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.
Related
I am developing a SPA application in angular and I have a lot of confusion about the correct way to implement authentication and authorization.
First of all, the application is a first-party app, which means that I am developing both the authorization server and resource servers.
The users that logs in the application must have full access to their resources on the platform.
So, I am doing it using OAuth2.0 and I have a couple of doubts about the domain of the protocol as well as security concerns.
First question:
The first question is if OAuth should be actually used to authorize first party applications. From my understanding this is a delegation protocol used to grant a third-party application controlled access to the user's resources on the platform, upon user consent. How does this fit in the context of a first-party app? In that case the app should get an access token with a scope that allows full access, right?
Second question:
Since this is a Single Page Application I couldn't store a secret on client side. So I am opting for using the authorization code grant with PKCE which would seem to be appropriate to manage this scenario. In this case I wouldn't ask for a refresh token but I would only retrieve the access token and using silent check to refresh it. I do not want to have refresh token insecurely stored on the browser. Is this PKCE really secure? The secret is generated dynamically but a attacker could eventually create a system using the same public client id and managing the PKCE properly, and finally get an access token that, in my case, gives full access to the users resources.
I could in the future allow controlled access to my app's resources to third party app, that's also one of the reason why I stick with OAuth.
The first question is if OAuth should be actually used to authorize first party applications. From my understanding this is a delegation protocol used to grant a third-party application controlled access to the user's resources on the platform, upon user consent. How does this fit in the context of a first-party app? In that case the app should get an access token with a scope that allows full access, right?
Yes, this makes sense to me. We skip the 'grant permissions' step for our own apps.
Is this PKCE really secure?
Yes, even without PKCE, authorization_code is pretty secure. Adding PKCE solves a a few potential security issues, but I would be somewhat inclined to call them edge cases. It is definitely right now the recommended choice.
The PKCE rfc has more information about the motivations behind PKCE:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7636#section-1
I actually came here looking for the answer to Question 1. My take is that in situations where we have no third party apps requiring access to our APIs we do not need OAuth. If we still need to use OAuth, then we can use Resource Owner Password Flow for first party apps. I have not seen any convincing answer anywhere confirming or rejecting this opinion but this is purely based on my understanding of OAuth.
Now, I am mainly writing this to answer Question 2. PKCE protocol is secure and attacker would not get token in this scenario. The reason is that the Authorization Server uses pre-registered "Redirect Uri" to send the token to. To be precise, the Auth Server would simply ask the browser to redirect user to "Redirect Uri appended with Access Token". Browsers do not allow javascript interception of Redirection requests. Therefore, an attacker would not be able to get hold of the token and the user will be redirected from attacker's site to yours at the end.
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 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.
To use google drive api, I have to play with the authentication using OAuth2.0. And I got a few question about this.
Client id and client secret are used to identify what my app is. But they must be hardcoded if it is a client application. So, everyone can decompile my app and extract them from source code. Does it mean that a bad app can pretend to be a good app by using the good app's client id and secret? So user would be showing a screen that asking for granting permission to a good app even though it is actually asked by a bad app? If yes, what should I do? Or actually I should not worry about this?
In mobile application, we can embedded a webview to our app. And it is easy to extract the password field in the webview because the app that asking for permission is actually a "browser". So, OAuth in mobile application does not have the benefit that client application has not access to the user credential of service provider?
I had the same question as the question 1 here, and did some research myself recently, and my conclusion is that it is ok to not keep "client secret" a secret.
The type of clients that do not keep confidentiality of client secret is called "public client" in the OAuth2 spec.
The possibility of someone malicious being able to get authorization code, and then access token, is prevented by the following facts.
1. Client need to get authorization code directly from the user, not from the service
Even if user indicates the service that he/she trusts the client, the client cannot get authorization code from the service just by showing client id and client secret.
Instead, the client has to get the authorization code directly from the user. (This is usually done by URL redirection, which I will talk about later.)
So, for the malicious client, it is not enough to know client id/secret trusted by the user. It has to somehow involve or spoof user to give it the authorization code,
which should be harder than just knowing client id/secret.
