I'm new to OAuth, and although I have scanned through many documents, I don't seem to have yet a good architecture / design to a secure web application, answering most/all of OWASP Top Ten
My newbie questions are
Why can't I just rely purely on OAuth? why do a user needs credential in my own application?
If I do, do I need hash / salt anything if I save it? I don't store any passwords, but what about tokens?
I still need to persist the users so they won't login everytime, (like in OS) - do I
Somehow use the OAuth token (save it? does it make even sense)?
Or use the plain old httpOnly secure cookie (if so, what happens if they log out of the Oauth provider? shouldn't I in this case ignore my cookie and let them log out?
How do I implement logging out? I can't force them to log out of the OAuth provider, and if I only delete the httpOnly cookie / invalidate their session locally, is that enough? and security issues?
How do I implement single sign on? I don't want the user, after approving to click again "log in using Facebook / Twitter / Google" I want an effect similiar to SO (page refreshes and "welcomes you back" what are the best practices to do that? Why does SO refreshes the page (I assume it has to do with the fact it needs to be client side, but I don't fully understand how it works to even know what to ask)
I guess I have a lot to learn, but reading on so many potential security issues, and having to master so many different topics seems like a good potential for me missing something that someone later will exploit.
Is using a framework such as Spring Security, or using Lift's built in user management going to save me all this headache? or do I have to know exactly what I am doing to avoid things like Session Fixation, Cross Site Request Forgery, Cross site scripting, Rainbow tables and other things I only remotely get...
Why can't I just rely purely on OAuth?
From a service providers perspective, OAuth is a means of controlling access of third party applications to the business logic. The end user does not have to give out his password to the third party app, and the access can be controlled. For example, the provider could restrict the access to only parts of the service for limited amount of time.
If you write a third party application, there is no strict need for you to have your "own" user artifacts. You can rely on the users that authenticate your application.
You could require that user's have an account with a provider such as Facebook or Twitter and not implement any password stuff yourself.
(You probably need some sort of artifact to represent a user, it should in this case contain information about how that user authenticates your application, for instance an OAuth token, or an OpenID URL).
If I do, do I need hash / salt anything if I save it? I don't store
any passwords, but what about tokens?
Just to clarify, in OAuth a token is typically both a key and a secret, and they are needed in cleartext to sign requests (there are differences here depending on which version of OAuth you use). So you can store them encrypted, as long as it is reversible for you.
I still need to persist the users so they won't login everytime, (like in OS) - do I
somehow use the OAuth token (save it? does it make even sense)?
Yes this makes sense, a token represents your applications access to a specific user's data. Save the token if you want to keep a "session" alive.
How do I implement logging out? I can't force them to log out of the OAuth provider, and if I only delete the httpOnly cookie / invalidate their session locally, is that enough? and security issues?
There is no concept of "logging" out of OAUth, a token either has an expiration time or not. You can of course "log out" by simply choosing to forget the token. The next time you will have to redo the authentication. You cannot force users to invalidate an access token, unless the provider has an API for that.
You could save the token in a cookie, but I would use other unique identifiers for the session you want to keep alive. You can persist the details of the tokens server side. The information you store in your cookie shold make it possible to retrieve the token you need.
How do I implement single sign on? I don't want the user, after approving to click again "log in using Facebook / Twitter / Google" I want an effect similiar to SO (page refreshes and "welcomes you back" what are the best practices to do that? Why does SO refreshes the page (I assume it has to do with the fact it needs to be client side, but I don't fully understand how it works to even know what to ask)
If you save a token in a database, save an ID for that token in a nice secure cookie. When a user goes to your service, use the information in the cookie to make a call from your service, to the service provider, to check if the token is still valid. If so, you have established enough trust for you to "log in" the user in your application without having to go through the pain of the OAuth process again.
And as a side not, StackOverflow uses OpenID and not OAuth for user authentication. OAuth can be used for the same purpose but is mainly a specification for application authorization.
I hope this helped, and don't sell yourself short. This site is for posting questions, not for appearing all-knowing.
Related
I am building a node.js web application with react for the the GUI and graphQL served with Apollo for the back-end connecting to a RDS (MySQL) instance on AWS.
I am authenticating users and then returning JWTs. I have it figured out on how to renew/expire tokens, but now I am being faced with the question where to save it on the client side when a user visits the site...
