Context:
1 spa
1 api
1 existing passport strategy with jwt
Feature:
Connect additional account with oauth to the existing account
I already have an authentification using passport on nodejs.
This generates a jwt allowing the users to authenticate them with a bearer token in the header of each request to the api.
I would like to add an additional oauth connection to the existing account (actually it is docusign but I think the problem could be the same with other connections).
When there is the redirection with the authorization code, I cannot identify the user which has initiated the connection because I don't have the bearer token in the request header anymore and the data between the two accounts can be different (different emails for example).
Is there a workaround for this or did I miss something?
Thank you for your help
Passport has an Authorize method which can be used to authenticate with a secondary IdP. For example:
Use Passport#Login to enable the user to login to your application's primary IdP
Use Passport#Authorize to enable the user to authenticate with a secondary IdP (such as DocuSign) as needed.
Regarding state for your redirect method (determining which IdP should be used to exchange the authorization code for an access token):
You can use the state parameter that is sent as part of the OAuth authorization code grant flow. But be sure to also use the parameter as a random nonce to guard against a CSRF attack. Eg, send idp1|random_nonce so you can both check the nonce and know that you should communicate with idp1, not idp2.
You can use your application's session machinery to maintain your app's state knowledge of which IdP you're working with at the time.
The only one I can think of is having 2 apps. Each can run on a different port or vd. Each would have their own passport strategy. The two apps can redirect to eachother and/or communicate using API endpoints to pass data between them.
Related
Background
I'm trying implement a browser-based login for a native mobile app from an existing Single Page Application. It uses WebView to render the SPA and it uses Keycloak OIDC as its Identity Provider.
The SPA and IdP is located in completely different domain and authentication is done by redirecting to the SPA domain after a successful login and retrieving the active session (cookie) from IdP domain in one of the SPA's server. The authentication check is achieved by using keycloak middleware which I believe is the protect.js
Summary:
Perform Login -> auth.idp.com
Redirect -> best.app.com
Is Login? -> best.app.com/login
Does auth.idp.com session exists?
User is logged in, redirect -> best.app.com
Token is passed in the URL and is stored only in memory
Token is used to establish WebSocket connection
Issue
Based from the spec, the authorization should happen in the browser / in-app browser, and authorization code must be passed via custom URL scheme. Having that in mind, the SPA that resides in the WebView of native mobile app will never establish a session from IdP's domain since this will be delegated from the browser which is on a different process and obviously using a different cookie store than on WebView in the mobile app, which makes our existing solution to break because it is relying on the IdP's domain cookie.
Proposed Solution
The issue I described above can be mitigated by cutting the reliance on IdP's session and by managing the SPA's own session, which basically means storing the token persistently that can be obtained from the IdP (which the current solution doesn't do).
(I don't want to detail much of the solution since I just want to focus first on the concept of storing the token. I think it's better for me to put this in a separate discussion if someone is interested)
Opinion
It seems like the current implementation doesn't really follow the best practice for OIDC flow but somehow, Keycloak has made some middleware to remove the need to use these tokens (authorization code, id token, and access token)
Relying on IdP's session when implementing SPA or non-web apps seems like not an option, because there is no way to obtain the cookie without reloading the page and provided that IdP session exists in the same cookie store as the SPA.
Redirecting to the IdP's session is not a good user experience for SPA. See the same sentiment here but it seems it does not have any answer: https://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/2016-October/007937.html
Question
With regards to my proposed solution, i.e., storing the token retrieved from IdP, is there any security flaw or something non-industry standard it's going to introduce? If so, what are those?
Is it typical for OIDC flow to rely on IdP's session (cookie) to check if user is logged in or not?
If answer from #2 is NO, is that authentication flow specific for Keycloak only or does it exists for other IdP as well?
If answer from #2 is YES, is it common for IAM solution to programmatically check if the IdP domain contains a valid session (cookie)?
Is the current implementation flawed knowing we are aiming for SPA?
