds on OAuth2 to basically say "Hey API, please allow me to read the user's standardized profile!".
WebauthN is not a replacement for OAuth2, they are 100% independent things. OAuth2 is to authorize (grant permissions) and is unrelated to how the user actually authenticates on the given system. It could be with username/password, it could be with SMS OTP ...and it could be with WebauthN.
There is a lot of good information in the other answers and comments which I encourage you to read. Although I thought it would be better to consolidate it in a single post which directly responds to the question from OP.
How does WebAuthN allow dependent web API's to access public key for decrypting credential without having to send the key?
There were problems with the question:
I used the word "decrypt" but this was wrong. The data sent is signed not encrypted and so key is not used to decrypted but verify the signature.
I was asking how a part of OAuth process can be done using WebAuthN however, this was misunderstanding. WebAuthN is not intended to solve this part of process so the question is less relevant and doesn't make sense to be answered directly.
Others have posted that WebAuthN can be used WITH OAuth so downstream systems can still receive JWTs and verify signatures as normal. How these two protocols are paired is a out of scope.
What data does the client need to send to the server in order for the server to use the data?
#Rafe answered: "table with user_id, credential_id, public_key and signature_counter"
See: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/#authenticatormakecredential
How would server get the public key to decrypt data?
Again, decrypt is wrong word. Server is not decrypting only verifying signature
Also, the word server has multiple meanings based on context and it wasn't clarified in the question.
WebAuthN: For the server which acts as Relying Party in WebAuthN context, it will verify signature during authentication requests. However, the server in question was intended to mean the downstream APIs would not be part of WebAuthN.
OAuth: As explained by others, theses API servers could still be using OAuth and request public key from provider for verification and token contains necessary IDs and scopes/permissions. (Likely means able to re-use existing JWT middlewares)
Which piece of data is appropriate / standardized to use as the stable user id?
For WebAuthN the user object requires { id, name, displayName }. However, it intentionally does not try to standardize how the ID may propagated to downstream systems. That is up to developer.
See: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/#dictdef-publickeycredentialuserentity
For OAuth
sub: REQUIRED. Subject Identifier. A locally unique and never reassigned identifier within the Issuer for the End-User
See: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#TokenResponse
Hopefully I didn't make too many technical inaccuracies. 😬
I am very confused about the difference between oauth2 tokens and json web tokens.
I have searched about these technologies and the result is ;
Open Id is a protocol and It uses JSON Web tokens to ensure the requests are coming from a trusted user.
A Json web token contains a few user information ( claims ) as encrypted with a private key of sts.
Oauth2 is a framework and we can manage the login operations between our users , clients and resources and third-party applications.
Identity Framework 4 is an Open Id connect implementations .net MVC library. The library has written with oauth2 specs and it implements Open Id.
This is the point I didn't understand. The Oauth2 framework already has its token implementation.
Where is the place of JSON web tokens in this scenario?
For example, we have a simple web application and a server which implements identity server 4.
When a user requested a page from web application user will be redirected to our identity server to login operation.
After successful login Identity server adds a cookie to our response and these cookıe contains a token.
We wıll use that token when requests the other secure resources .
These steps are clear for me. Where is the Jason Web token in this schenio ?
How can I use JSON web tokens in my client app?
Where can I reach my user claims?
The reason for JWT is given in the specs of OAuth2
Since OAuth 2.0 does not define a protocol for the resource server to
learn meta-information about a token that it has received from an
authorization server, several different approaches have been
developed to bridge this gap. These include using structured token
formats such as JWT [RFC7519] or proprietary inter-service
communication mechanisms (such as shared databases and protected
enterprise service buses) that convey token information.
Being an open-standard JWT has been largely adopted in security-related technology and protocols. It defines a compact and self-contained way for securely transmitting information between parties as a JSON object. This information can be verified and trusted because it is digitally signed
Let's explain some concepts of this definition further.
Compact: Because of their smaller size, JWTs can be sent through a URL, POST parameter, or inside an HTTP header. Additionally, the smaller size means transmission is fast.
Self-contained: The payload contains all the required information about the user, avoiding the need to query the database more than once.
There are a lot of sites explaining these things as well as numerous technology providers.
https://jwt.io/introduction/ for providing tutorials and free e-book
https://oauth.net/2/ for in-depth stuff
https://openid.net/connect/ for the new kid on the block
To answer your IdentityServer related questions. Authentication & authorization related information are usually encoded
access token
identity token
The application-specific information/payload in these tokens is encoded using JWT. JWT is mostly transparent to application developers if good libraries are provided - as is the case for IdentityServer. You will find answers to your questions in the excellent documentation for IdentityServer. How to extract user claims is covered as well. The project provides numerous client examples that cover typical AuthX setups out there. It takes time and commitment to get through it.
JSON Web Token (JWT) (RFC 7519) itself is independent of OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect. You can use JWT wherever you like.
OAuth 2.0 is a specification as to how to request and issue access tokens. The specification does not say anything about how access tokens should be represented. Therefore, access tokens may be random strings or may be JWTs. Some authorization server implementations generate random strings and issue them as access tokens, and other implementations generate JWTs and issue them as access tokens. See “7. Access Token” in “Full-Scratch Implementor of OAuth and OpenID Connect Talks About Findings” for further discussion.
OpenID Connect is a specification as to how to request and issue ID tokens. The specification says an ID token is a kind of JWT. In addition, JWT is used in other places in the specification. Responses from UserInfo Endpoint are either plain JSON or JWT. Request Objects are JWT.
In normal cases, a server which supports OpenID Connect can issue both ID tokens (which are JWTs) and access tokens (which are either random strings or JWTs). This may be making you confused. Reading the following articles may be of help.
