I am building a secure ReST API on a nodeJS server so that my Android application can access the data on my site. Based on reading some other posts, I've come to understand that I should use an access token. So my idea is to do the following:
1) When the user logs in on the Android app, the app sends a request to /api/login on my site, providing the username and password (this of course needs to happen over SSL to guard against eavesdropping).
2) My server validates that the username + password match, and, if so, responds with an access token.
3) The app uses this access token to make all subsequent requests to my API.
My question is should I store the access token in the database on my server? Specifically, should I store the fact that the access token is associated with that particular user? Most tutorials I looked at did not do this, but if I don't, then what is to stop a user with this access token modifying or viewing the data of another user? Don't I need to pair an access token with a user in my database?
try using this library, i did the same type of project and this life saver was my solution.
If you need to build a secure API the things are little more complicated. You need to sign the access token with a private keystore.
Would it be a option to use a authentication service like Auth0? They are generating a JWT token for you and you only need to validate this token. The API is completely stateless. You can find a lib for almost any programming language on their website.
What you want to do is exactly HTTP Sessions do.
So, I think you can just use HTTP Session functionality It's already implemented in WAS frameworks like Django, Spring etc. If NodeJS provide session functionality, Just use session functionality in the framework. If not, look up the HTTP Session library. Maybe you can find many library that treat session implementation.
Related
Problem:
I want to create a webapp with VueJS and a custom backend with NodeJS (ExperssJS and PostgreSQL). It should be possible to login with a username and password. After a successful login, the user can access secured endpoints of the ExpressJS server.
Now I am thinking how I can securely authenticate HTTP requests after a successful login.
What I consider doing:
Using a JWT and providing it in the authentication header of every request.
When the user provides correct login data, the server creates a JWT and sends it as response to the client. The client stores the token and adds it to every HTTP request as the authorization header. Because the transport is secured with TLS (HTTPS) the token should not be visible while transporting. To provide a seamless user experience the token has to be saved at the client side, so the user does not have to authenticate for each request.
So my question is: How can I securely save a JWT token for further HTTP request authentication?
Possible options:
LocalSotrage - BAD IDEA! (not really secure)
Cookie - more security (but also not perfect)
Last thoughts:
Isn't there an "absolute secure" or a "best practice" method to handle authentication for such a scenario?
P.S. I am pretty new to this field, so please forgive me if i wrote something stupid :D I am also aware that there are a lot of tutorials on how to setup something like this, but what i want to know is, which technique is the best and most secure one.
Thanks in advance!
PassportJS also support using local strategy. You might want to take a look about it. here
If you are new then it's better to use already build user authentication flow like Google login, Discord Login etc.
There is a well known library called Passport JS which makes third party login system integration a breeze.
I have poured over the OAuth2 docs and seen how the Facebook Javascript SDK uses Implicit Grant.
I am building a ReactJs application, which communicates with a PHP-Symfony API.
What I want to do is offer the "Login with Facebook" option on the frontend.
What I need on my PHP server is the Facebook user id and email and other data of the user so I can initially create a user record for them in my DB and then on returning visit, use the auth token to get that info again on the server and use it to match it to existing records and log the user in.
We have done this previously using the Authorization Code Grant method to redirect the frontend to our server, then to facebook and then back to us with the auth code. We then use that on the server with our Secret Key to get the Access Token and get the user info directly from Facebook to our server and then authenticate the user.
The redirection is a bit of a pain for a single page application.
Facebook's Javascript SDK handles a lot of that automatically, but uses Implicit Grant, returning an Access Token directly to the frontend.
What I want to know is, can I just send that Access Token to my server to do the same type of authentication that I did before? Or is that a massive security hole that I am opening up?
Comparing the two, the Auth Code from the Authorization Code Grant flow also goes via the frontend, but very quickly, not directly to JavaScript and is much shorter lived. So it feels much more secure.
If intercepted in time and with matching state, it could be used to authenticate someone on our server, but not access someone's Facebook data directly.
Reusing the frontend Access Token from the Implicit Grant flow feels like it is open to messing with, but I can't put my finger on the exact scenario that would make it more vulnerable to attack. The token would potentially give people access to not only authenticating on our server but also to accessing people's Facebook info.
So this is ultimately a question of best practice and security.
We think that we should be able to implement our own popout window that does the Authorization Code Grant style flow and retrieves our server cookie which can then be used by the page that spawned it, but it is going to be tricky and most of the work seems to be done for the Implicit Grant method, if it is safe to use as we intend to use it.
Best Practices AND According to the RFC 6749
However, this convenience should be weighed against the security
implications of using implicit grants, such as those described in
Sections 10.3 and 10.16, especially when the authorization code
grant type is available.
