I have a Node.js REST API which is usually consumed with a valid token after login from UI . The token generation and authentication happens on my node.js server only. I have to secure this API for programatic access.
For example, an "Add item to an inventory API". The API should allow adding item after a merchant logs in through the UI as well as through programmatic access from his end (Assume he has an automatic system which enables him to be able to do so periodically)
How do I secure such a system properly. I have few solutions in my mind to implement
this but what would be the most right way to do this ?
It sounds like you want to provide your merchant an API key in order to access your app's APIs. It's a very common pattern.
Thanks for your help in advance.
I'm using React Native and Node.js to deliver a product for my company.
I've setup the steps on the backend to retrieve a password, validate it and respond with a token. The only problem is - the password I use on the front end (mobile app) to be validated by the back end is hardcoded.
My question is:
How should I securely store this password on the mobile app so that it can not be sniffed out by a hacker and used to compromise the backend?
My research so far.
Embedded in strings.xml
Hidden in Source Code
Hidden in BuildConfigs
Using Proguard
Disguised/Encrypted Strings
Hidden in Native Libraries
http://rammic.github.io/2015/07/28/hiding-secrets-in-android-apps/
These methods are basically useless because hackers can easily circumnavigate these methods of protection.
https://github.com/oblador/react-native-keychain
Although this may obfuscate keys, these still have to be hardcoded. Making these kind of useless, unless I'm missing something.
I could use a .env file
https://github.com/luggit/react-native-config
Again, I feel like the hacker can still view secret keys, even if they are saved in a .env
I want to be able to store keys in the app so that I can validate the user an allow them to access resources on the backend. However, I don't know what the best plan of action is to ensure user/business security.
What suggestions do you have to protect the world (react- native apps) from pesky hackers, when they're stealing keys and using them inappropriately?
Your Question
I've setup the steps on the backend to retrieve a password, validate it and respond with a token. The only problem is - the password I use on the front end (mobile app) to be validated by the back end is hardcoded.
My question is:
How should I securely store this password on the mobile app so that it can not be sniffed out by a hacker and used to compromise the backend?
The cruel truth is... you can't!!!
It seems that you already have done some extensive research on the subject, and in my opinion you mentioned one effective way of shipping your App with an embedded secret:
Hidden in Native Libraries
But as you also say:
These methods are basically useless because hackers can easily circumnavigate these methods of protection.
Some are useless and others make reverse engineer the secret from the mobile app a lot harder. As I wrote here, the approach of using the native interfaces to hide the secret will require expertise to reverse engineer it, but then if is hard to reverse engineer the binary you can always resort to a man in the middle (MitM) attack to steel the secret, as I show here for retrieving a secret that is hidden in the mobile app binary with the use of the native interfaces, JNI/NDK.
To protect your mobile app from a MitM you can employ Certificate Pinning:
Pinning is the process of associating a host with their expected X509 certificate or public key. Once a certificate or public key is known or seen for a host, the certificate or public key is associated or 'pinned' to the host. If more than one certificate or public key is acceptable, then the program holds a pinset (taking from Jon Larimer and Kenny Root Google I/O talk). In this case, the advertised identity must match one of the elements in the pinset.
You can read this series of react native articles that show you how to apply certificate pinning to protect the communication channel between your mobile app and the API server.
If you don't know yet certificcate pinning can also be bypassed by using tools like Frida or xPosed.
Frida
Inject your own scripts into black box processes. Hook any function, spy on crypto APIs or trace private application code, no source code needed. Edit, hit save, and instantly see the results. All without compilation steps or program restarts.
xPosed
Xposed is a framework for modules that can change the behavior of the system and apps without touching any APKs. That's great because it means that modules can work for different versions and even ROMs without any changes (as long as the original code was not changed too much). It's also easy to undo.
So now you may be wondering how can I protect from certificate pinning bypass?
Well is not easy, but is possible, by using a mobile app attestation solution.
Before we go further on it, I would like to clarify first a common misconception among developers, regarding WHO and WHAT is accessing the API server.
The Difference Between WHO and WHAT is Accessing the API Server
To better understand the differences between the WHO and the WHAT are accessing an API server, let’s use this picture:
The Intended Communication Channel represents the mobile app being used as you expected, by a legit user without any malicious intentions, using an untampered version of the mobile app, and communicating directly with the API server without being man in the middle attacked.
The actual channel may represent several different scenarios, like a legit user with malicious intentions that may be using a repackaged version of the mobile app, a hacker using the genuine version of the mobile app, while man in the middle attacking it, to understand how the communication between the mobile app and the API server is being done in order to be able to automate attacks against your API. Many other scenarios are possible, but we will not enumerate each one here.
I hope that by now you may already have a clue why the WHO and the WHAT are not the same, but if not it will become clear in a moment.
