Related
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
Am I correct that OAuth 1.0a credentials need to be stored in plaintext (or in a way that can be retrieved as plaintext) on the server, at least when doing 2-legged authentication? Isn't this much less secure than using a username and salted+hashed password, assuming you're using HTTPS or other TLS? Is there a way to store those credentials in such a way that a security breach doesn't require every single one to be revoked?
In more detail: I'm implementing an API and want to secure it with OAuth 1.0a. There will possibly be many different API clients in the future, but the only one so far has no need for sensitive user data, so I'm planning to use "2-legged" OAuth.
As I understand it, this means I generate a consumer key and a shared secret for each API client. On every API request, the client provides both the consumer key, and a signature generated with the shared secret. The secret itself is not sent over the wire, and I definitely understand why this is better than sending a username and password directly.
However, as I understand it, both the consumer and the provider must explicitly store both the consumer key and the shared secret (correct me if I'm wrong), and this seems like a major security risk. If an attacker breached the provider's data store containing the consumer keys and shared secrets, every single API client would be compromised and the only way to re-secure the system would be to revoke every single key. This is in contrast to passwords, which are (ideally) never stored in a reversible fashion on the server. If you're salting and hashing your passwords, then an attacker would not be able to break into any accounts just by compromising your database.
All the research I've done seems to just gloss over this problem by saying "secure the credentials as you would with any sensitive data", but that seems ridiculous. Breaches do occur, and while they may expose sensitive data they shouldn't allow the attacker to impersonate the user, right?
You are correct. oAuth allows you however to login on the behalf of a user, so the target server (the one you access data from) needs to trust the token you present.
Password hashes are good when you are the receiver of the secret as keyed-in by the user (which, by the way, is what effectively what happens when oAuth presents the login/acceptance window to the user to generate afterwards the token). This is where the "plaintext" part happens (the user inputs his password in plaintext).
You need to have an equivalent mechanism so that the server recognizes you; what oAuth offers is the capacity to present something else than a password - a limited authorization form the use to login on his behalf. If this leaks then you need to invalidate it.
You could store these secrets in more or less elaborated ways, at the end of the day you still need to present the "plaintext" version t the server (that server, however, may use a hash to store it for checking purposes, as it just needs to verify that what you present in plain text, when hashed, corresponds to the hash they store)
I figured this has been answered before, but a quick SO search didn't yield anything.
I have a private API that is locked down by an APIKey. This key needs to be passed for each request. With this key you can access any part of the API. Obviously that's pretty open. For the most part this is acceptable. However, there are cases where I want to ensure that the request is sent by the owner of the data.
For example, consider an update or delete request. You shouldn't be able to make this request for someone else's data. So in addition to the APIKey, I'd like to have something else to ensure that this user making the request is authorized to perform that action.
I could require that an ownerID be passed with such request. But that's quickly forged. So what have I gained.
I am interested to hear what other members of SO have implemented in these situations. Individual APIKeys? Dual-authorization?
If it matters, my API follows the REST architecture and is developed with PHP/Apache.
API keys should be unique per user. This will verify the user and that they should have access to the data.
If you want to be even more secure you can have that api secret be used as a refresh token that can be used to retrieve an access token with an automated expiration.
SSL for all requests is also suggested.
Each API user has a unique API key. This key identifies them as a single user of the system. When dealing with more sensitive data, I've used client side certificates for auth, however Basic Auth + requiring SSL is usually sufficient.
When the request comes in, map the API key to the user and then determine if that user "owns" the resource they are trying to interact with.
The whole "determine the owner" part is a separate issue that can be tricky to do nicely in an API depending on how well the system was built. I can share how we've done that in the past as well, but figured that's a bit off topic.
Suggest you should consider using Oauth. In summary this is how it should work.
Each application making the API calls will need the respective application level APIkey for authorization through the Oauth process. Apikey here would just represent the application (client) identity.
