Related
I am implementing JWT inside a client mobile app with a separate back-end server, and I am looking for an optimum way to use refresh tokens without too much server calls and while keeping a good user experience.
I am new to implementing such a mechanism, and I am confused about many things, so what I am really looking for is a solid conceptual solution to secure the user access to the app, and keep him at the same time logged in indefinitely.
Any correction or suggestion would be most welcome:
Why refresh tokens anyway?
Using a JWT access token alone might compromise the user security: If an attacker holds the access token, he might run feature requests whenever he wants. Even when applying an expiry date to the access token, if the server issues a new access token whenever the old one expires, the attacker will receive this new access token using his old one, and keep accessing the user features.
Refresh tokens stop the attacker once the user regains access to his account using his login/password: When the user uses the app and the server detects that his refresh token is invalid, he will be logged out and a new refresh token and access token are issued after he's logged in with his credentials. The attacker won't be able then to use the old tokens.
My first question would be:
I. Regardless of how the attacker gets hold of the tokens from the user environment, would he be able to use them indefinitely as long as the user is still inactive and isn't logged in again with his credentials to create new tokens?
What about when the tokens are refreshed asynchronously?
Let's imagine a scenario where the user is inside the app, and at least two server calls are run asynchronously:
"Service1" makes a server call with an expired accessToken1 and a refreshToken1, and the server responds by sending a new accessToken2 and refreshToken2
Before receiving the "Service1" response, "Service2" makes an other server call with accessToken1 and refreshToken1, the server compares refreshToken1 to the previously saved refreshToken2 and finds them different. It responds then with an Invalid refresh token response, and this causes the user to be logged out!
To avoid this problem and keep the user logged in, there could be a centralized authentication service that checks first the validity of the tokens before any server call is made. Which means that any call won't be executed unless the authentication service is idle, or wait for the new tokens if it's already loading.
My second question here is:
II. Having such a service to avoid the asynchronous refresh token problem means more round trips to the server, which might prove costly. Is there a better solution?
There are some steps to login / revoke access to an api:
When you do log in, send 2 tokens (Access token, Refresh token) in response to the client.
The access token will have less expiry time and Refresh will have long expiry time.
The client (Front end) will store refresh token in his local storage and access token in cookies.
The client will use an access token for calling APIs. But when it expires, pick the refresh token from local storage and call auth server API to get the new token.
Your auth server will have an API exposed which will accept refresh token and checks for its validity and return a new access token.
Once the refresh token is expired, the User will be logged out.
JSON Web Tokens are a good way of securely transmitting information between parties. Because JWTs can be signed—for example, using public/private key pairs—you can be sure the senders are who they say they are. Additionally, as the signature is calculated using the header and the payload, you can also verify that the content hasn't been tampered with.
What about when the tokens are refreshed asynchronously?
that supposed be done with a single request to an endpoint, so there is a single accessToken
Having such a service to avoid the asynchronous refresh token problem means more round trips to the server, which might prove costly. Is there a better solution?
i think that's the best & secure solution for mobile and serverless apps, token are like ssh keys must be kept secure all the time :)
for more information check [question]: JWT refresh token flow
Here's the official introduction to JWT
I'm writing an application with a front end in emberjs and backend/server-side in a nodejs server. I have emberjs configured so that a user can login/signup with an 3rd party Oauth (google, twitter, Facebook). I have a backend written in express nodejs server that hosts the RESTful APIs.
I do not have DB connected to emberjs and I don't think I should anyways since it's strictly client side code. I'm planning on using JWT for communicating between client side and server side. When a user logins with their oauth cred, I get a JSON object back from the provider with uid, name, login, access_token and other details.
I'm struggling with picking a strategy on how to handle user signup. There is no signup process since it's OAuth. So the flow is if the user is not in my db, create it. I do not support email/password authentication. What would be the flow when a user signs in with an OAuth provider for the first time? Should emberjs send all the details to the backend on every sign in so that backend can add new users to the db?
What should be part of my JWT body? I was thinking uid and provider supplied access token. One issue I can think of here is that provider specific access token can change. User can revoke the token from provider's site and signs up again with emberjs.
I'm open to writing the front-end in any other javascript client side framework if it makes it easier.
If we're talking about not only working but also secure stateless authentication you will need to consider proper strategy with both access and refresh tokens.
Access token is a token which provides an access to a protected resource.
Expiration here might be installed approximately in ~1 hour (depends on your considerations).
Refresh token is a special token which should be used to generate additional access token in case it was expired or user session has been updated. Obviously you need to make it long lived (in comparison with access token) and secure as much as possible.
