I'm lost here- don't even really know what questions to ask.
I built an api as described here : http://railscasts.com/episodes/350-rest-api-versioning?view=asciicast
It's on a site that requires login.
I can access the api through the browser when I am logged in, no problem. Here are my routes:
## API
namespace :api do
namespace :v1 do
resources :users, :sessions
end
end
What I've been asked to do is to make it so that an outside party can request the json with a Api key and optional query parameters and userId
I've tried to curl the site (https) and get redirected to a logout, even with username and password.
My boss suggested a public form on the root url that accepts the userId, apikey and params, and can be curled and will return the data via the parameters posted from curl.
I have no idea how to do this, or even to allow the data to be called without loggin in. I looked at this other screen cast http://railscasts.com/episodes/353-oauth-with-doorkeeper (it's a paid version) but his interactions are allowing another rails app to interact with his original app.
Basically, where should I look for information on how to accomplish this? Any other suggestions, or more information that I could give to make my question more clear?
Thank you for your time.
More RailsCasts! Ryan Bates has you covered in http://railscasts.com/episodes/352-securing-an-api?view=asciicast
So to boil it down:
you need to determine if the clients calling your API need to identify themselves, or if they also need to authenticate somehow
you need to determine if the users of the client (that's calling your API) need to authenticate with your system -- that is, are there "users"?
Some APIs allow callers to pass an API Key as part of the query; others require a more sophisticated process of authenticating, typically OAuth, which is a little trickier.
Some APIs provide user-specific information, in which case you'll need a way to make sure the user can log in, change their password, recall a forgotten password and so on. There's a good RailsCast for that, too (or you can use the Devise gem, although I wouldn't recommend it if you're mainly implementing an API -- not Devise's strong suit).
I am guessing you know this part, but all curl does is simulate the HTTP requests your clients will be making to your API, and (with the --include option) can show you the information about the response returned -- headers, cookies, and so on.
Google "rails api authentication" for more.
Related
I am trying to integrate an authentication system with Graphql and rails that communicates with a React front end and I would like to know what is the best way to do it for a production environment
I know that this might involve using jwt but I would like to know how would you do it?
When the user signs in/up from the react front end it sends the request to the rails graphql api that authenticates the user. Then when the authenticated user makes a request/query it, the backend first makes sure that the user has access to the resources that he is requesting and then send those resources in json to the react front end
This is a bit of an open-ended question. It's probably not really possible to write a specific answer to your question, but here goes nothing.
There are multiple ways to set up authentication with GraphQL. First of all, it's important to understand whether your user is allowed to make any GraphQL queries at all without being authenticated.
You're saying you're authenticating the user with your Rails GraphQL API. Are you doing this with a mutation or with a REST call? If it's just REST and the user isn't allowed to use the GraphQL API without authenticating then you may just be able to block the user from interacting with the GraphQL API at all, when they're not authenticated.
Otherwise it's common to check whether the user is authenticated and if so keep the user data in your GraphQL query context. Then you'll now — per query — whether the user is authenticated.
When the user is attempting to access any resource that they may not be able to see or are attempting to send a mutation without being authenticated, then you can just end the entire query/request with a GraphQL error.
Since GraphQL errors are still considered part of a successful HTTP request you can handle them as usual in your front end as part of the UI. They'll be listed in the usual errors array of the response, as specified in the GraphQL spec.
Regarding JWT, you can of course use JWT to authenticate the user, which requires you to either store a token in a cookie or somewhere else in the user's browser. Typically you'd just send the token in the Authorization header with every GraphQL request.
I have an app, client side, that uses auth0 for accessing the different API's on the server. But now I want to add another app, a single page app, I'm going to use VueJs, and this app would be open "ideally" w/o a user having to sign in, it's like a demo with reduced functionality, I just want to check that the user is not a robot basically, so I don't expose my API in those cases.
My ideas so far:
- Somehow use recaptcha and auth0 altogether.
- Then have a new server that would validate that the calls are made only to allowed endpoints (this is not of my interest in the question), so that even if somehow the auth is vulnerated it doesn't leave the real server open to all type of calls.
- Pass the call to the server along with the bearer token, just as if I was doing it with my other old client app.