I am currently creating an API (who isn't) however when I look for a way to use oAuth in the ways Facebook and twitter do to authenticate users trying to get data all i find is a way to get users permissions which I do not need, the idea of my implementation of oAuth is to authenticate the developer so when they make an API call the server knows who they are and what to serve them. I haven't tried any oAuth code because I haven't found node module that will help so far, however I can give background. I am using:
Mongoose, to query MongoDB
Express, for the HTTP Server
I do not explicitly want to use oAuth, I simply thought it was a good idea, I am open to any other way of doing things.
I think you should read the OAuth specification and to decide if one of the grant flows suits for your requirements. When user(developer) logs in you grant Access Token to him/her. Now on when user makes request to API the Access Token must be on HTTP request header, extracting that Access Token on back-end service from the request you can identify the user.
It is up to you what kind of information you store to DB from the user when she/he registers to your service. But all that information can be mapped with the Access Token that user gets after succesful login or stored inside the Access Token also.
I'm developing the restful web app that using some popular web framework on the backend, say (rails, sinatra, flask, express.js). Ideally, I want to develop client side with Backbone.js. How do I let only my javascript client side interact with those API calls? I don't want those API calls to be public and be called by curl or simply by entering the link on browser.
As a first principle, if your API is consumed by your JS client, you have to assume, that it is public: A simple JS debugger puts an attacker into a position, where he can send a byte-for-byte identical request from a tool of his choice.
That said, if I read your question correctly, this is not, what you want to avoid: What you really don't want to happen is, that your API is consumed (on a regular basis) without your JS client being involved. Here are some ideas on how to if not enforce, then at least encourage using your client:
I am sure, your API has some sort of authentication field (e.g. Hash computed on the client). If not, take a look at This SO question. Make sure you use a salt (or even API key) that is given to your JS client on a session basis (a.o.t. hardcoded). This way, an unauthorized consumer of your API is forced into much more work.
On loading the JS client, remember some HTTP headers (user agent comes to mind) and the IP address and ask for reauthentication if they change, employing blacklists for the usual suspects. This forces an attacker to do his homework more thoroughly again.
On the server side, remember the last few API calls, and before allowing another one, check if business logic allows for the new one right now: This denies an attacker the ability to concentrate many of his sessions into one session with your server: In combination with the other measures, this will make an abuser easy detectable.
I might not have said that with the necessary clarity: I consider it impossible to make it completely impossible for an abuser to consume your service, but you can make it so hard, it might not be worth the hassle.
You should implement some sort of authentication system. One good way to handle this is to define some expected header variables. For example, you can have an auth/login API call that returns a session token. Subsequent calls to your API will expect a session token to be set in an HTTP header variable with a specific name like 'your-api-token'.
Alternatively many systems create access tokens or keys that are expected (like youtube, facebook or twitter) using some sort of api account system. In those cases, your client would have to store these in some manner in the client.
Then it's simply a matter of adding a check for the session into your REST framework and throwing an exception. If at all possible the status code (to be restful) would be a 401 error.
There's an open standard now called "JSON Web Token",
see https://jwt.io/ & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_Web_Token
JSON Web Token (JWT) is a JSON-based open standard (RFC 7519) for
creating tokens that assert some number of claims. For example, a
server could generate a token that has the claim "logged in as admin"
and provide that to a client. The client could then use that token to
prove that they are logged in as admin. The tokens are signed by the
server's key, so the server is able to verify that the token is
legitimate. The tokens are designed to be compact, URL-safe and usable
especially in web browser single sign-on (SSO) context. JWT claims can
be typically used to pass identity of authenticated users between an
identity provider and a service provider, or any other type of claims
as required by business processes.[1][2] The tokens can also be
authenticated and encrypted.[3][4]
Set a SESSION var on the server when the client first loads your index.html (or backbone.js etc.)
Check this var on the server-side on every API call.
P.S. this is not a "security" solution!!! This is just to ease the load on your server so people don't abuse it or "hotlink" your API from other websites and apps.
Excuse me #MarkAmery and Eugene, but that is incorrect.
Your js+html (client) app running in the browser CAN be set up to exclude unauthorized direct calls to the API as follows:
First step: Set up the API to require authentication. The client must first authenticate itself via the server (or some other security server) for example asking the human user to provide the correct password.
Before authentication the calls to the API are not accepted.
During authentication a "token" is returned.
After authentication only API calls with the authentication "token" will be accepted.
Of course at this stage only authorized users who have the password can access the API, although if they are programmers debugging the app, they can access it directly for testing purposes.