There are two main concepts with a third being a hybrid model. 1) Store it as localStorage with JavaScript as described on HowToGraphQL 2) Store it in a Cookie with http-only set to true as described in the afore mentioned article as a cationary reference to Randall Degges
There is another alternative to store it in memory only on the client side but then a user would have to login every time the page is refreshed as it would not be persistent anywhere.
Concept 1 is vulnerable to XSS only if there is another XSS vulnerability already exploited. But it is secure to the site only so only scripts running on the site can access it and not scripts on any site. There it a lot of security talk that it should not be stored this way even though it is the common way because a developer cannot trust EVERY JavaScript script they are running on their site and there may be one that reads the localStorage and then sends it offsite.
Concept 2 removes the XSS vulnerable by declaring the http-only to only make it accessible to the server at your site. The problem here lies in that then a separate method has to be created to use the same backend authentication for other uses such as a standard API (for native apps or other sites) where the JWT is sent in the header over https where it is stored securely on another server.
So I researched and found this hybrid method described by Ben Awad 3) use a request token and a refresh token. The request token can then act normally for the standard API but then also on our react app site we can store it only in memory and store a refresh token in a cookie to send back a request token when users refresh or close and reopen browsers.
So theoretically, the best solution is Concept 3 which solves all of the concerns, but it is of course more complicated to setup.
My question: How worried should I be about opening up a JWT to an XSS vulnerability? It is something that down the road I would do the long way when I have more time, but I am pushing for a deadline. My site will be lesser known and not something like Facebook or Sales-Force that hackers would necessarily target. My site is not storing Credit Card data or other highly sensitive data other than a basic CRM and task list. If my site was open to XSS through other code, wouldn't the entire authentication process be vulnerable through keylogging scripts or the likes without even knowing the JWT. I feel like I would be doing a lot of extra work to secure against a possible threat that if occurred, the entire system would be compromised already.
If you are comfortable with your site to not work on Internet Explorer and some older versions of the major browsers, you can take advantage of a new cookies property, called Same-Site (to be more precise, the site will work but the cookie will not be secure).
By defining a cookie as HttpOnly, you are immediately secured from XSS attacks, but you leave yourself open to CSRF attacks.
Now by defining the cookie to have the property Same-Site=Strict, the cookie will be only sent through Http calls and only if the domain matches your site's domain. So for example, if someone creates a form in another site and tries to perform a post request to your own site, the cookie will be never sent.
If you want the cookie to be passed only on GET requests, you can set the Same-Site property to Lax but as you mentioned.
You can find more info about this feature in the following link under the SameSite cookies section:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Cookies
You should also check the browser compatibility of the feature by using the following link:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Set-Cookie#Browser_compatibility
This is the issue I spent a lot of time on. How to store the authorization token securely. People have different strategies in dealing with this so I will share what works for me. Users of my apps were targeted by different attacks, all of them where unsuccessful in stealing anything so far. None used XSS.
Here is what I do
In the end I opted for storing authorization token in local storage. Applications that I work usually have WebSocket connections on top of HTTP routes and I want the token to be saved in one place and act as a single source of truth. They are all web applications running in the browser. Most of the applications I build use JWT.
Why I do it like that
First why I don't use refresh tokens. If they are saved the same way as the actual authorization token would be saved negates the reason for refresh token to exist since the attacker can use the refresh token to get the authorization one.
Storing the token in cookies gives no benefits over local storage assuming that the app is secured against attackers being able to inject JavaScript into your app, mostly through forms and api on your app. Make sure all user inputs are JS injection safe. On top of that with cookies there are issues when using WebSockets that you must go around.
There is also the point of one of the accounts being hacked and you want to invalidate that token as soon as possible. JWT by default has no mechanism of being revoked. Implementing this feature negates the scalability of JWT because checking the JWT would require a call to the database to know if that user can do the specific action. There are 2 ways you can go about this. One is just check the user data if the user is frozen from the database, it is less scalable because of the call but if you already pull the user data in a middleware it is good enough TM. Other is to pull the the "is the user frozen" data from the database just when making changes to the database or when the call from the client is important.
In summary
I would store the token in local storage. Secure the app from code injections. And make a kill switch for the accounts if they get compromised in any way.