Each end-user associated with the usage must authenticate themselves separately (independent of the apikey) during the Oauth authorization process. The users identity, associated context such as scope of authorization is then encoded into a token called access token.
Once the application obtains this access token, all subsequent API calls to access resources should use the access token, until expiry.
On the API implementation side, the access token validation should reveal the end-user context (including the scope of access that is granted during the Oauth process) and hence the access/authorization to use a specific resource can be managed by the resource server.
we are implementing a new web service. The web service will be a store of sensitive data and there are multiple users types with different permissions. So some user types can't access(and some can't change, and so on) certain types of data. How would this work in REST? I'm very new to REST, so sorry if this sounds noobish.
Your first step is to provide some transport encryption in the form of SSL. This should take care of ensureing there are no man in the middle attacks and that nobody is snooping the data. Second you'll need to figure out some sort of authentication method. A popular method is to create a login service to which you send a user name and password and it returns some sort of a limited life key. You then send this key along with all subsiquent requests and the server validates it before returning any data. If you have different user levels then as well as checking the key also check if the given user should be able to access that information.
No matter what you will probably want to encrypt it with HTTPS.
The client can simply include the username and password in every request.
Or you can have a logon request that authenticates the user and returns a session state token in a cookie or as part of the response.
As the first poster states, it is a popular model to provide a means for clients to first authenticate against your system (google do this for a number of their apis). The reply to which includes a token for the client to include as a parameter on subsequent requests.
e.g. HTTP POST (over SSL) to http://you/auth with username and (MD5 hash of password) - compare this to the MD5 of the password you have stored for them.
Respond with HTTP 200 OK and a message body or header with your authentication token.
This has a twofold benefit over resubmitting auth credentials with each request. There is as reduced processing overhead for the token (now just a validity check - possibly against an in-memory store of valid tokens) rather than a DB lookup for user and password. You also reduce the number of times the credentials are sent over the wire (albeit encrypted thanks to SSL).
Implementing access control on your resource endpoints will require a bit more work but is fundamentally just a specifying which tokens can be used against which resources. This will vary depending on your scenario.
Hope this makes sense, and good luck.
I want to understand what token-based authentication means. I searched the internet but couldn't find anything understandable.
I think it's well explained here -- quoting just the key sentences of the long article:
The general concept behind a
token-based authentication system is
simple. Allow users to enter their
username and password in order to
obtain a token which allows them to
fetch a specific resource - without
using their username and password.
Once their token has been obtained,
the user can offer the token - which
offers access to a specific resource
for a time period - to the remote
site.
In other words: add one level of indirection for authentication -- instead of having to authenticate with username and password for each protected resource, the user authenticates that way once (within a session of limited duration), obtains a time-limited token in return, and uses that token for further authentication during the session.
Advantages are many -- e.g., the user could pass the token, once they've obtained it, on to some other automated system which they're willing to trust for a limited time and a limited set of resources, but would not be willing to trust with their username and password (i.e., with every resource they're allowed to access, forevermore or at least until they change their password).
If anything is still unclear, please edit your question to clarify WHAT isn't 100% clear to you, and I'm sure we can help you further.
From Auth0.com
Token-Based Authentication, relies on a signed token that is sent to
the server on each request.
What are the benefits of using a token-based approach?
Cross-domain / CORS: cookies + CORS don't play well across different domains. A token-based approach allows you to make AJAX
calls to any server, on any domain because you use an HTTP header
to transmit the user information.
Stateless (a.k.a. Server side scalability): there is no need to keep a session store, the token is a self-contained entity that conveys all the user information. The rest of the state lives in cookies or local storage on the client side.
CDN: you can serve all the assets of your app from a CDN (e.g. javascript, HTML, images, etc.), and your server side is just the API.
Decoupling: you are not tied to any particular authentication scheme. The token might be generated anywhere, hence your API can
be called from anywhere with a single way of authenticating those
calls.
