I am using IdentityServer4 with a custom user store (based on SQL Server DB).
I want to know how can I store access tokens in order to check that every request have the right access token.
I tried to use the default operational store but it just saves the refresh tokens and authorization code.
Thanks in advance.
If I understand you correctly, you want to save access token on the server side so that you can authenticate user request. You do NOT need to store the access token on server side as IdentityServer has done this for you. If you set up your api (resource server) correctly with identity server, all you need is add [Authorize] on your api controllers (seems like that you're using .net core web api). You can find many examples on the IdentityServer docs and sample project on Github.
In the meantime, you may need to store the access token on client side because until a token expires there is no need to authenticate the user again; this depends on which grant type you use. This is particularly true when you use ResourceOwnerPassword grant; if you client side is a SPA (e.g. Angular) then normally access token is store in the browser's local storage; for each client request, you check whether there is already a token and if so also check it hasn't expired.
And it's possible to support refresh token for different grants so that user is auto re-authenticated when its access token expires.
Related
I am currently writing a social media backend server, which should handle a lot of users.
As authentication mechanism, we want to use Google's & Apple's OIDC Authentication (Sign in with Apple).
Now, as we get a opaque access token, I cant really imagine a performant way to authorize the opaque access token, as we can not decode the token (not jwt token) and we do not know the issuer.
What I thought:
Authorize the access token sequentially one by one. Meaning:
Fetch Google/userinfo from Google
If 401, Fetch Apple/userinfo
This is unperformant, as the processing time is getting bigger, when we add more IDP's
Save the issuer in the DB and fetch the user's issuer always in the authentication step, before fetching the /userinfo endpoint
This is more performant, but it does not feel right, as the webserver has to make a DB call + HTTP call to authorize a request from the client.
Am I missing a method to get this in a performant way?
BTW: The webserver is a node.js application using express.js
Thank you very much in advice!
The key point here is that foreign access tokens are not designed for authorization in your own back end. Instead you need to issue your own tokens when sign in completes.
AUTHORIZATION SERVER (AS)
The most standard solution is for your apps to talk to an AS that you own, and for it to manage the social logins for you. The AS will then issue tokens that you can fully customize.
This will enable you to fully control the scopes and claims your back end uses for authorization, as well as the session times in UIs. Your back end will only ever work with access tokens issued by the AS, regardless of the login method a user selects.
When you need to add a new login method you just change the AS configuration and will not need to change any code in your apps. A good AS will support integrating with many systems, as demonstrated in this summary page.
BACKGROUND
I have an application with a node backend and an angular frontend. The backend has two GraphQl endpoints:
/auth, which has methods like:
signIn, which authenticate an interactive user (basic usr/pwd) from my angular front and and returns an access token and a secure httpOnly refresh token (cookie);
refreshToken, which returns a new access token; and
signOut, which just revokes the refresh token.
/api, which contains the business rules, and authenticates the request by the access token received (stateless)
The angular frontend authenticates the user by calling the /auth/signIn endpoint, keeps the access token in memory, is unaware about the httpOnly refresh token, and creates a timer to call the /auth/refreshToken periodically.
PROBLEM
I need to grant access to my customers to access the /api programmatically too (e.g. from Zapier), so we are talking about an API-KEY, right? I was thinking about creating an API-KEY section in the SETTINGS area in the frontend and CRUDE methods in the /auth endpoint to maintain them. I would create a new special non interactive “user”, in the users table linked to the generated API-KEY so that, for instance, the user Zapier would be related to the API-KEY created to interact with Zapier and I could see its activity along the other users activities at the audit trail and easily revoke it by deleting that user.
QUESTION
Should I use a long term (?) access token as API-KEY? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of using access tokens? My /api would no longer be stateless and I would have to check the existence of the access token for each request, right? It doesn’t seem the right choice. Is there a better approach?
Using the refresh token as API-KEY doesn’t seem to be an option to me, first, because it doesn't seem to be allowed to set a httpOnly cookie on the client side, second, because the logic to update the access token would be too complex to the user and third, because I wouldn't want to expose the /auth endpoint.
API Keys are very weak security so ultimately this depends on data sensitivity such as whether it is serious if an attacker can access your data easily for a long time.
I would favour a standard OAuth flow for the type of client - perhaps Client Credentials Grant - so that access tokens are used, which are valid for a limited time period, such as 30 minutes. Expiry and refresh coding is well documented online.
If it is a user app then maybe the app (or its back end) needs to do some work to get tokens correctly.
If the customer is writing code to call the API with code then they need to be given guidance on how to authenticate and manage expiry. These details are well documented online.
Attaching a token could even be managed by an outbound proxy if these users are very non technical, where the proxy deals with supplying a token.
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.
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 know there are already many posts about Oauth, Oauth2, JWT, etc.. I have read many and I more confused than ever so I am looking for some clarification. I will propose my view on the subject and I hope somebody can tell me if my implementation is secure enough or what I am doing wrong and how to improve it.
I am building an API Rest server for serving my resources to my users. Let's suppose it is a bank app where users can deposit, withdraw and transfer money.
I am using nodejs, hapijs, jsonwebtokens, and bcrypt for my server. I want to implement two token authentication flow (Oauth2).
This is the way I am doing it:
User logs in to the auth server by giving some credentials (username and password).
The server verifies the user's credentials, if they are valid, it will grant access to the user and return a refresh token and an access token.
These tokens are saved into the local storage of the browser or mobile device.
The access token:
is signed as a jsonwebtoken.
contains issued date, expiration date (5 min), user data (id, username).
The refresh token:
is signed as a jsonwebtoken and encrypted with bcrypt.
contains a unique identifier
may contain an expiration date
is saved in the database.
As long as the access token is valid, that means, it has not expired and contains valid user data, the resource server serves the user the requested resources.
When the access token is no longer valid, the auth server requests the client to provide a refresh token in order to issue a new access token
The server receives the refresh token from the user, decrypts it, compares it to the one in the database, checks if it has been revoked, and checks its unique identifier.
If the refresh token passes all tests, the server issues a new access token to the client.
If the refresh token fails one test, the server requests the user to re-authenticate.
Notes: I am trying to avoid the usage of cookies.
Questions:
If the user is able to steal an access token, I guess it can also steal the refresh token. So, how can I make the refresh token more secure?
Is my perspective of the Oauth2 flow correct?
What can I improve?
Am I missing something?
The reason OAuth2 is so confusion to many people is because it uses different authentication flows depending on what kind of client is used.
OAuth2 distinguishes two client type, confidential or public. Next to that, there are 2 grant flows that are redirection based (auth code and implicit) which are meant to be used with a browser or browser control.
The other two flows (resource owner password and client credentials) are meant to be used from non-browser apps (CLI, background services, trusted mobile clients).
I've described the different flows and when to use them in more detail in this answer here.