Expiration here might be installed approximately in ~10 days or even more (also depends on your considerations).
FYI: Since refresh tokens are long lived, to make them really secure you might want to store them in your database (refresh token requests are performed rarely). In this way, let's say, even if your refresh token was hacked somehow and someone regenerated access/refresh tokens, of course you will loose permissions, but then you still can login to the system, since you know login/pass (in case you will use them later) or just by signing in via any social network.
Where to store these tokens?
There are basically 2 common places:
HTML5 Web Storage (localStorage/sessionStorage)
Good to go, but in the same time risky enough. Storage is accessible via javascript code on the same domain. That means in case you've got XSS, your tokens might be hacked. So by choosing this method you must take care and encode/escape all untrusted data. And even if you did it, I'm pretty sure you use some bunch of 3rd-party client-side modules and there is no guarantee any of them has some malicious code.
Also Web Storage does not enforce any secure standards during transfer. So you need to be sure JWT is sent over HTTPS and never HTTP.
Cookies
With specific HttpOnly option cookies are not accessible via javascript and are immune to XSS. You can also set the Secure cookie flag to guarantee the cookie is only sent over HTTPS.
However, cookies are vulnerable to a different type of attack: cross-site request forgery (CSRF).
In this case CSRF could be prevented by using some kind of synchronized token patterns. There is good implementation in AngularJS, in Security Considerations section.
An article you might want to follow.
To illustrate how it works in general:
Few words about JWT itself:
To make it clear there is really cool JWT Debugger from Auth0 guys.
There are 2 (sometimes 3) common claims types: public, private (and reserved).
An example of JWT body (payload, can be whatever you want):
{
name: "Dave Doe",
isAdmin: true,
providerToken: '...' // should be verified then separately
}
More information about JWT structure you will find here.
To answer the two specific questions that you posed:
What would be the flow when a user signs in with an OAuth provider for
the first time? Should emberjs send all the details to the backend on
every sign in so that backend can add new users to the db?
Whenever a user either signs up or logs in via oauth and your client receives a new access token back, I would upsert (update or insert) it into your users table (or collection) along with any new or updated information that you retrieved about the user from the oauth provider API. I suggest storing it directly on each users record to ensure the access token and associated profile information changes atomically. In general, I'd usually compose this into some sort of middleware that automatically performs these steps when a new token is present.
What should be part of my JWT body? I was thinking uid and provider
supplied access token. One issue I can think of here is that provider
specific access token can change. User can revoke the token from
provider's site and signs up again with emberjs.
The JWT body generally consists of the users claims. I personally see little benefit to storing the provider access token in the body of a JWT token since it would have few benefits to your client app (unless you are doing a lot of direct API calls from your client to their API, I prefer to do those calls server-side and send my app client back a normalized set of claims that adhere to my own interface). By writing your own claims interface, you will not have to work around the various differences present from multiple providers from your client app. An example of this would be coalescing Twitter and Facebook specific fields that are named differently in their APIs to common fields that you store on your user profile table, then embedding your local profile fields as claims in your JWT body to be interpreted by your client app. There is an added benefit to this that you will not be persisting any data that could leak in the future in an unencrypted JWT token.
Whether or not you are storing the oauth provider supplied access token within the JWT token body, you will need to grant a new JWT token every time the profile data changes (you can put in a mechanism to bypass issuing new JWT tokens if no profile updates occurred and the previous token is still good).
In addition to whatever profile fields you store as claims in the JWT token body, I would always define the standard JWT token body fields of:
{
iss: "https://YOUR_NAMESPACE",
sub: "{connection}|{user_id}",
aud: "YOUR_CLIENT_ID",
exp: 1372674336,
iat: 1372638336
}
For any OAuth workflow you should definitely use the passportjs library. You should also read the full documentation. It is easy to understand but I made the mistake of not reading the the whole thing the first time and struggled. It contains OAuth Authentication with over 300 Providers and Issuing Tokens.
Nevertheless, if you want to do it manually or want a basic understanding, here is the flow that I'd use:
Frontend has a login page listing Sign-in with Google/Facebook etc where OAuth is implemented.
Successful OAuth results in a uid, login, access_token etc. (JSON object)
You POST the JSON object to your /login/ route in your Node.js application. (Yes, you send the whole response regardless if it's a new or existing user. Sending extra data here is better than doing two requests)
The backend application reads the uid and the access_token. Ensure that the access_token is valid by following (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow#checktoken) or asking for user data from the provider using the access token. (This will fail for invalid access token since OAuth access tokens are generated on a per app/developer basis) Now, search your backend DB.