EDIT THANKS TO THE COMMENTS BY #JerryCauser
It is more secure to keep your token in a secure http only cookie. Don't expect a storage mechanism choice to automatically save your users from being hacked. There are ways to hijack sessions and other exploits including users using web extensions and approving their request to read protected data.
For the example of the betting website below, you wouldn't require user to write their password (or approve the request via automated email) every time they place a bet, but you would every time they want to take a withdrawal for example.
I use local storage because even if it happens for the token to be stolen, or another person got to your user's laptop (like a kid for example) you should never let the account do critical tasks without approval.
There is no magic bullet of anti hack protection. Try your best to keep your users safe with common sense.
EDIT AS ANSWER TO THE COMMENT FROM THE ASKER #amaster
If you are making a trip to the database on every call, maybe JWT is not the best solution. Point of JWT is to have signed claims and the id of the user without calling the database. In this case, maybe opt in for sessions instead of JWT.
Before I proceed with my answer, you may want to check out OWASP for a set of general guidelines regarding XSS and CSRF since you've mentioned cookies.
Cedomir already covered a good deal of the points with storing JWT client side. One thing that's worth mentioning is that if you have Third-Party scripts running in your web app, they also have access to the Storage API. So if a script you had loaded were to be hijacked, they could conceivably steal the token there. As for XSS with inputs, if you make sure to escape every possible user input, then that is largely mitigated as an attack vector. But you only have to screw up once for someone to take advantage of the hole and steal the JWT at that point. (Refer to this blog post for more details)
Now, if you instead store the JWT in a Http-Only, then you largely sidestep the XSS issue as you've already noted. However, now you introduced a new problem, that being Cross Site Request Forgery. Since cookies are sent with every request, a malicious actor could set up a website to make a fraudulent request on behalf of user and execute actions without the user's consent. Now I won't cover the mitigation in detail here as OWASP and other places have done a pretty good job already, but the short of it can be summed up by installing the most popular and well-maintained Anti-CSRF package for your language :-)
As for invalidating the token as Cedomir brought up, having that mechanism can be quite useful. However, to implement it does mean you give up some of the benefits of using JWT gives you. Whether you store the current JWT assigned to user and validate that or a unique key used to sign the JWT for each user, you now have user state to keep track of, eliminating one of the reasons to use JWTs. Depending on your application, you will need to weigh that tradeoff. A much simpler way could be simply to have short-lived tokens so that any token that is stolen potentially won't have a very useful lifetime. However, as you probably recognize a short lifetime would be a potentially a very annoying user experience. You could have your website periodically poll the server for a new token while your user continues to use the website as a way to improve the experience. You can also balance your security concerns with the lifetime of the token, like a 15 minute token lifetime for a e-commerce app vs. a hour or more for a social application.
I would however advise against the use of a refresh token, at least for a Browser-Based Web App. Typically speaking, the browser is just not considered capable of securing sensitive secrets. By using a refresh token, you're just deferring the stealing of credentials to another layer as by the nature of the refresh tokens, they're 1) long-lived and 2) effectively used as credentials to obtain more JWTs. So if the refresh token were to be stolen, an attacker can just get more valid JWTs on behalf of a user. If you have a mobile or desktop app, you have mechanisms you can use to securely store refresh tokens and this advice does not apply.
...Or you could just use sessions ;-)
When logging in on server set JWT token and a random csrf token in the httpOnly cookie
Also send this csrf token in body response of login back to client
On every future request from client send this csrf token via some header (eg. X-CSRF-TOKEN)
On the backend verify if the csrf tokens coming through the cookie and x-csrf-token are the same.
Then verify your JWT token and continue with your app logic.
Putting JWT token in httpOnly cookie prevents XSS attacks, validating CSRF token prevents CSRF attacks. Double sending csrf token in both cookie and header avoids storing stuff in the backend database.
XSS check
CSRF check
Stateless auth check
Auth doesn’t have to be over complicated. If you have clients that only want to pass JWT token in some header other than cookie then it’s better to just make a separate api endpoint for those programs.