The WHO is the user of the mobile app that we can authenticate, authorize and identify in several ways, like using OpenID Connect or OAUTH2 flows.
OAUTH
Generally, OAuth provides to clients a "secure delegated access" to server resources on behalf of a resource owner. It specifies a process for resource owners to authorize third-party access to their server resources without sharing their credentials. Designed specifically to work with Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), OAuth essentially allows access tokens to be issued to third-party clients by an authorization server, with the approval of the resource owner. The third party then uses the access token to access the protected resources hosted by the resource server.
OpenID Connect
OpenID Connect 1.0 is a simple identity layer on top of the OAuth 2.0 protocol. It allows Clients to verify the identity of the End-User based on the authentication performed by an Authorization Server, as well as to obtain basic profile information about the End-User in an interoperable and REST-like manner.
While user authentication may let the API server know WHO is using the API, it cannot guarantee that the requests have originated from WHAT you expect, the original version of the mobile app.
Now we need a way to identify WHAT is calling the API server, and here things become more tricky than most developers may think. The WHAT is the thing making the request to the API server. Is it really a genuine instance of the mobile app, or is a bot, an automated script or an attacker manually poking around with the API server, using a tool like Postman?
For your surprise you may end up discovering that It can be one of the legit users using a repackaged version of the mobile app or an automated script that is trying to gamify and take advantage of the service provided by the application.
Well, to identify the WHAT, developers tend to resort to an API key that usually they hard-code in the code of their mobile app. Some developers go the extra mile and compute the key at run-time in the mobile app, thus it becomes a runtime secret as opposed to the former approach when a static secret is embedded in the code.
The above write-up was extracted from an article I wrote, entitled WHY DOES YOUR MOBILE APP NEED AN API KEY?, and that you can read in full here, that is the first article in a series of articles about API keys.
Mobile App Attestation
The use of a Mobile App Attestation solution will enable the API server to know WHAT is sending the requests, thus allowing to respond only to requests from a genuine mobile app while rejecting all other requests from unsafe sources.
The role of a Mobile App Attestation service is to guarantee at run-time that your mobile app was not tampered, is not running in a rooted device and is not being the target of a MitM attack. This is done by running a SDK in the background that will communicate with a service running in the cloud to attest the integrity of the mobile app and device is running on. The cloud service also verifies that the TLS certificate provided to the mobile app on the handshake with the API server is indeed the same in use by the original and genuine API server for the mobile app, not one from a MitM attack.
On successful attestation of the mobile app integrity a short time lived JWT token is issued and signed with a secret that only the API server and the Mobile App Attestation service in the cloud are aware. In the case of failure on the mobile app attestation the JWT token is signed with a secret that the API server does not know.
Now the App must sent with every API call the JWT token in the headers of the request. This will allow the API server to only serve requests when it can verify the signature and expiration time in the JWT token and refuse them when it fails the verification.
Once the secret used by the Mobile App Attestation service is not known by the mobile app, is not possible to reverse engineer it at run-time even when the App is tampered, running in a rooted device or communicating over a connection that is being the target of a Man in the Middle Attack.
So this solution works in a positive detection model without false positives, thus not blocking legit users while keeping the bad guys at bays.
What suggestions do you have to protect the world (react- native apps) from pesky hackers, when they're stealing keys and using them inappropriately?
I think you should relaly go with a mobile app attestation solution, that you can roll in your own if you have the expertise for it, or you can use a solution that already exists as a SAAS solution at Approov(I work here), that provides SDKs for several platforms, including iOS, Android, React Native and others. The integration will also need a small check in the API server code to verify the JWT token issued by the cloud service. This check is necessary for the API server to be able to decide what requests to serve and what ones to deny.
Summary
I want to be able to store keys in the app so that I can validate the user an allow them to access resources on the backend. However, I don't know what the best plan of action is to ensure user/business security.
Don't go down this route of storing keys in the mobile app, because as you already know, by your extensive research, they can be bypassed.
Instead use a mobile attestation solution in conjunction with OAUTH2 or OpenID connect, that you can bind with the mobile app attestation token. An example of this token binding can be found in this article for the check of the custom payload claim in the endpoint /forms.
Going the Extra Mile
OWASP Mobile Security Project - Top 10 risks
The OWASP Mobile Security Project is a centralized resource intended to give developers and security teams the resources they need to build and maintain secure mobile applications. Through the project, our goal is to classify mobile security risks and provide developmental controls to reduce their impact or likelihood of exploitation.
Our application is a Single Page App built with Angular and ASP.NET Core.
We have to integrate another web app which we will integrate in an iframe in our app. This app has to send data back to our application after the user finished his work.
I need to make sure, i can relate the data coming from this application to an authenticated user starting the operation in our app in a secure way.