If the uid exists in the database, you update the user's access_token and expiresIn in the DB. (The access_token allows you to get more information from Facebook for that particular user and it provides access for a few hours usually.)
Else, you create a new user with uid, login etc info.
After updating the access_token or creating a new user, you send JWT token containing the uid. (Encode the jwt with a secret, this would ensure that it was sent by you and have not been tampered with. Checkout https://github.com/auth0/express-jwt)
On the frontend after the user has received the jwt from /login, save it to sessionStorage by sessionStorage.setItem('jwt', token);
On the frontend, also add the following:
if ($window.sessionStorage.token) {
xhr.setRequestHeader("Authorization", $window.sessionStorage.token);
}
This would ensure that if there is a jwt token, it is sent with every request.
On your Node.js app.js file, add
app.use(jwt({ secret: 'shhhhhhared-secret'}).unless({path: ['/login']}));
This would validate that jwt for anything in your path, ensuring that the user is logged-in, otherwise not allow access and redirect to the login page. The exception case here is /login since that's where you give both your new or unauthenticated users a JWT.
You can find more information on the Github URL on how to get the token and to find out which user's request you are currently serving.
I am building an Authorization Server in terms of OAuth 2.0.
There is also a 3rd party web application (Client) which is using my Authorization Server. It's a regular web application, and the user may have several active sessions established with this application (for example, office and home machine, or just several web browsers on the same machine).
My Authorization Server issues an access token #1 (with or without the refresh token, that's not so important here) for Client once. When the user starts a new session with the Client, should the Authorization Server give the Client app the same access token #1 for that new session or should it issue a new #2 token?
My thougts:
From security point of view the new token might sound better, but then if the user wants to manage his authorizations, he will see a separate entry for each Client session, which might be messy.
For example, GitHub returns the same token for previously authorized clients, and on the "applications" page in my GitHub account I see only one entry per application, no matter how many sessions I've started, which is convenient.
However, this approach means that I have to store access tokens in Authorization or Resource server in the reversible way (plain-text or encrypted with some known key) instead of using irreversible hashing (like you usually do with passwords, storing salt and password hash from bcrypt, pbkdf2 or something similar).
Please be advised that I am not a security expert and this explanation
is my general idea of oauth. Reason why I mentioned this in the
beginning is because I see you are CREATING YOUR OWN AUTH SERVER based
on oauth 2.0 protocol, which means down the road some people might be
using your server for authentication, and thus I don't want you to
have the wrong concept.
The session-oauth mismatch
I want to clear this first that don't mix sessions and oauth. These are two separate things usually found working together IMHO.
Oauth protocol simply gives the apps/users with an access token via which the app/user can query your server for data associated with the token.
Session on the other hand depends on the application itself. Once some app received the token, they make a session out of it. When user logs in or logs out, the session is destroyed, not the oauth.
So what is the fate of oauth token?
Well from a server standpoint, each of your token should expire after a certain time period. That is it. Server does not know anything else. It gives you the token, then expires it after 'n' seconds.
However, the app may decide that it wants to revoke the access token. Maybe their website was hacked, or maybe they are done with all api calls. Then they can send a special request to your server telling you to force-expire the token.
So what should I do about user opening multiple sessions?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. As an oauth service provider, you are not concerned with sessions at all. All you know is that if the app asks you for a token, you give them one.
However, I will answer you question about sessions as well. Should you spawn different sessions for the same user? I would say yes. If you have same session, then if you log out from one machine, and refresh the page in second machine, since the session has expired, your other browser/machines will also log out naturally.
So how does github manages to not show extra entries?
Well I do not work for them so I don't know. But I guess that they will check each session, and if two or more sessions are associate with the same user, they know the user must be using many devices. Then when one of your devices sends some request to github, they can guess from the IP address your location, and if many of your machines are making requests from same place, you got to be using multiple machines. If not, then maybe some attacker is using your account as well.
This is how AFAIK banks predict malicious users - well not the only way, they sometimes also predict the pattern you are using to access bank records, and if that pattern is different, there are good chances that your account was compromised.
So now you may ask me, are you really sure that I should create as many tokens as the app demands me?
This is the part where I am not so sure. From what I have seen, oauth has two things. Google these two terms for more info:
Refresh Token: This token is not your access token. This token never expires, and once your access token is expired, you can use this token to get a new access token. This token is also to be kept secret.
Offline access type: Many oauth providers such as google and facebook also support this mode. This mode basically allows you to extend the expiry time of your access token. E.g. instead of normal expiry time of access token (e.g. 1 hour), for offline tokens you might have the expiry time of 1 year or so.
Answer to the question "Should I reuse OAuth 2.0 access tokens?"