Is this viable? Now I'm forcing the user to validate, this is more a thing about UX (User-experience), but I'd like a way to avoid that. I'm aware that just with auth0 I can't do this see this post from Auth0, so I was expecting a mix between what I mentioned.
EDIT:
I'm sticking to validating in both cases, but I'm still interested to get opinions over this as future references.
At the end, with the very concept of how auth0 works that idea is not possible, so my approach was the following:
Give a temporary authenticated (auth 0) visitor a token which has restricted access level, then pass the request to a new middle server, the idea is to encrypt the real ids so the frontend thinks it's requesting project A123456etc, when indeed it's going to get decrypted in the middle server to project 456y-etc and given a whitelist it will decide to pass the request along with the token to the final server, the final server has measures to reduce xss and Ddos threats.
Anyway, if there's a better resolve to it I will change the accepted answer.
You could do a mix of using recaptcha for the open public, then on the server side analyse the incoming user request (you can already try to get a human made digital fingerprint just to differentiate with a robot-generated one) and the server (more a middle server) makes the call to you API (and this server has limited surface access)
What we normally do in these situations (if I got your issue correctly) is to create two different endpoints, one working with the token and another one receiving the Recaptcha token and validating it with Google servers.
Both endpoints end up calling the same code but this way you can add extra functionality in a layer in the 'public' endpoint to ensure that you are asking only for public features (if that cannot be granted just modifying the interface).
I am working on Asp.Net MVC 5. When i click a link (placed in another website) I navigate to UserDetails.cshtml page. Basically that 3rd party site is passing the UserName & Password to my site & using that I authorize & display further user info.
It's fine but the Url is looking like this
localhost:8080//Admin/UserDetails/UserName/PWD.
I don't want to show the UserName & Password in URL i.e URL should look something like :
localhost:8080//Admin/UserDetails/
One possible solution could be rewrite the URL in IIS (http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ASPNETMVCAndTheNewIIS7RewriteModule.aspx)
But I believe there is an easier way to handle this by using the routing mechanism of MVC.
Please help me to figure out the same.
EDIT :
As many of you are confused why I am not doing a Form Post here, let me re-frame my question. I have no control over the third party application, so I cant request them to do a form Post to my MVC application. Again the 3rd party application is a Oracle Reporting application (OBI), so doing a POST from that application might not be feasible too...
Let me reverse engineer your requirements from your question:
I want to have an URI that when invoked will give access to a secured section of my website. This URI must be clicked by visitors of a third-party site, whom I give that URI to. I want to hide the credentials from the URI.
You cannot do this, the requirements are conflicting. You cannot hand out URIs that will authenticate anyone who fires a request to that URI.
You could do something with a token (like http://your-site/auth/$token), but then still, anyone with access to that URI can use it to authenticate themselves, or simply put it up on their own website.
If you have data you want to expose to a third-party site, let that site perform an HTTP request (with tokens, usernames, headers or whatever you want to use to authenticate) in the background to your site, and display the response in their site. Then the visitor won't see that traffic, can't share the URI and all will be secure.
No. No. NO. Like seriously, NO. Any sensitive information should be sent via a post body over a secure connection (HTTPS). You can't "hide" information in a GET request, because it's all part of the URI, or the location of a particular resource. If you remove a portion, it's an entirely different location.
UPDATE
I find it extremely hard to believe that any third-party application that needs to authenticate via HTTP and isn't designed by a chimp with a typewriter, wouldn't support a secure method to do so, especially if it's an Oracle application. I'm not familiar with this particular app, but, and no offense meant here, but I would more easily believe that you've missed something in the documentation or simply haven't found the right way to do it yet before I'd believe you have to send clear-text credentials over GET.
Regardless, as I said previously, there's no way to hide information in a GET request. All data in a GET is part of the URL, and therefore is plainly visible in the browser location bar or whatever. Unfortunately, I have no advice for you other than to look closer at the documentation, even reach out to Oracle if you have to. Whether by post or something like OAuth, there almost has to be another way.
I have to implement a web site (MVC4/Single Page Application + knockout + Web.API) and I've been reading tons of articles and forums but I still can't figure out about some points in security/authentication and the way to go forward when securing the login page and the Web.API.