While the question is not actually about OAuth / OpenID Connect I still think you can learn a great deal by checking out this Internet-Draft: OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps (Best Current Practice)
To sum it up: there simply is no secure way to store an access token on the client. If you develop only the frontend you pretty much have to use and store a token on client side - not because it's great but because you have no other choice. However, if you do have full control over Frontend and Backend you do have that choice and should think about using the same domain for both and use a session cookie as described in the Internet Draft. Basically the React application never even sees the acesss token, because your backend is serving a http page and handling the authentication directly, with the final step being a redirect back to your frontend while setting the session-cookie.
A potential XSS attack is pretty bad as it is and you should be careful not to introduce a vulnerability. The thing is: with the JWT-approach a XSS vulnerability leads pretty much to the worst-case scenario: the attacker is able to steal the user authentication and can impersonate the user - this is basically session hijacking.
The same attack against a regular session-cookie simply does not have the same impact (as long as the cookie uses the HttpOnly Flag which is highly recommended). Even though the vulnerability enables arbitrary JavaScript Code to run on the machine (which is really bad obviously) it's still a lot harder for the attacker to do some damage. He is not able to hijack the session in this case, because he is unable to read the cookie.
Just use HTTP only + SSL only cookies to save your JWT. It will make almost impossible to stole user's jwt via a soft or any type of code injections.
Someone said here, what it is no diff between LocalStorage and Cookies. He is not correct, bcs third party libraries and chrome extensions can easily stole LocalStorage data. But they cannot stole HTTP only cookie.
It will protect against any known and most likely new types of attacks.
JWT itself is completely protected. Just don’t store something there that could compromise your architecture or something like that (do not put a hashed password for example)
Upd: Good article about best practices for JWT strategy: https://ducktypelabs.com/5-mistakes-web-developers-should-avoid-when-using-jwts-for-authentication/
I am building an Authorization Server in terms of OAuth 2.0.
There is also a 3rd party web application (Client) which is using my Authorization Server. It's a regular web application, and the user may have several active sessions established with this application (for example, office and home machine, or just several web browsers on the same machine).
My Authorization Server issues an access token #1 (with or without the refresh token, that's not so important here) for Client once. When the user starts a new session with the Client, should the Authorization Server give the Client app the same access token #1 for that new session or should it issue a new #2 token?
My thougts:
From security point of view the new token might sound better, but then if the user wants to manage his authorizations, he will see a separate entry for each Client session, which might be messy.
For example, GitHub returns the same token for previously authorized clients, and on the "applications" page in my GitHub account I see only one entry per application, no matter how many sessions I've started, which is convenient.
However, this approach means that I have to store access tokens in Authorization or Resource server in the reversible way (plain-text or encrypted with some known key) instead of using irreversible hashing (like you usually do with passwords, storing salt and password hash from bcrypt, pbkdf2 or something similar).
Please be advised that I am not a security expert and this explanation
is my general idea of oauth. Reason why I mentioned this in the
beginning is because I see you are CREATING YOUR OWN AUTH SERVER based
on oauth 2.0 protocol, which means down the road some people might be
using your server for authentication, and thus I don't want you to
have the wrong concept.
The session-oauth mismatch
I want to clear this first that don't mix sessions and oauth. These are two separate things usually found working together IMHO.
Oauth protocol simply gives the apps/users with an access token via which the app/user can query your server for data associated with the token.
Session on the other hand depends on the application itself. Once some app received the token, they make a session out of it. When user logs in or logs out, the session is destroyed, not the oauth.
So what is the fate of oauth token?
Well from a server standpoint, each of your token should expire after a certain time period. That is it. Server does not know anything else. It gives you the token, then expires it after 'n' seconds.
However, the app may decide that it wants to revoke the access token. Maybe their website was hacked, or maybe they are done with all api calls. Then they can send a special request to your server telling you to force-expire the token.
So what should I do about user opening multiple sessions?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. As an oauth service provider, you are not concerned with sessions at all. All you know is that if the app asks you for a token, you give them one.
However, I will answer you question about sessions as well. Should you spawn different sessions for the same user? I would say yes. If you have same session, then if you log out from one machine, and refresh the page in second machine, since the session has expired, your other browser/machines will also log out naturally.
So how does github manages to not show extra entries?
Well I do not work for them so I don't know. But I guess that they will check each session, and if two or more sessions are associate with the same user, they know the user must be using many devices. Then when one of your devices sends some request to github, they can guess from the IP address your location, and if many of your machines are making requests from same place, you got to be using multiple machines. If not, then maybe some attacker is using your account as well.