Yes, the token is supposed to be used as many times as you need within the given expiry time (google sets it to 1 hour).
After it has expired, use the refresh token to get another access token and use it as many times as you need. Keep repeating the process.
If your users won't be online for you to start the oauth process, and you don't have the refresh token, then the app needs to have "offline" tokens.
Should I store my auth tokens?
You can if your app demands it, but it is nowhere recommended because of the potential to be leaked. Tokens are supposed to extract data within the given time limit and reissue the token when needed again. However, you surely can store them if you want.
"Offline" tokens, on the other hand, are expected to be stored. You can encrypt them if you like, but if the scopes are not too broad, I wouldn't bother at all.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
(spawned from this thread since this is really a question of its own and not specific to NodeJS etc)
I'm implementing a REST API server with authentication, and I have successfully implemented JWT token handling so that a user can login through a /login endpoint with username/password, upon which a JWT token is generated from a server secret and returned to the client. The token is then passed from the client to the server in each authenticated API request, upon which the server secret is used to verify the token.
However, I am trying to understand the best practices for exactly how and to what extent the token should be validated, to make a truly secure system. Exactly what should be involved in "validating" the token? Is it enough that the signature can be verified using the server-secret, or should I also cross-check the token and/or token payload against some data stored in the server?
A token based authentication system will only be as safe as passing username/password in each request provided that it's equally or more difficult to obtain a token than to obtain a user's password. However, in the examples I've seen, the only information required to produce a token is the username and the server-side secret. Doesn't this mean that assuming for a minute that a malicious user gains knowledge of the server secret, he can now produce tokens on behalf of any user, thereby having access not only to one given user as would be the fact if a password was obtained, but in fact to all user accounts?
This brings me to the questions:
1) Should JWT token validation be limited to verifying the signature of the token itself, relying on the integrity of the server secret alone, or accompanied by a separate validation mechanism?
In some cases I've seen the combined use of tokens and server sessions where upon successful login through the /login endpoint a session is established. API requests validate the token, and also compare the decoded data found in the token with some data stored in the session. However, using sessions means using cookies, and in some sense it defeats the purpose of using a token based approach. It also may cause problems for certain clients.
One could imagine the server keeping all tokens currently in use in a memcache or similar, to ensure that even if the server secret is compromised so that an attacker may produce "valid" tokens, only the exact tokens that were generated through the /login endpoint would be accepted. Is this reasonable or just redundant/overkill?
2) If JWT signature verification is the only means of validating tokens, meaning the integrity of the server secret is the breaking point, how should server secrets be managed? Read from an environment variable and created (randomized?) once per deployed stack? Re-newed or rotated periodically (and if so, how to handle existing valid tokens that were created before rotation but needs to be validated after rotation, perhaps it's enough if the server holds on to the current and the previous secret at any given time)? Something else?
Maybe I'm simply being overly paranoid when it comes to the risk of the server secret being compromised, which is of course a more general problem that needs to be addressed in all cryptographic situations...
I've been playing with tokens for my application as well. While I'm not an expert by any means, I can share some of my experiences and thoughts on the matter.
The point of JWTs is essentially integrity. It provides a mechanism for your server verify that the token that was provided to it is genuine and was supplied by your server. The signature generated via your secret is what provides for this. So, yes, if your secret is leaked somehow, that individual can generate tokens that your server would think are its own. A token based system would still be more secure than your username/password system simply because of the signature verification. And in this case, if someone has your secret anyway, your system has other security issues to deal with than someone making fake tokens (and even then, just changing the secret ensures that any tokens made with the old secret are now invalid).
As for payload, the signature will only tell you that the token provided to you was exactly as it was when your server sent it out. verifying the that the payloads contents are valid or appropriate for your application is obviously up to you.
For your questions:
1.) In my limited experience, it's definitely better to verify your tokens with a second system. Simply validating the signature just means that the token was generated with your secret. Storing any created tokens in some sort of DB (redis, memcache/sql/mongo, or some other storage) is a fantastic way of assuring that you only accept tokens that your server has created. In this scenario, even if your secret is leaked, it won't matter too much as any generated tokens won't be valid anyway. This is the approach I'm taking with my system - all generated tokens are stored in a DB (redis) and on each request, I verify that the token is in my DB before I accept it. This way tokens can be revoked for any reason, such as tokens that were released into the wild somehow, user logout, password changes, secret changes, etc.
2.) This is something I don't have much experience in and is something I'm still actively researching as I'm not a security professional. If you find any resources, feel free to post them here! Currently, I'm just using a private key that I load from disk, but obviously that is far from the best or most secure solution.