Mobile ready: when you start working on a native platform (iOS, Android, Windows 8, etc.) cookies are not ideal when consuming a
token-based approach simplifies this a lot.
CSRF: since you are not relying on cookies, you don't need to protect against cross site requests (e.g. it would not be possible to
sib your site, generate a POST request and re-use the existing authentication cookie because there will be none).
Performance: we are not presenting any hard perf benchmarks here, but a network roundtrip (e.g. finding a session on database)
is likely to take more time than calculating an HMACSHA256 to
validate a token and parsing its contents.
A token is a piece of data which only Server X could possibly have created, and which contains enough data to identify a particular user.
You might present your login information and ask Server X for a token; and then you might present your token and ask Server X to perform some user-specific action.
Tokens are created using various combinations of various techniques from the field of cryptography as well as with input from the wider field of security research. If you decide to go and create your own token system, you had best be really smart.
A token is a piece of data created by server, and contains information to identify a particular user and token validity. The token will contain the user's information, as well as a special token code that user can pass to the server with every method that supports authentication, instead of passing a username and password directly.
Token-based authentication is a security technique that authenticates the users who attempt to log in to a server, a network, or some other secure system, using a security token provided by the server.
An authentication is successful if a user can prove to a server that he or she is a valid user by passing a security token. The service validates the security token and processes the user request.
After the token is validated by the service, it is used to establish security context for the client, so the service can make authorization decisions or audit activity for successive user requests.
Source (Web Archive)
Token Based (Security / Authentication)
This means that in order for us to prove that we’ve access we first have to receive the token. In a real-life scenario, the token could be an access card to the building, it could be the key to the lock to your house. In order for you to retrieve a key card for your office or the key to your home, you first need to prove who you are and that you in fact do have access to that token. It could be something as simple as showing someone your ID or giving them a secret password. So imagine I need to get access to my office. I go down to the security office, I show them my ID, and they give me this token, which lets me into the building. Now I have unrestricted access to do whatever I want inside the building, as long as I have my token with me.
What’s the benefit of token-based security?
If we think back on the insecure API, what we had to do in that case was that we had to provide our password for everything that we wanted to do.
Imagine that every time we enter a door in our office, we have to give everyone sitting next to the door our password. Now that would be pretty bad because that means that anyone inside our office could take our password and impersonate us, and that’s pretty bad. Instead, what we do is that we retrieve the token, of course together with the password, but we retrieve that from one person. And then we can use this token wherever we want inside the building. Of course, if we lose the token, we have the same problem as if someone else knew our password, but that leads us to things like how do we make sure that if we lose the token, we can revoke the access, and maybe the token shouldn’t live for longer than 24 hours, so the next day that we come to the office, we need to show our ID again. But still, there’s just one person that we show the ID to, and that’s the security guard sitting where we retrieve the tokens.
The question is old and the technology has advanced, here is the current state:
JSON Web Token (JWT) is a JSON-based open standard (RFC 7519) for passing claims between parties in web application environment. The tokens are designed to be compact, URL-safe and usable especially in web browser single sign-on (SSO) context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_Web_Token
It's just hash which is associated with user in database or some other way. That token can be used to authenticate and then authorize a user access related contents of the application. To retrieve this token on client side login is required. After first time login you need to save retrieved token not any other data like session, session id because here everything is token to access other resources of application.
Token is used to assure the authenticity of the user.
UPDATES:
In current time, We have more advanced token based technology called JWT (Json Web Token). This technology helps to use same token in multiple systems and we call it single sign-on.
Basically JSON Based Token contains information about user details and token expiry details. So that information can be used to further authenticate or reject the request if token is invalid or expired based on details.
When you register for a new website, often you are sent an email to activate your account. That email typically contains a link to click on. Part of that link, contains a token, the server knows about this token and can associate it with your account. The token would usually have an expiry date associated with it, so you may only have an hour to click on the link and activate your account. None of this would be possible with cookies or session variables, since its unknown what device or browser the customer is using to check emails.