Those were the options i thought in realizing the interface:
Generate a unique token in our application which knows about the related user and gets passed to the other application. The other application transmits this token along with it's other data back to our application and we can check this token on our backend to find out if it's a legitimate request and also relate it to a user.
Store cookies after authenticating the user in our app, so the other app could just post the data to our endpoint and the cookies make sure, the call takes place in the authenticated user's context. Also we would probably have to allow CORS from this site to make this work.
Use a non-http-based middleware (message broker) to connect the systems in a way, which keeps data transfer out of the browser.
Transmit the Bearer token from our application to the other application, so the other application can make an authenticated call to our application backend.
CORS would have to be activated as well for the other app's origin.
However i'm a bit concerned about the security implications this could have.
Which way would you suggest? Or would you suggest a completely other way of achieving the goal?
Thank you very much for any advise!
Number 2 and 4 will both have potential security issues. Passing authentication contexts between different applications should be avoided, instead each application should be authenticated independently.
Number 3 would add complexity to your architecture while bringing little to no benefit for your use case - message brokers are not trivial to configure and operate. I would also question why two apps need to be integrated in the client via and iFrame but then are somehow able to share a message broker.
Number 1 for me is the cleanest option from your ideas. Consider however, you will need to pass this token somehow in the client which may open security holes. Think about the negative implications of what could happen, should a nefarious 3rd party get access to this token.
In your place I would question why an iFrame. Would it be possible for your app to provide the UI and instead communicate with this other application over an API?
I want to implement login and logout functionality and retrive user details like username and user role using Azure Active Directory.
We are using Docker to deploy Spring cloud microservices project on Azure cloud. Could you please suggest me steps to get user details?
Do we need to secure all microservices edge points using Spring cloud OAuth2 security using JWT or just we can secure one web microservice ? Do I need any permission ,specific user roles to implement this?
You can find Azure's documentation about OAuth 2.0 support for AAD here
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/active-directory-protocols-oauth-code
I've got an application that's using OAuth 2.0 with a different Authentication Server, and I'm about to see if I can use AAD as the Authentication Server. But, whatever ends up being your Auth Server, the rest of the application should be the same...
The Auth Server handles the log in (typically as a Single-Sign On pattern)
The Auth Server will return a Json Web Token (at some point, depending on the Grant Type being used to retrieve it)
The JWT should be included in each subsequent request to ensure the caller has authorization
From a Spring perspective, you'll need at least a SSO Client (denoted by the #EnableOAuthSSO annotation). If everything in hosted by that process, you'll need that JWT to call subsequent methods. If you have processes hosted in other processes, it's likely you'll want them secured as well. Using the #EnableResourceServer annotation will configure Spring Security to look for the JWT, just not attempt to retrieve one if the request does not have it.
Unless the endpoint is meant to be publicly accessible, you will want to secure it. Of course, I really don't know the context of your application, so this statement is purely an uninformed opinion based on zero knowledge of what you're trying to do with your application. Take it for what it's worth.
EDIT
This has become a little more complex than I originally thought. I have been able to write some code to dynamically retrieve the public key from Microsoft in order to validate the returned JWT.
But, the main issue is the fact the Azure AD supports Open Id Connect when acting as an Identity/Authentication Server. And, at the moment, spring-security-oauth2 doesn't support Open Id Connect.
I was able to make some small changes to the spring code, but I did ask the question to the Spring group and they are actively working on adding support for Open Id Connect. They hope to have a release two months (ish?).
For the short term, the oauth2 support doesn't support Open Id Connect. Given this is the protocol used by AAD, the current version of oauth2 won't work with AAD. That said, I will be happy to wait for the official support which shouldn't be too long.
I am starting to plan a web-app and Backbone.js will be a perfect fit for the client side. I have been planning on using node for the backend but this is open for the time being.
I need a way to secure the front-end app's connection to a database. I have had discussions with others on Quora but I think the thought process was too abstracted from the core problem.
I would prefer to be accessing the data by RESTful end-points, but I need to ensure only my app can talk to the API. I will have full control over both the front-end and back-end of the application. There is a possibility of other apps being built around the database (in a year or two), however they will be developed by me (i.e. not a public API) and these will probably use separate OAuth end-points.
Some notes on the app (may or may not be useful):
The app is planned to be offered in a SaaS model where companies subscribe and are allowed multiple users.
The data for each company needs to be secure and only accessible to members of that company.
All traffic (front-end and app to API) will be sent through SSL.
Any advice on the best way to do this will be greatly appreciated.
We have the exact same setup as you - SaaS model, multiple apps (mobile, web, etc) and when I followed your link, Miguel has the exact solution we use.
Token that is time stamped and sent to the client on auth. We store that hash token in a User Model and then every subsequent request we validate that token.
You can extend Backbone.Model with a BaseModel that appends the token to every server request by overriding Backbone.Sync
See here about how they extended a baseview and you can apply the same thing to a basemodel.