Diagrams of All The OpenID Connect Flows
Diagrams And Movies Of All The OAuth 2.0 Flows
Looking at the Oauth2 specification, it says in section 6:
... the refresh token is bound to the client to which it was issued.
However, I can't find anything in the specification the explicitly states that the token should be bound to the requesting client also. I am assuming this to be the case, and the Introspection Extension seems to support that assumption, but I want to know if that is correct.
As an example, say I am using two applications that use Google as the Oauth2 Authorization Server. I'm assuming that Google will issue two different tokens, one to each application, and that the tokens can only be used by the client to which they were issued because they are bound to that client.
An access token can have various implementations. The one that is most widely adopted today is the "Bearer" token, in RFC 6750 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6750. A Bearer token is not bound to the Client on purpose: it makes it easy to implement, lowers the barrier for adoption and caters for a wide range of use cases.
Assuming that a Bearer token cannot be easily stolen, it is acceptable to avoid binding it to a specific Client: the intended Client could indeed share the access token with another Client but it could just as well share the data that the access token permits access to if the token was bound.
In environments that demand higher security one could use a token that is bound to the Client as defined in RFC 7800 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7800.
Yes, I think it is implicit in the specification that the access token should only be used by the application that the user authorized. Putting it differently - having something other than the authorized application use the token to access user data is pretty much the definition of a privacy failure, and is what authorization protocols are explicitly designed to prevent in the first place.
Now, in practice, I think that having one application use the access token from another would work fine in many OAuth 2.0 implementations. I don't thing the Token Introspection extension is widely used, and most access tokens are designed to be self-validating. Indeed, that's the reason why token stealing is a security risk. By contrast, the refresh token should only be useful when combined with the client secret, so it's "bound" to the client technically as well as philosophically.
I need to realize SSO system using Oauth2.
I understand steps in oauth2, but I don't know what's the Specific algorithm in generating an authorize code or an access_token,maybe Hash or something.And I can't find it on the internet
OAuth 2 specs:
Access tokens can have different formats, structures, and methods of
utilization (e.g., cryptographic properties) based on the resource
server security requirements.
The format of the tokens (and authorization codes) are not defined by the specs, so there is no specific algorithm.
The specs do require:
The authorization server MUST ensure that access tokens cannot be
generated, modified, or guessed to produce valid access tokens by
unauthorized parties.
So, for instance a random UUID makes a fine token. You could also consider JWT tokens.
OAuth2 spec doesn't specify any algorithm or way to generate token value. You can use whatever algorithm, even serial number starts from 1, to generate those token values. You can use more complicated random number generation, encryption, crypto algorithm. Most of them are pretty quick to generate key value, but you need to check how fast current authentication server can generate a key and if it meets your service's requirement.
For example, for token generation in Spring Security, DefaultTokenServices generates access token and refresh token using random UUID.
Unless you want to implement your own Oauth generator, you can use existing providers like WSO2 API Manager for supporting your system. It is well documented and has many REST APIs for this.
access_token contains the claims. So do authentication of user/client and other validations as mentioned in oauth2 spec. Then if you consider JWT for access_token format then you can use jose4j api for access_token creation which supports JWE and JWS as well.
OAuth2 does not define a specific method to generate or protect tokens (authorization code, access/refresh token).
You can implement any strong symmetric cryptographic algorithm, so that you can protect or encrypt the token you are sending.
If you don't want to check token against database you should have this strong encryption.
If it is fine to check token against database you can use a key-value pair, so that you provide key to user and value is stored only in database.
From what I can tell, the OAuth 2.0 specification is extremely vague in terms of what form an access token should take:
The token may denote an identifier used to retrieve the authorization
information or may self-contain the authorization information in a verifiable manner (i.e., a token string consisting of some data and a signature). Additional authentication credentials, which are beyond the scope of this specification, may be required in order for the client to use a token.
The access token provides an abstraction layer, replacing different authorization constructs (e.g., username and password) with a single token understood by the resource server. This abstraction enables issuing access tokens more restrictive than the authorization grant used to obtain them, as well as removing the resource server's need to understand a wide range of authentication methods.
Access tokens can have different formats, structures, and methods of utilization (e.g., cryptographic properties) based on the resource server security requirements. Access token attributes and the methods used to access protected resources are beyond the scope of this specification and are defined by companion specifications such as RFC6750.
(emphasis added)
The linked RFC6750 doesn't offer much further specificity. There is an example HTTP response body that shows:
{
"access_token":"mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM",
"token_type":"Bearer",
"expires_in":3600,
"refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA"
}
This seems to indicate that the access_token can be opaque ASCII text such as an encoded JSON Web Token (JWT)
From my perspective, it seems like JWT-as-access_token has some desirable properties:
It's a known specification, with fairly wide adoption and client libraries available in many languages.
It allows for easy signing and verification using vetted cryptographic libraries.
Because it can be decoded to JSON, it would allow us to include metadata and information about the token within the token itself.
My questions are: First, is it permissible for the access token to be a JWT? Second, if it is permissible according to the spec, are there any additional considerations that would make using a JWT as an access token a bad idea?
A1: Using a JWT as an access token is certainly permissible by spec exactly because the spec does not restrict its format.
A2: The idea behind using a JWT as an access token is that it can then be self-contained so that the target can verify the access token and use the associated content without having to go back to the Authorization Server. That is a great property but makes revocation harder. So if your system requires a capability for immediate revocation of access, a JWT is probably not the right choice for an access token (though you can get pretty far by reducing the lifetime of the JWT).
As long as the Authorization Server and the Resource Server agree on what the access token means, it doesn't matter what their content is. So the only reason you could have a problem would be if you were using different libraries or frameworks when implementing those two servers.
Currently the OAuth Working Group is working on a JWT profile for OAuth 2.0 access tokens: JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Access Tokens