This is how AFAIK banks predict malicious users - well not the only way, they sometimes also predict the pattern you are using to access bank records, and if that pattern is different, there are good chances that your account was compromised.
So now you may ask me, are you really sure that I should create as many tokens as the app demands me?
This is the part where I am not so sure. From what I have seen, oauth has two things. Google these two terms for more info:
Refresh Token: This token is not your access token. This token never expires, and once your access token is expired, you can use this token to get a new access token. This token is also to be kept secret.
Offline access type: Many oauth providers such as google and facebook also support this mode. This mode basically allows you to extend the expiry time of your access token. E.g. instead of normal expiry time of access token (e.g. 1 hour), for offline tokens you might have the expiry time of 1 year or so.
Answer to the question "Should I reuse OAuth 2.0 access tokens?"
Yes, the token is supposed to be used as many times as you need within the given expiry time (google sets it to 1 hour).
After it has expired, use the refresh token to get another access token and use it as many times as you need. Keep repeating the process.
If your users won't be online for you to start the oauth process, and you don't have the refresh token, then the app needs to have "offline" tokens.
Should I store my auth tokens?
You can if your app demands it, but it is nowhere recommended because of the potential to be leaked. Tokens are supposed to extract data within the given time limit and reissue the token when needed again. However, you surely can store them if you want.
"Offline" tokens, on the other hand, are expected to be stored. You can encrypt them if you like, but if the scopes are not too broad, I wouldn't bother at all.
I was thinking about security for my REST web Service API, and decided to take a look at others large services and how they do it. As an example I decided to study Twitter's OAuth. After reading beginners guide I'm a little be confused and shocked.
As I understood it's Service provider responsibility to authenticate user and to show User what kind of access consumer is demanding (for example it want's read only access to specific resource). But I saw service providers that doesn't inform user on what type of access consumer is demanding (and even now showing consumer's identity). The second part of problem is that consumer can show his own custom Provider Service Authentication form in IFrame, and just hide access details, they can just steal you password, or request unlimited access to you resources, they can do basically what ever they want, there are lot's of way to trick user.
As an example let's take a LinkedIn. They request your gmail username and password inside their own form, and you have no idea how they will use it. They can just steal it and store in their DB, they can OAuth with it to gmail (and they don't show gmail's page with information what type of access they request), they can do whatever they want with this information.
What I'm trying to say is not that OAuth communication protocol is not secure, but rather there are lot's of way to use it improperly to trick the user and get his credentials.
BTW there were some security flaws in OAuth protocol itself: (http://oauth.net/advisories/2009-1/) and I'm pretty sure there are more, but no one cares to find them.
I'm going to go with 'You didn't understand it.' (In your defense, very few people do.)
Let's be clear: The session fixation attack you're referring to affected OAuth 1.0, but was resolved in OAuth 1.0a, which became RFC 5849. There are no major implementors of OAuth 1.0 — the major implementors all either implemented OAuth 1.0a/RFC 5849 or they implemented one of the OAuth 2.0 drafts.
As for the username/password anti-pattern, OAuth 1.0a does not provide for a mechanism to exchange a username and password for an access token. OAuth 2.0 does, but only for the purposes of supporting installed applications. Keep in mind that an installed application could simply keylog (or similar) if it really wanted to. When it comes to security, all bets are off if an application is already running natively and unsandboxed on the client's machine. But this is actually a very different scenario than what you're talking about. Web applications in both OAuth 1.0a and OAuth 2.0 don't ever touch the username and password.
The flow for OAuth 1.0a goes like this: The application asks the provider for a request token, telling it all of the things it wants access to. The provider issues the temporary unauthorized token, at which point the client may send the user to the provider to authorize that token. The user logins in with their username and password on the provider's site and then either grants or denies access. The provider then redirects back with a verifier string that allows the site to upgrade to an authorized access token. All of these interactions are signed. If the signatures don't match on any of them, the provider will reject the request. And the user can revoke any token at any time, removing the client's ability to access their account.
There are a number of security considerations with the protocol, but if you actually read the list, it's essentially the same list of the security issues that affect almost every site on the internet. These security considerations are all very well known and very well understood. To my knowledge, there are currently no known exploitable attacks against providers that correctly address all of these security considerations.