Second step: Now set up an extra security API, that is to be called within a short limit of time after the client js+html app was initially requested from the server. This "callback" will tell the server that the client was downloaded successfully. Restrict your REST API calls to work only if the client was requested recently and successfully.
Now in order to use your API they must first download the client and actually run it in a browser. Only after successfully receiving the callback, and then user entry within a short frame of time, will the API accept calls.
So you do not have to worry that this may be an unauthorized user without credentials.
(The title of the question, 'How do I secure REST API calls', and from most of what you say, that is your major concern, and not the literal question of HOW your API is called, but rather BY WHOM, correct?)
Here's what I do:
Secure the API with an HTTP Header with calls such as X-APITOKEN:
Use session variables in PHP. Have a login system in place and save the user token in session variables.
Call JS code with Ajax to PHP and use the session variable with curl to call the API. That way, if the session variable is not set, it won't call and the PHP code contains the Access Token to the API.
We are building a rest service and we want to use OAauth 2 for authorization. The current draft (v2-16 from May 19th) describes four grant types. They are mechanisms or flows for obtaining authorization (an access token).
Authorization Code
Implicit Grant
Resource Owner Credentials
Client Credentials
It seems we need to support all four of them, since they serve different purposes. The first two (and possibly the last one) can be used from third-party apps that need access to the API. The authorization code is the standard way to authorize a web application that is lucky enough to reside on a secure server, while the implicit grant flow would be the choice for a client application that can’t quite keep its credentials confidential (e.g. mobile/desktop application, JavaScript client, etc.).
We want to use the third mechanism ourselves to provide a better user experience on mobile devices – instead of taking the user to a login dialog in a web browser and so on, the user will simply enter his or her username and password directly in the application and login.
We also want to use the Client Credentials grant type to obtain an access token that can be used to view public data, not associated with any user. In this case this is not so much authorization, but rather something similar to an API key that we use to give access only to applications that have registered with us, giving us an option to revoke access if needed.
So my questions are:
Do you think I have understood the purpose of the different grant types correctly?
How can you keep your client credentials confidential? In both the third and fourth case, we need to have the client id and client secret somewhere on the client, which doesn't sound like a good idea.
Even if you use the implicit grant type and you don’t expose your client secret, what stops another application from impersonating your app using the same authorization mechanism and your client id?
To summarize, we want to be able to use the client credentials and resource owner credentials flow from a client application. Both of these flows require you to store the client secret somehow, but the client is a mobile or JavaScript application, so these could easily be stolen.
I'm facing similar issues, and am also relatively new to OAuth. I've implemented "Resource Owner Password Credentials" in our API for our official mobile app to use -- the web flows just seem like they'd be so horrible to use on a mobile platform, and once the user installs an app and trusts that it's our official app, they should feel comfortable typing username/password directly into the app.
The problem is, as you point out, there is no way for my API server to securely verify the client_id of the app. If I include a client_secret in the app code/package, then it's exposed to anyone who installs the app, so requiring a client_secret wouldn't make the process any more secure. So basically, any other app can impersonate my app by copying the client_id.
Just to direct answers at each of your points:
I keep re-reading different drafts of the spec to see if anything's changed, and am focused mostly on the Resource Owner Password Credentials section, but I think you're correct on these. Client Credentials(4) I think could also be used by an in-house or third-party service that might need access to more than just "public" information, like maybe you have analytics or something that need to get information across all users.
I don't think you can keep anything confidential on the client.
Nothing stops someone else from using your client id. This is my issue too. Once your code leaves the server and is either installed as an app or is running as Javascript in a browser, you can't assume anything is secret.
For our website, we had a similar issue to what you describe with the Client Credentials flow. What I ended up doing is moving the authentication to the server side. The user can authenticate using our web app, but the OAuth token to our API is stored on the server side, and associated with the user's web session. All API requests that the Javascript code makes are actually AJAX calls to the web server. So the browser isn't directly authenticated with the API, but instead has an authenticated web session.
It seems like your use-case for Client Credentials is different, in that you're talking about third-party apps, and are only serving public data through this method. I think your concerns are valid (anyone can steal and use anyone else's API key), but if you only require a free registration to get an API key, I don't see why anyone would really want to steal one.
You could monitor/analyze the usage of each API key to try to detect abuse, at which point you could invalidate one API key and give the legitimate user a new one. This might be the best option, but it's in no way secure.
You could also use a Refresh Token-like scheme for this if you wanted to lock it up a bit tighter, although I don't know how much you would really gain. If you expired the Javascript-exposed api tokens once a day and required the third-party to do some sort of server-side refresh using a (secret) refresh token, then stolen api tokens would never be good for more than a day. Might encourage potential token thieves to just register instead. But sort of a pain for everyone else, so not sure if this is worth it.