How does Keycloak handle sessions?
If you're using the default Keycloak middleware in your server and use keycloak.protect() for protecting endpoints, it checks on the request.session['keycloak-token'] which contains the access_token that was created during the token request after user login. If this exist and valid, it means user will not be redirected to Keycloak login page.
How does Keycloak create sessions?
Providing username and password which can be done manually using Keycloak's login page.
Cookies - if you pass valid cookies that are recognized by Keycloak, i.e., KEYCLOAK_SESSION, KEYCLOAK_SESSION_LEGACY, ..., a session will automatically be created.
How to access protected resources?
When using the keycloak-connect client adapters, you can access protected resources if the user agent (browser/app), has a valid session in your server OR if the request contains valid Authorization header.
Standard Solution
Access protected resource via Authorization header and use access_token which the keycloak.protect() also accepts. You can obtain this token in a standard way using Chrome Custom Tabs for Android and ASWebAuthenticationSession for iOS. You can also use AppAuth (iOS, Android) to lessen your work.
Store the refresh_token and access_token from native mobile and inject this in the HTTP request of WebView if possible.
Have a way to check for access_token validity and use refresh_token to request for a new one. If requesting for a new one fails, i.e., the authorization server verifies it's not valid anymore, that means users would need to re login again.
By using the standard solution I have proposed above, you should not need to create a band-aid solution for your issue. Hope this helps anyone that have faced similar issue.
I've followed a training in Go as an introduction to microservices architecture a while ago. Getting back to this project I realise that I need more context as we've been quickly digging into the details of the implementations at the time...
I've drawn a simplified sequence diagram of 2 simple use cases:
The user logs in
The user is already logged in and make a purchase
(you can comment / modify the diagram at your convenience)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gWgkhJipUvWrVidkl7YFt_xlDmZYn_CX/view?usp=sharing
Here are the questions I have:
Here we're dealing with user authentication but what about client authentication? In the case of a web front end client, can I imagine storing an api_key and an api_secret in the env variables for the server that will be hosting this client? Because there use cases where the user is not logged but some services still needs to be available, but at the same time I only want my known clients (the web front and the mobile app) to be able to access those services (putting aside API Gateway solutions, and maybe other API Shields which would probably add another security layer against DOS etc.)
If the client logs in using Google/Facebook, the front app will receive an id_token that needs to be passed to the backend which would then verify the token ( https://developers.google.com/identity/sign-in/web/backend-auth ). In this particular case my OAuth API would not be used. Could please you confirm that it's the way it should be handled?
Many thanks.
EDIT 02/05/2022
Intro / Context
First thing first, Authorization is not Authentication.
Authentication is the process of verifying who a user is,
while authorization is the process of verifying what they have access to.
And like #Max said, OAuth is designed to manage Authorization and Open ID Connect (OIDC) is an extension of OAuth to manage Authentication on top of it.
The diagram I've exposed in my question is known in the OAuth world as the password grant, and, from the official documentation :
Because the client application has to collect the user's password and
send it to the authorization server, it is not recommended that this
grant be used at all anymore.
Authorization of my App (to get access to my APIs)
From the API perspective, we just want to ensure that the incoming requests are coming from the server that is hosting the App. So, in my case, it's simple machine-2-machine communication from backend server to backend server and there's no action required from the user. So, I must implement the Client Credentials Flow
...which would lead me to this flow:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qE9JpWRSRPa8z5iNxm7ocGkeT0E149Sv/view?usp=sharing (Feel free to comment / rectify )
Authentication of a user
Because OAuth knows nothing about authentication, I need an OIDC flow. The easiest one is based on the Authorization Code Flow with PKCE from OAuth below (only about authorization) ...