2. Redirect URL is registered with client id/secret
Let’s assume that the malicious client somehow managed to involve the user and make her/him click "Authorize this app" button on the service page.
This will trigger the URL redirect response from the service to user’s browser with the authorization code with it.
Then the authorization code will be sent from user’s browser to the redirect URL, and the client is supposed to be listening at the redirect URL to receive the authorization code.
(The redirect URL can be localhost too, and I figured that this is a typical way that a “public client” receives authorization code.)
Since this redirect URL is registered at the service with the client id/secret, the malicious client does not have a way to control where the authorization code is given to.
This means the malicious client with your client id/secret has another obstacle to obtain the user’s authorization code.
I started writing a comment to your question but then found out there is too much to say so here are my views on the subject in the answer.
Yes there is a real possibility for this and there were some exploits based on this. Suggestion is not to keep the app secret in your app, there is even part in the spec that distributed apps should not use this token. Now you might ask, but XYZ requires it in order to work. In that case they are not implementing the spec properly and you should A not use that service (not likely) or B try to secure token using some obfuscating methods to make it harder to find or use your server as a proxy.
For example there were some bugs in Facebook library for Android where it was leaking tokens to Logs, you can find out more about it here
http://attack-secure.com/all-your-facebook-access-tokens-are-belong-to-us
and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twyL7Uxe6sk.
All in all be extra cautious of your usage of third party libraries (common sense actually but if token hijacking is your big concern add another extra to cautious).
I have been ranting about the point 2 for quite some time. I have even done some workarounds in my apps in order to modify the consent pages (for example changing zoom and design to fit the app) but there was nothing stopping me from reading values from fields inside the web view with username and password. Therefore I totally agree with your second point and find it a big "bug" in OAuth spec. Point being "App doesn't get access to users credentials" in the spec is just a dream and gives users false sense of security… Also I guess people are usually suspicions when app asks them for their Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox or other credentials. I doubt many ordinary people read OAuth spec and say "Now I am safe" but instead use common sense and generally not use apps they don't trust.
Answering to 2nd question: Google APIs for security reason mandate that authentication/sign-in cannot be done within App itself (like webviews are not allowed) and needs to be done outside app using Browser for better security which is further explained below:
https://developers.googleblog.com/2016/08/modernizing-oauth-interactions-in-native-apps.html
I have an app that offers an API. This app is an OAuth2 provider.
I want to access this API (read & write) with a client-side only app. I'm using JSO to make this easier.
It works great.
The thing is, I don't have to enter my client secret (of the application I registered in my app) anywhere. And I understand why, it would then be available to anyone.
So, if I can access my api without the client secret, could you explain to me what is its purpose?
This discussion provides an excellent explanation of why the client secret is much more important for server-side apps than client-side apps. An excerpt:
Web apps [server-side apps] use client secrets because they represent huge attack vectors. Let us say that someone poisons a DNS entry and sets up a rogue app "lookalike", the juxtapose might not be noticed for months, with this intermediary sucking up tons of data. Client secrets are supposed to mitigate this attack vector. For single user clients, compromise has to come one device at a time, which is horribly inefficient in comparison.
Client Secret was used in OAuth 1.0 to sign the request, so it was required. Some OAuth2 servers (such as Google Web Server API) required the client secret to be sent to receive the access token (either from request token or refresh token).
OAuth 2.0 has reduced the role of the client secret significantly, but it is still passed along for the servers that use it.
This was also driving me insane until I saw an example that made the answer blindingly obvious.
I have to be logged into The Server before The Server will return a token granting access to My stuff.
In other words, The Server will present Me, the human, with a login screen if I don't already have a valid login session with The Server. This is why explanations always say something like "it's up to to the server to authenticate".
Sure, The Server does not have to require that I am logged in. Is this realistic? Will Dropbox really grant access to My files to anyone without a login? Of course not. Most of the explanations I've read gloss over this point as if it doesn't matter, when it's practically the only thing that does matter.