Here are some things to consider when implementing JWT's in your application:
Keep your JWT lifetime relatively short, and have it's lifetime managed at the server. If you don't, and later on need to require more information in your JWTs, you'll have to either support 2 versions, or wait until your older JWTs have expired before you can implement your change. You can easily manage it on the server if you only look at the iat field in the jwt, and ignore the exp field.
Consider including the url of the request in your JWT. For example, if you want your JWT to be used at endpoint /my/test/path, include a field like 'url':'/my/test/path' in your JWT, to ensure it's only ever used at this path. If you don't, you may find that people start using your JWTs at other endpoints, even ones they weren't created for. You could also consider including an md5(url) instead, as having a big url in the JWT will end up making the JWT that much bigger, and they can get quite big.
JWT expiry should be configurable by each use case if JWTs are being implemented in an API. For example, if you have 10 endpoints for 10 different use cases for JWT's, make sure you can make each endpoint accept JWTs that expire at different times. This allows you to lock down some endpoints more than others, if for example, the data served by one endpoint is very sensitive.
Instead of simply expiring JWTs after a certain time, consider implementing JWTs that support both:
N usages - can only be used N times before they expire and
expire after certain amount of time (if you have a one use only token, you don't want it living forever if not used, do you?)
All JWT authentication failures should generate an "error" response header that states why the JWT authentication failed. e.g. "expired", "no usages left", "revoked", etc. This helps implementers know why their JWT is failing.
Consider ignoring the "header" of your JWTs as they leak information and give a measure of control to hackers. This is mostly concerning the alg field in the header - ignore this and just assume that the header is what you want to support, as this avoids hackers trying to use the None algorithm, which removes the signature security check.
JWT's should include an identifier detailing which app generated the token. For example if your JWT's are being created by 2 different clients, mychat, and myclassifiedsapp, then each should include it's project name or something similar in the "iss" field in the JWT e.g. "iss":"mychat"
JWT's should not be logged in log files. The contents of a JWT can be logged, but not the JWT itself. This ensures devs or others can't grab JWT's from log files and do things to other users accounts.
Ensure your JWT implementation doesn't allow the "None" algorithm, to avoid hackers creating tokens without signing them. This class of errors can be avoided entirely by ignoring the "header" of your JWT.
Strongly consider using iat (issued at) instead of exp (expiry) in your JWTs. Why? Since iat basically means when was the JWT created, this allows you to adjust on the server when the JWT expires, based on the creation date. If someone passes in an exp that's 20 years in the future, the JWT basically lives forever! Note that you automatically expire JWTs if their iat is in the future, but allow for a little bit of wiggle room (e.g 10 seconds), in case the client's time is slightly out of sync with the servers time.
Consider implementing an endpoint for creating JWTs from a json payload, and force all your implementing clients to use this endpoint to create their JWTs. This ensures that you can address any security issues you want with how JWTs are created in one place, easily. We didn't do this straight off in our app, and now have to slowly trickle out JWT server side security updates because our 5 different clients need time to implement. Also, make your create endpoint accept an array of json payloads for JWTs to create, and this will decrease the # of http requests coming in to this endpoint for your clients.
If your JWT's will be used at endpoints that also support use by session, ensure you don't put anything in your JWT that's required to satisfy the request. You can easily do this if you ensure your endpoint works with a session, when no JWT is supplied.
So JWT's generally speaking end up containing a userId or groupId of some sort, and allow access to part of your system based on this information. Make sure you're not allowing users in one area of your app to impersonate other users, especially if this provides access to sensitive data. Why? Well even if your JWT generation process is only accessible to "internal" services, devs or other internal teams could generate JWTs to access data for any user, e.g. the CEO of some random client's company. For example, if your app provides access to financial records for clients, then by generating a JWT, a dev could grab the financial records of any company at all! And if a hacker gets into your internal network in anyway, they could do the same.
If you are are going to allow any url that contains a JWT to be cached in any way, ensure that the permissions for different users are included in the url, and not the JWT. Why? Because users may end up getting data they shouldn't. For example, say a super user logs into your app, and requests the following url: /mysite/userInfo?jwt=XXX, and that this url gets cached. They logout and a couple of minutes later, a regular user logs into your app. They'll get the cached content - with info about a super user! This tends to happen less on the client, and more on the server, especially in cases where you're using a CDN like Akamai, and you're letting some files live longer. This can be fixed by including the relevant user info in the url, and validating this on the server, even for cached requests, for example /mysite/userInfo?id=52&jwt=XXX
If your jwt is intended to be used like a session cookie, and should only work on the same machine the jwt was created for, you should consider adding a jti field to your jwt. This is basically a CSRF token, that ensures your JWT can't be passed from one users's browser to anothers.