... but the difference is that we're passing an additional scope named openid in the authentication request (step 3), when the app performs the 2nd request to the token endpoint (step 7), the auth server returns an ID Token (which is a JWT containing user info in the payload -> authentication) in addition to the access_token (which do not contain user info but just "random string"). There's other OIDC flows with their pros & cons depending on the situation but it's another topic on its own (https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html)
User already identified by Google/Facebook
In case the client logs in using Google, the front app will receive an id_token. This token could be sent to the app server which would then make a request to the API Gateway, which then call the Auth api which would be in charge of verifying the token by calling the 3rd party auth server ( https://developers.google.com/identity/sign-in/web/backend-auth ).
In case of Facebook, we get back an access token, so I don't know how to deal with it ...
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/web
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/guides/advanced/manual-flow
Using Firebase, there's an onAuthStateChanged callback, so from the App perspective it will prevent request without the user being logged in, but from the API perspective, it doesn't guaranty that a request is coming from a logged in user...
https://firebase.google.com/docs/auth/web/manage-users#get_the_currently_signed-in_user
Warning: the answer below is not complete, it only serves to give a rough idea
Intro
OAuth2 is a protocol for authorization.
Grant Types
Over the OAuth2 protocol, you can use one of the "grant types" or "flow", one of these flows is illustrated in the picture you post and named password grant.
Each of these flows is realized for different scenarios, you rightly point the attention to how securely store the password on a web app.
For example for a front-end authentication (javascript / wasm) you can use a PKCE Flow where the secret_id is not used.
Endpoints
On OAuth2 there are two primary enpoints
Authorize endpoint - where you obtain the authorization code
Token endpoint - where you exchange the authorization code for the token(s)
Tokens
There are two types of tokens on OAuth2
Access Token
Refresh Token
The definition of token on OAuth2 is "an opaque string", you don't need to read it.
The access token is used against the API, this token has an expiration date, when it is expired the system use the refresh token to get another access_token whitout user interaction, when the refresh_token expire the user must re-authenticate again.
You can read the content of the access_token (which is a JWT token) from the JWT.io
Scopes
The Access token has, on its body, the scopes (i.e. Read email, read name, etc).
Scope is a mechanism in OAuth 2.0 to limit an application's access to a user's account.
Identity
On top of the OAuth2 are build other protocols OIDC aka IdToken aka Open Id Connect is one of them, in other terms OIDC protocol use the OAuth2 for establish an Authentication.
With the OIDC there is another token the id_token, this token came with the user's info and is NOT used has Authorizization in front the API.
There are also OIDC flows you can use to get the id_token and/or the access_token.
Conclusion
I suggest you read about OAuth2 from the references below and try different flows using the playground
References
Which oauth2 flow should I use
OAuth2
PKCE in more depth
My advice is to start with the data, which is the deeper area of OAuth.
USE AN AUTHORIZATION SERVER
This will enable you to keep your code simple. It will also handle Google / Facebook and many other forms of authentication for you, with zero impact on your code. The Curity Community Edition is a free and developer friendly option, though there are others. eg Keycloak, Ory Hydra.
PROTECT DATA
OAuth primarily gives you modern ways to protect data. Use scopes and claims to protect data across multiple microservices in a zero trust manner while securely maintaining user context. You will also need to manage joining identity and business data.
IMPLEMENT UI FLOWS CORRECTLY
Mobile apps use the AppAuth pattern. The current best practice for browser based apps is a Backend for Frontend approach. Both of these are tricky.
KEEP CODE STANDARDS BASED
All of the above Curity resources are based on OAuth related standards. If followed your apps will stay simple, with portable code, that can also work with other providers.
OAuth is very architectural though, and the best designs take time to learn, but you can learn the intricacies gradually. Our IAM Primer is a good starting point.
We are struggling about what OAuth flow to use with our app.
We are using Node.JS as our back-end API and Angular as our front-end.
What we want to do is, log in an user, retrieve an access token and use this access token in order to make some API requests (basic POST/GET/PUT/DELETE).
A user (still unknown at this point) lands on a login form OR a register form. He proceeds to the login or the registration.