Point being, you are much safer using OAuth 1.0a or OAuth 2.0 to authorize a third party than with any of the alternatives. If you don't feel comfortable with these, the solution is simple: Don't authorize third parties to access your account. There certainly are plenty of reasons why you might not want to do that.
It sounds like you are confused about what's not secure. As I understand it, the OAuth protocol itself, if implemented properly, is secure. It's just that it's easy to implement improperly, and users get confused because they don't really understand what they are doing.
For example, what LinkedIn is doing is all wrong. I would never give them my gmail account information in this way. In order for me to provide my gmail account information, I insist on seeing that my browser is using SSL with Google and so the root frame of the page comes from Google.
Then there is the matter of trusting Google to correctly tell me what access is being requested and by who. If I don't trust them to do this, I shouldn't be using OAuth.
I asked a similar question here a while back but all the answers were offering OpenID which is nice but it doesn't work with services that require authentication that don't use it (such as EventBrite).
Say I want to create an app that lists your events from event brite, and their analytics (which eventbrite includes). Any person can sign up for this service to list their events. But since EventBrite doesn't have OpenID to authenticate, I need to somehow get the user login and password to EventBrite.
Some possible solutions are:
Store credentials in YAML like this. Easily hackable.
Have user enter in credentials into a form on my site, I save the credentials to my database, and use them to login to EventBrite. Easily hackable.
Have user enter in credentials and I pass them directly to EventBrite without saving, and I save the response header Cookies to the database, and when they expire, have them login again. Is this easily hackable?
This hypothetical service also wants to automatically check events (say via cron), so it doesn't depend on the user going to my site via the browser. So cookies or credientials need to be stored somewhere.
The thing is, after asking this similar question about confidentiality and security it sounds like you should never build an application that does what I'm describing. There's got to be some way building something like this is okay.
What is that way? What am I missing? Is it okay to go with #3 and save the cookies (but still needing the user to submit their email/password via a form which I send to Eventbrite)? What is an acceptable solution to the problem?
There isn't a secure way to do this. You can employ workarounds, but that's about it.
Storing passwords in YAML or XML in cleartext is definitely out
In fact, even encrypting and storing passwords is wrong. Your application would need a way to decrypt the passwords, so the attacker can also decrypt the passwords.
The recommended way to store passwords is Salt + Hash, but because it becomes unrecoverable, it is useless in your case.
Because of 2 & 3, no matter where you store the users credentials, you are vulnerable.
Storing the cookies instead of the passwords is a better idea. But again, this involves the password going through your website, which isn't good.
Given your situation, storing the cookie is a better approach. Use HTTPS throughout, even on your website. Its less than ideal though, and you and your users should be aware of it.
Eventbrite has recently release new documentation describing how to implement OAuth2.0 for cross-site user authentication.
I would recommend using our javascipt-based OAuth2.0 widget, which stores the user's authentication tokens in their browser's localStorage by default.
Since the auth tokens are stored in the user's browser, and are prevented from being accessed by other domains, it's not likely that there would be any security leaks.
The need for email and password combos are completely avoided in this authentication scheme.
Most sites only support direct login with the original cleartext password, so you have to get, store and provide that too. And I would never ever trust you with that.
The problem with your concept is that you require the password to be given to a third party. The solution is not to involve a third party, for example my browser is pretty good at storing and filling in passwords for me automatically (my hard-drive is password protected too). And they are dozens of other password wallet apps too. I wouldn't gain anything by subscribing, using your service.
Before going into such a business, consider you are going to be the #1 target. Facebook, Google are incredibly paranoid about security, spending a lot of time, money and effort to keep the logins safe. Do you have the same resources? Then you are a better target. Also by hacking your service, they immediately get multiple accounts, passwords of your users, also seeing who is always reusing its password.
For working with the Eventbrite API, I'd recommend ensuring that all connections are over SSL, and that you authenticate using a user_key rather than a username and password.
More information about authentication for the Eventbrite API is here: http://developer.eventbrite.com/doc/auth/
After logging in, users can find their user_key here: http://www.eventbrite.com/userkeyapi
This should prevent username and password information from being intercepted over the wire, or read from a local data store.
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.