I don't think I'm an expert but I'd like to share some thoughs about Jwt.
1: As Akshay said, it's better to have a second system to validate your token.
a.: The way I handle it : I store the hash generated into a session storage with the expiricy time. To validate a token, it needs to have been issued by the server.
b.:There is at least one thing that must be checked the signature method used. eg :
header :
{
"alg": "none",
"typ": "JWT"
}
Some libraries validating JWT would accept this one without checking the hash. That means that without knowing your salt used to sign the token, a hacker could grant himself some rights. Always make sure this can't happen.
https://auth0.com/blog/2015/03/31/critical-vulnerabilities-in-json-web-token-libraries/
c.: Using a cookie with a session Id would not be useful to validate your token. If someone wants to hijack the session of a lambda user, he would just have to use a sniffer (eg : wireshark). This hacker would have both information at the same time.
2: It is the same for every secret. There is always a way to know it.
The way I handle it is linked to the point 1.a. : I have a secret mixed with a random variable. The secret is unique for every token.
However, I am trying to understand the best practices for exactly how
and to what extent the token should be validated, to make a truly
secure system.
If you want the best security possible, you should not blindly follow best practices. The best way is to understand what you're doing (I think it's ok when I see your question), and then evaluate the security you need. And if the Mossad want to have access to your confidential data, they 'll always find a way. (I like this blog post : https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/08/mickens_on_secu.html )
Lots of good answers here. I'll integrate some of the answers I think are most relevant and add some more suggestions.
1) Should JWT token validation be limited to verifying the signature of the token itself, relying on the integrity of the server secret alone, or accompanied by a separate validation mechanism?
No, because of reasons unrelated to the compromise of a token secret. Each time a user logs in via a username and password, the authorization server should store either the token that was generated, or metadata about the token that was generated. Think of this metadata as an authorization record. A given user and application pair should only have one valid token, or authorization, at any given time. Useful metadata is the user id associated with the access token, the app id, and the time when the access token was issued (which allows for the revocation of existing access tokens and the issuing of a new access token). On every API request, validate that the token contains the proper metadata. You need to persist information about when each access tokens was issued, so that a user can revoke existing access tokens if their account credentials are compromised, and log in again and start using a new access token. That will update the database with the time when the access token was issued (the authorization time created). On every API request, check that the issue time of the access token is after the authorization time created.
Other security measures included not logging JWTs and requiring a secure signing algorithm like SHA256.
2) If JWT signature verification is the only means of validating tokens, meaning the integrity of the server secret is the breaking point, how should server secrets be managed?
The compromise of server secrets would allow an attacker to issue access tokens for any user, and storing access token data in step 1 would not necessarily prevent the server from accepting those access tokens. For example, say that a user has been issued an access token, and then later on, an attacker generates an access token for that user. The authorization time of the access token would be valid.
Like Akshay Dhalwala says, if your server-side secret is compromised, then you have bigger problems to deal with because that means that an attacker has compromised your internal network, your source code repository, or both.
However, a system to mitigate the damage of a compromised server secret and avoid storing secrets in source code involves token secret rotation using a coordination service like https://zookeeper.apache.org. Use a cron job to generate an app secret every few hours or so (however long your access tokens are valid for), and push the updated secret to Zookeeper. In each application server that needs to know the token secret, configure a ZK client that is updated whenever the ZK node value changes. Store a primary and a secondary secret, and each time the token secret is changed, set the new token secret to the primary and the old token secret to the secondary. That way, existing valid tokens will still be valid because they will be validated against the secondary secret. By the time the secondary secret is replaced with the old primary secret, all of the access tokens issued with the secondary secret would be expired anyways.
IETF have a RFC in progress in the oAuth Working Group see : https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-05.html
When building SPA style applications using frameworks like Angular, Ember, React, etc. what do people believe to be some best practices for authentication and session management? I can think of a couple of ways of considering approaching the problem.
Treat it no differently than authentication with a regular web application assuming the API and and UI have the same origin domain.
This would likely involve having a session cookie, server side session storage and probably some session API endpoint that the authenticated web UI can hit to get current user information to help with personalization or possibly even determining roles/abilities on the client side. The server would still enforce rules protecting access to data of course, the UI would just use this information to customize the experience.
Treat it like any third-party client using a public API and authenticate with some sort of token system similar to OAuth. This token mechanism would used by the client UI to authenticate each and every request made to the server API.
I'm not really much of an expert here but #1 seems to be completely sufficient for the vast majority of cases, but I'd really like to hear some more experienced opinions.