Once logged he's on his dashboard with an access token, now every time he wants to interact with the API he must use his access token in order to interoperate with the back-end. (which is a classical behavior).
This seems easy, we wanted to use the Implicit Flow but we need a client_id in order to retrieve an access token and the user is still unknown at this point.
We then thought about using the Password Grant flow because our users will have a login/password, but OAuth specs. recommend not to use it except we have no choice.
I know this is a super basic question but what kind of OAuth flow do you recommend with this ? If we have no choice we'll just use the Password Grant but wanted to explore every single solution.
Thanks !
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by:
we wanted to use the Implicit Flow but we need a
client_id in order to retrieve an access token and the user is still
unknown at this point.
If you are using Oauth2.0s implicit flow then your angular app should be registered as a public client with the authorisation server - that process would give you a unique client_id for your angular app. Your angular app can then use the implicit grant and redirect the unknown user to the authorisation server's authorise endpoint passing along in the querystring its client_id along with its redirect_uri and various other things.
The authorise endpoint will prompt the user to register/login to the identity provider and consent to the scopes your Angular app requests.
Once the user logs in (or registers), the authorisation server should then redirect back to your Angular app's registered redirect_uri passing an access_token in the hash-segment of the returned http querystring.
Sorry, I know that I'm not answering directly to your question.
But did you consider using an authentification backend as Auth0 ?
Security is key and OAuth is a complex protocol.
Auth0 give you every thing you need to manage users, use a social identity provider, and integration with Angular.
I'm working on adding google login to my web app. It's a RESTful app, so once a user is logged in, each individual request must be authenticated with a token.
Currently, I create my own tokens using JWT. I can add useful information to the token object to help with state management.
My question is: once I add google as an authentication provider, do I then need send every request to Google to be authenticated, rather than authenticating it on my own server? Do I then lose the ability to customize the content of the token?
With external authentication providers, is it normal to manage separate JWTs for calls to your RESTful API?
Normally, you'll have the login action use the third party to identify the user. Your internal code will probably create/store/fetch an app local user profile of some sort, and you'll create your JWT based on that. Further calls to your API bearing a valid token are then trusted to have already been authenticated and therefore need no further calls to the auth provider.
I would like to give the users a possibility to login with some external oauth2 provider (facebook) in my app. The client's part is running on mobile device in a native app.
I am not sure which of the approaches below should I prefer ?
Should the client send the user's access token by facebook with each request ? At each request backend asks facebook to validate the access token. Based on the validation's result, backend performs authorization and return corresponding result to the client.
Should the backend ask facebook to validate the access token only at user logon, then issue its own access token, return the access token back to the client and client will use this access token at making requests to the server to avoid contacting facebook at each request ?
I have read some questions about how to implement the auth with facebook and most of the devs are using B, but I haven't seen any explanation why is it good/bad to use A ?
What I see as benefits of the solutions:
backend doesn't need to care about issuing, refreshing, validating access tokens since this is done only by facebook's authorization servers.
this solution seems to be more effective, since it does not require to connect to facebook at each request.
Security tokens issued by Facebook are signed with a digital signature. The API server only needs access to the public key to validate the signature. There's no need at all to contact Facebook after the user authenticates.
A reason to issue your own tokens after the user signed in with Facebook could be to add claims to the token. But obviously having your own authorization server comes at a cost. It's up to you to weigh the pros and cons.
If you do decide to have your own authorization server, make sure not to write your own! There are open source options like Thinktecture IdentityServer.
I will vote for option B and here is my explanation,
Your API must authorise the request every time with some auth token , which cannot be external provider token, in such case anyone with an access token (eg: other developers) of other provider can access your api, basically there is no auth here.
When your sever issue access token, it's easy to validate and when needed could be revoked easily (eg: on password reset)
While authenticating , your server has fully control over issuing access token , so the validation is made only once and doesn't have to do every time while calling the API.