The site will run totally under SSL. Once the user logs on the first time, he/she will get an email with a link to confirm the register process. Password and a “salt” value will be stored encrypted in database, with no possibility to get password decrypted back. The API will be used just for this application.
I have some questions that I need to answer before to go any further:
Which method will be the best for my application in terms of security: Basic/ SimpleMembership? Any other possibilities?
The object Principal/IPrincipal is to be used just with Basic Authentication?
As far as I know, if I use SimpleMembership, because of the use of cookies, is this not breaking the RESTful paradigm? So if I build a REST Web.API, shouldn't I avoid to use SimpleMembership?
I was checking ThinkTecture.IdentityModel, with tokens. Is this a type of authentication like Basic, or Forms, or Auth, or it's something that can be added to the other authentication types?
Thank you.
Most likely this question will be closed as too localized. Even then, I will put in a few pointers. This is not an answer, but the comments section would be too small for this.
What method and how you authenticate is totally up to your subsystem. There is no one way that will work the best for everyone. A SPA is no different that any other application. You still will be giving access to certain resources based on authentication. That could be APIs, with a custom Authorization attribute, could be a header value, token based, who knows! Whatever you think is best.
I suggest you read more on this to understand how this works.
Use of cookies in no way states that it breaks REST. You will find ton of articles on this specific item itself. Cookies will be passed with your request, just the way you pass any specific information that the server needs in order for it to give you data. If sending cookies breaks REST, then sending parameters to your API should break REST too!
Now, a very common approach (and by no means the ONE AND ALL approach), is the use of a token based system for SPA. The reason though many, the easiest to explain would be that, your services (Web API or whatever) could be hosted separately and your client is working as CORS client. In which case, you authenticate in whatever form you choose, create a secure token and send it back to the client and every resource that needs an authenticated user, is checked against the token. The token will be sent as part of your header with every request. No token would result in a simple 401 (Unauthorized) or a invalid token could result in a 403 (Forbidden).
No one says an SPA needs to be all static HTML, with data binding, it could as well be your MVC site returning partials being loaded (something I have done in the past). As far as working with just HTML and JS (Durandal specifically), there are ways to secure even the client app. Ultimately, lock down the data from the server and route the client to the login screen the moment you receive a 401/403.
If your concern is more in the terms of XSS or request forging, there are ways to prevent that even with just HTML and JS (though not as easy as dropping anti-forgery token with MVC).
My two cents.
If you do "direct" authentication - meaning you can validate the passwords directly - you can use Basic Authentication.
I wrote about it here:
http://leastprivilege.com/2013/04/22/web-api-security-basic-authentication-with-thinktecture-identitymodel-authenticationhandler/
In addition you can consider using session tokens to get rid of the password on the client:
http://leastprivilege.com/2012/06/19/session-token-support-for-asp-net-web-api/
I am building an api for others to use. This is a simple enough Json request the user passes as some data and we pass some back.
What I would love is to secure our api and have some sort of user system where we can turn users on and off and we can log how many requests each user makes.
What would be the best way to do this in Rails? I don't want it to slow down the request. I can see ways of doing it using devise maybe but would be great to hear other people's opinions.
Thanks
Another way is to use 3scale (http://www.3scale.net) - it's free up to a traffic cap but handles all the key management, users, documentation etc. and there's a ruby library which you can drop into your code if you're using rails. (other libs are here: https://support.3scale.net/libraries).
I've done this before using the Token Authentication capabilities of devise (see https://github.com/plataformatec/devise ).
I found the following setup works:
Create a user account for each api user.
Configure devise for token authentication
Set the Token Authentication configuration to require the token to be submitted with each request.
This will allow you to enable and disable individual users as well as to track every request back to the api user that made the call.
If you're really interested in tracking usage you may want to consider also creating a database table where you track all api requests. This can be setup to belong_to the users table so that you easily find all requests from different users (e.g., #user.api_requests).
The count of all requests made by a user would be:
#user.api_requests.count
# or use a where clause to find how many of each type
#user.api_requests.where("api_request_type = ?", 'SomeAPICallType').count
One final note -- I recently used the Grape library for building out an API. I thought it was pretty well done and it worked great for our needs. I especially like the ability it provided to version APIs. Details are here: https://github.com/intridea/grape/wiki