This question has been addressed, in a slightly different form, at length, here:
RESTful Authentication
But this addresses it from the server-side. Let's look at this from the client-side. Before we do that, though, there's an important prelude:
Javascript Crypto is Hopeless
Matasano's article on this is famous, but the lessons contained therein are pretty important:
https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and-events/blog/2011/august/javascript-cryptography-considered-harmful/
To summarize:
A man-in-the-middle attack can trivially replace your crypto code with <script> function hash_algorithm(password){ lol_nope_send_it_to_me_instead(password); }</script>
A man-in-the-middle attack is trivial against a page that serves any resource over a non-SSL connection.
Once you have SSL, you're using real crypto anyways.
And to add a corollary of my own:
A successful XSS attack can result in an attacker executing code on your client's browser, even if you're using SSL - so even if you've got every hatch battened down, your browser crypto can still fail if your attacker finds a way to execute any javascript code on someone else's browser.
This renders a lot of RESTful authentication schemes impossible or silly if you're intending to use a JavaScript client. Let's look!
HTTP Basic Auth
First and foremost, HTTP Basic Auth. The simplest of schemes: simply pass a name and password with every request.
This, of course, absolutely requires SSL, because you're passing a Base64 (reversibly) encoded name and password with every request. Anybody listening on the line could extract username and password trivially. Most of the "Basic Auth is insecure" arguments come from a place of "Basic Auth over HTTP" which is an awful idea.
The browser provides baked-in HTTP Basic Auth support, but it is ugly as sin and you probably shouldn't use it for your app. The alternative, though, is to stash username and password in JavaScript.
This is the most RESTful solution. The server requires no knowledge of state whatsoever and authenticates every individual interaction with the user. Some REST enthusiasts (mostly strawmen) insist that maintaining any sort of state is heresy and will froth at the mouth if you think of any other authentication method. There are theoretical benefits to this sort of standards-compliance - it's supported by Apache out of the box - you could store your objects as files in folders protected by .htaccess files if your heart desired!
The problem? You are caching on the client-side a username and password. This gives evil.ru a better crack at it - even the most basic of XSS vulnerabilities could result in the client beaming his username and password to an evil server. You could try to alleviate this risk by hashing and salting the password, but remember: JavaScript Crypto is Hopeless. You could alleviate this risk by leaving it up to the Browser's Basic Auth support, but.. ugly as sin, as mentioned earlier.
HTTP Digest Auth
Is Digest authentication possible with jQuery?
A more "secure" auth, this is a request/response hash challenge. Except JavaScript Crypto is Hopeless, so it only works over SSL and you still have to cache the username and password on the client side, making it more complicated than HTTP Basic Auth but no more secure.
Query Authentication with Additional Signature Parameters.
Another more "secure" auth, where you encrypt your parameters with nonce and timing data (to protect against repeat and timing attacks) and send the. One of the best examples of this is the OAuth 1.0 protocol, which is, as far as I know, a pretty stonking way to implement authentication on a REST server.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5849
Oh, but there aren't any OAuth 1.0 clients for JavaScript. Why?
JavaScript Crypto is Hopeless, remember. JavaScript can't participate in OAuth 1.0 without SSL, and you still have to store the client's username and password locally - which puts this in the same category as Digest Auth - it's more complicated than HTTP Basic Auth but it's no more secure.
Token
The user sends a username and password, and in exchange gets a token that can be used to authenticate requests.
This is marginally more secure than HTTP Basic Auth, because as soon as the username/password transaction is complete you can discard the sensitive data. It's also less RESTful, as tokens constitute "state" and make the server implementation more complicated.
SSL Still
The rub though, is that you still have to send that initial username and password to get a token. Sensitive information still touches your compromisable JavaScript.
To protect your user's credentials, you still need to keep attackers out of your JavaScript, and you still need to send a username and password over the wire. SSL Required.
Token Expiry
It's common to enforce token policies like "hey, when this token has been around too long, discard it and make the user authenticate again." or "I'm pretty sure that the only IP address allowed to use this token is XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX". Many of these policies are pretty good ideas.
Firesheeping
However, using a token Without SSL is still vulnerable to an attack called 'sidejacking': http://codebutler.github.io/firesheep/
The attacker doesn't get your user's credentials, but they can still pretend to be your user, which can be pretty bad.
tl;dr: Sending unencrypted tokens over the wire means that attackers can easily nab those tokens and pretend to be your user. FireSheep is a program that makes this very easy.
A Separate, More Secure Zone
The larger the application that you're running, the harder it is to absolutely ensure that they won't be able to inject some code that changes how you process sensitive data. Do you absolutely trust your CDN? Your advertisers? Your own code base?
