I am building an intranet web application consisting of an Angular frontend and a Node.JS backend. The application needs to use the corporate Active Directory for authentication and authorization.
I'm considering how to best implement this in a secure way. I am planning to use the Active Directory node module for actually communicating with the AD to authenticate when the user logs in, and to check security group membership for certain restricted actions, etc.
However, I am not quite sure what is the best way to authorize my backend endpoints. The AD module does not offer any token/ticket, even though I suppose Kerberos is used for the actual authentication process. In other authenticated apps I've developed I've generated a jsonwebtoken when the user logs in, and then passed and verified that token in each backend route, is that a good idea also when authenticating against AD?
EDIT: Second part of question spawned to separate thread: Best practices for server-side handling of JWT tokens
Also, I have a more general concern, regarding what the best practice is for actually verifying tokens. Suppose that the "secret" used for JWT generation is compromised (in my scenario many people may have access to the source code of the system, but not to the system itself). Am I right in believing that a malicious user could then, with only this information, generate a token on behalf of any given user, and without ever authenticating with AD use that token in my API requests? A token is typically generated using jwt.sign(payload, secretOrPrivateKey, options).
Alternatively, suppose a malicious user could get hold of an actual token (before it has expired). To me it seems like instead of having to know a user's username and password, the security is now reduced to having to know the username and the JWT secret. Is this a valid concern and what should I do to prevent this?
My best hope so far is using a server side session to store information about the current user after logging in, so that even if a token is maliciously generated and used when accessing backend endpoints, it would fail unless the user has actually gone through the login route, authenticated with AD and stored some information in the session as a result of this.
I also considered actually authenticating with AD in each API endpoint, but that would require the AD username/password to be sent in every request, which in turn would require that sensitive information would have to be stored in the client's sessionstorage or localstorage, which is most likely a bad idea.
So, questions:
1) Is it reasonable to combine AD authorization with JWT as bearer token or what is the preferred way to build a secure backend + frontend utilizing AD for authentication?
2) If JWT is a good idea, what is the best practice for securing endpoints using JWT? Is using a server side session reasonable?
Interestingly enough I have found tons of examples on how to best implement token based authentication (in general, or with NodeJS specifically), but many of them seem flawed in one way or another.
1) Is it reasonable to combine AD authorization with JWT as bearer
token or what is the preferred way to build a secure backend +
frontend utilizing AD for authentication?
It is reasonable, but if you are already using Kerberos and AD to initially authenticate the user, you might consider using s4u2proxy constrained delegation which allows the service to present the user's service ticket to the KDC and acquire (subject to authorisation checks) a ticket for a backend service (and repeat for as many services are necessary).
If you have a lot of backend services that need to be contacted, a single JWT bearing all the authorization claims needed for all the services to enforce authorization policy may be a better option.
2) If JWT is a good idea, what is the best practice for securing
endpoints using JWT? Is using a server side session reasonable?
General key security practices apply:
Never store keys in the clear in non-volatile storage, anywhere.
Ideally do not store encrypted keys in attached storage on the server where, if the server is compromised, they would be subject to offline attack. Make them available to the host only at server startup.
Ensure key material resides in secure memory so that it cannot be swapped to disk (and/or use encrypted swap).
Use public key algorithms so that no secret key need exist on multiple hosts.
Consider using a hardware security module (HSM).
Related
I am learning about different Oauth2 flows but it does not provide any guidelines on securely persisting different kinds of access tokens in different scenarios and I could not find relevant information on the topic by Google-fu.
I am wondering if is it safe to save access tokens in a secure frontend context like httpOnly cookie and optionally directly calling the api from the browser without proxying it through the application server?
It appears more secure to me because access tokens unlike passwords cannot be hashed, the means to recover all access tokens (if encrypted) must exist on the server otherwise it would not be able to call the service on behalf of the user. So, were the application server compromised so would the access tokens of all users.
Am I missing some context here or is it correct?
If you think about sharing your own access token with some users user agent (browser), then this solution is never secure. The user agent (browser) is something working totally on behalf of the user. The user, if he wants to, may have access to any kind of resource the user agent operates with. Sharing a token with the user agent is like sharing the token with the user himself.
Whichever method you choose, you need to ensure your backend verifies the token (e.g jwt).
You probably wouldn't need to verify a secure cookie because a secure cookie cannot be accessed/modified by the browser.