Common for credit card details and less common for username and password - some implementers keep 'sensitive data entry' on a separate page from the rest of their application, a page that can be tightly controlled and locked down as best as possible, preferably one that is difficult to phish users with.
Cookie (just means Token)
It is possible (and common) to put the authentication token in a cookie. This doesn't change any of the properties of auth with the token, it's more of a convenience thing. All of the previous arguments still apply.
Session (still just means Token)
Session Auth is just Token authentication, but with a few differences that make it seem like a slightly different thing:
Users start with an unauthenticated token.
The backend maintains a 'state' object that is tied to a user's token.
The token is provided in a cookie.
The application environment abstracts the details away from you.
Aside from that, though, it's no different from Token Auth, really.
This wanders even further from a RESTful implementation - with state objects you're going further and further down the path of plain ol' RPC on a stateful server.
OAuth 2.0
OAuth 2.0 looks at the problem of "How does Software A give Software B access to User X's data without Software B having access to User X's login credentials."
The implementation is very much just a standard way for a user to get a token, and then for a third party service to go "yep, this user and this token match, and you can get some of their data from us now."
Fundamentally, though, OAuth 2.0 is just a token protocol. It exhibits the same properties as other token protocols - you still need SSL to protect those tokens - it just changes up how those tokens are generated.
There are two ways that OAuth 2.0 can help you:
Providing Authentication/Information to Others
Getting Authentication/Information from Others
But when it comes down to it, you're just... using tokens.
Back to your question
So, the question that you're asking is "should I store my token in a cookie and have my environment's automatic session management take care of the details, or should I store my token in Javascript and handle those details myself?"
And the answer is: do whatever makes you happy.
The thing about automatic session management, though, is that there's a lot of magic happening behind the scenes for you. Often it's nicer to be in control of those details yourself.
I am 21 so SSL is yes
The other answer is: Use https for everything or brigands will steal your users' passwords and tokens.
You can increase security in authentication process by using JWT (JSON Web Tokens) and SSL/HTTPS.
The Basic Auth / Session ID can be stolen via:
MITM attack (Man-In-The-Middle) - without SSL/HTTPS
An intruder gaining access to a user's computer
XSS
By using JWT you're encrypting the user's authentication details and storing in the client, and sending it along with every request to the API, where the server/API validates the token. It can't be decrypted/read without the private key (which the server/API stores secretly) Read update.
The new (more secure) flow would be:
Login
User logs in and sends login credentials to API (over SSL/HTTPS)
API receives login credentials
If valid:
Register a new session in the database Read update
Encrypt User ID, Session ID, IP address, timestamp, etc. in a JWT with a private key.
API sends the JWT token back to the client (over SSL/HTTPS)
Client receives the JWT token and stores in localStorage/cookie
Every request to API
User sends a HTTP request to API (over SSL/HTTPS) with the stored JWT token in the HTTP header
API reads HTTP header and decrypts JWT token with its private key
API validates the JWT token, matches the IP address from the HTTP request with the one in the JWT token and checks if session has expired
If valid:
Return response with requested content
If invalid:
Throw exception (403 / 401)
Flag intrusion in the system
Send a warning email to the user.
Updated 30.07.15:
JWT payload/claims can actually be read without the private key (secret) and it's not secure to store it in localStorage. I'm sorry about these false statements. However they seem to be working on a JWE standard (JSON Web Encryption).
I implemented this by storing claims (userID, exp) in a JWT, signed it with a private key (secret) the API/backend only knows about and stored it as a secure HttpOnly cookie on the client. That way it cannot be read via XSS and cannot be manipulated, otherwise the JWT fails signature verification. Also by using a secure HttpOnly cookie, you're making sure that the cookie is sent only via HTTP requests (not accessible to script) and only sent via secure connection (HTTPS).
Updated 17.07.16:
JWTs are by nature stateless. That means they invalidate/expire themselves. By adding the SessionID in the token's claims you're making it stateful, because its validity doesn't now only depend on signature verification and expiry date, it also depends on the session state on the server. However the upside is you can invalidate tokens/sessions easily, which you couldn't before with stateless JWTs.
I would go for the second, the token system.
Did you know about ember-auth or ember-simple-auth? They both use the token based system, like ember-simple-auth states:
A lightweight and unobtrusive library for implementing token based
authentication in Ember.js applications.
http://ember-simple-auth.simplabs.com
They have session management, and are easy to plug into existing projects too.
There is also an Ember App Kit example version of ember-simple-auth: Working example of ember-app-kit using ember-simple-auth for OAuth2 authentication.