I have a web application which uses OAuth 2.0 to talk to a third-party service. I want both my server and my web app to talk to the authorized service on behalf of the user. I go through the normal authorization steps of doing the redirect, getting the auth code, exchanging it for the access token, all that jazz. Once complete, my server has the access token and can talk to the service. However, I'd like the web app to talk to the service as well so I don't have to route everything through my server.
Can I send the access token to the web app so I can achieve this? Or, is the access token supposed to be kept confidential between my service and the service, never being disclosed to the user, just just like the client secret is?
I've tried to find an answer for this in the spec and various blog posts, but haven't found a definitive answer either way. I know there is an implied auth method for client-side apps which don't involve a server-side component at all. Therefor my initial guess is that I can send the token to the client. I would like to verify this though.
The token is considered very sensitive information because it allows access to the service. Anyone could issue requests if they had this token.
This is why the token is passed in the Authorization Header, this is why it's highly recommended you make all calls over https, to protect the headers and body information. This is also why it is recommended that the tokens have s short life span so that if one is indeed compromised, it doesn't last for long.
Yes, you can share this token between your own applications and it should work, provided the receiver of the token does not store the IP addresses of the callers as well or has some other check mechanisms in place.
The ideal situation however would be for you to issue a different set of ClientID and Client Secret to each application which requires access.
Don't forget that this is the way the applications identify themselves to the receiver side and it might be important for reporting and analysis purposes.
I'm trying to systematize my knowledge about oauth + jwt + LDAP authorization. I've read multiple excellent articles (i.e. this) but still have a questions about about that:
My understanding:
JWT is a token which allow Single Sign-On (SSO). It's more secure than simple token auth since it encrypts all user specific info (e.g. userName, password, clientAppId, ip address etc.). This info is signed with internal authority server key and can't be changed by attacker.
From here, look at phrase below. As I understand that means that each of HTTP frontend servers doesn't require lookup for session data. But it requires lookup to authority server. What's the benefit? Isn't that the same single point of failure? Why JWT is considered STATEless? JWT still needs to keep user data on authority server, right?
The server side storage issues are gone.
If you need log out user with JWT before expiration period gone - you need to keep black lists. So what the benefit over simple token uath without SSO?
Is JWT a realization of OpenID (authentication only)?
It's impossible to do auto-sign-in for server-2-server with JWT (tokens) without OAuth. Oauth is used when you nwant ot authorize request from some service on behalf of user without user participation. Why it's impossible with tokens and possible with OAuth?
OAuth is also used to configure flexible access policies, like roles, groups etc. But why you can't implement them yourself based on tokens/JWT?
LDAP server is extremely fast for read operation on small not-interconnected pieces of data ,as user credentials. Where is LDAP in jwt-oauth scheme (or in OppenID Connect)? Is LDAP used for authentication (JWT)or authorization (OAuth)?
I'll try to clarify some concepts here:
Oauth and OpenID Connect (OIDC) are just authentication mechanisms by themselves. JWT is just a way to convey authenticated information between two parties. So, you have to do an effort of separation of concerns. When having doubts about how to identify an user, and be sure it's really him/her, check credentials and so... go check OIDC or Oauth standards. Whn in doubt about how to convey user related information between parties securely then, look at the JWT RFC and related (JWS, JWK, JWE and related).
Having said this:
Totally correct. You understood correctly.
It depends on implementation, but some stateful approaches exists, and also some implementations are stateless. The JWT-consuming server (Resource server in Oauth jargon), can possibly have the IdMS's (Authorization server (badly-named) in Oauth jargon) signing keys in cache, or pre-provisioned. This way, it can validate JWT Access Tokens coming from the IdMS without having to do any request. The IdMS could be down without impacting the system. This is precisely the case for some architectures that have the IdMS behind some VPN, and the Resource Servers outside it. Besides that, there could be a more stateful way of checking Access Tokens against the introspection endpoint of the IdMS. With this way, for each validation required on the Resource Server, a request would be made to the IdMS to check the Access Token is still valid and to extract the related claims. This latter mechanism is used also when the Access Tokens are not JWT and thus opaque.
Blacklists could be a way to do it, but it is more usually done through Refresh Token mechanism. You give the Access Token a very short lifetime, like 1 minute, and then rely on the refreshing mechanism to fail in case the session is revoked.
Technically speaking OpenID and OpenID Connect (OIDC) are different beasts. For shortness sake, we could say that OpenID is an old implementation of identity federation that did not see great adoption. OpenID Connect is an evolution of Oauth 2.0 that adds JWT, ID Token and some other niceties. But no, JWT and OIDC are by no means an exclusive implementation. It is true that OIDC implies forcefully the use of JWT, but JWT exists outside OIDC.
If you want to authorize requests between two servers, at the basic level, it can be done with simple tokens (Just maintain them secret, and use TLS). But with JWT what is enabled is that the servers can trust a central IdMS without having to trust entirely on each other. Oauth is used in this case you indicate because Google for example, trust himself and the user, but not your server. So, authentication occurs between Google, acting as the IdMS and the user, and this, generates a JWT (Not always, so you see the case for my previous statement) that your server (trusting an external IdMS) can use to communicate with Google.
As already said, groups/role management is independent of JWT/tokens used. JWT/plain tokens are only the way of conveying authentication information.
LDAP on Oauth/OIDC lies in the Authentication phase. When the user sends it's credentials to the IdMS instead of checking against a local database, the credentials are checked against LDAP. LDAP could also be used by some advanced IdMS's to retrieve policies, groups or other permissions. But when the authorization is done, the rest of the process is the same as always.
References:
https://openid.net/connect/
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7519#section-1
I understand the security issues around attempting to use OAuth for authentication from a provider's point of view. However I've been asked to provide users the facility to log on to a new web application using OAuth and obtain their basic identity info from the likes of Google and Twitter, from which a new user account within the client application will be created. Additionally users will be able to regster/login directly via user/passwords for anyone not wishing to use third party accounts.
We do not require any access to the user's details/info or providers APIs, just their basic identity when they first logon, and of course allow them to login via the provider in the future. Not exactly the use case OAuth is intended for, OpenId would have been preferred, but OAuth has been specified and without valid concerns would need to be adhered to.
My question is how safe is it to assume that the user has correctly authenticated themselves with the relevant provider. If I trust say Google to perform adequate authentication and I obtain an access token and their identity, presumably I can consider that a legitimate user? There are obviously issues if some one has access to the resource owners machine and saved passwords in the browser but that issue is present for those users who elect to register directly.
Presumably it possible to fake an access token, e.g. man in the middle pretending to be google? A MITM could fake an access token and supply identity details that matched a registered user's google id? I don't see anything for a client to know that the information definitely came from the provider. Obviously this problem is not unique to OAuth.
Are there another ways someone could illegitimately access an account that used OAuth to authenticate themselves.
OAuth allows that an application to access a specific user resource (that has been provided permission by the user) and it cannot go outside that scope. I have not seen the documentation that refers to creating a new user using OAuth based application.
That being said:
We do not require any access to the user's details/info or providers
APIs, just their basic identity when they first logon
This violates OAuth authorization process. The Service Provider does the authentication and provides the relevant tokens (based on the success of the authentication). This is to ensure that there are no 3rd party authentication done during the OAuth authentication process.
My question is how safe is it to assume that the user has correctly
authenticated themselves with the relevant provider.
This all depends on the service provider itself. To conform to OAuth protocol, one of the requirement is that user authentication must be done in a secured transport layer with a digital certificate (for HTTP, it must be done in HTTPS). OAuth consumer don't have any reference to the authentication process. Also the authentication process basically asks the user if the consumer can access the resource of the specific user (and not anyone else, since he doesn't have authorization to it).
Is it possible to fake an access token, e.g. man in the middle
pretending to be google?
Spoofing a Service Provider IS possible but it'll be tedious. For one, you will have to create a whole OAuth handshake process, create the exact API as the service provider, also setup an environment that is secured (as OAuth recommends). The only thing the spoofing service provider can obtain is the client credentials. If it has its user credentials, there is no need to use the application as there is no way of providing a user credentials using an application to do malicious damage.
Secondly, access tokens do expire so even if you spoof and retrieve an access token, the original application owner can ask for the service provider to block the application and the access token can be useless.
A man in the middle attack won't be possible. You will have to replicate the service provider in a sense that the end user won't be able to distinguish between the original and the spoofing service provider in order to capture all relevant credentials (from both the application and end user).
Sadly saying, the scenario from your last sentence is the truth.
But you should realise that the security is a huge and complex issue, especially in client side. It's not happen just in a single point but many points through the whole internet access life cycle. The scenario you given is not what OAuth try to solve.
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.