So my question is about asymmetrically signed JWT tokens. How is it ensured that the signature can't be replicated on JWT tokens? If someone captures the JWT, what prevents him from reusing the same JWT over and over again without being properly authorized? I believe JWTs can have an expiration date, but it doesn't solve the issue since expiration date for most apps are relatively long in order to provide a good user experience. Most simplistic but a naive solution I can think of is having a nonce attached to the user starting from 0 and incrementing every time the jwt is used, and the request is processed.
Preventing replication of the signature of the JWT relies on you storing the key correctly that signed the JWT, either in a secure storage or some other safe place, reuse is a different story.
Now, for a start, I would also be worried if an attacker can easily steal your JWT, which almost implies that you don't use HTTPS/SSL, but sure, let's assume we are running a scenario where someone has exploited your SSL.
JWT's themselves are nothing more than ways of authentication a client, almost similar to how an API key works. It's pretty much a grant that that client can access some resource using that token. It doesn't hold any security value in that regard, other than at some point that client authenticated itself using the correct credentials.
So if it's stolen, you have a problem. This is where the lifetime of the tokens comes in to play. Tokens can expire very quickly, causing the attacker to only be able to access resources for a short while, but still, they did have access to a resource they shouldn't have access to.
In that regard, you can try to mitigate the attack using, like you mentioned, a nonce. Just don't forget to protect that nonce by a key that is related to the identity or session of the JWT. Alternatively you can add an HOTP or TOTP, or some unique signature to the request. This comes at a cost of you having to create extra logic at both your client and server.
So summarised, JWT's themselves don't really provide security, they provide authentication. Generally speaking JWT's are secure if using contemporary security measures such as SSL. If you really want to add additional security to the request, you are left to implement additional logic, such as OTP's or signatures by implementing more logic at the client and server.
Related
I am struggling to understand how JWT refresh tokens are safer than just using normal JWT access tokens with a long lifespan. I understand that by keeping the lifespan of JWT access tokens short, it limits the window of opportunity for attackers to abuse it. This assumes that the SSL layer of HTTPS has somehow been bypassed by the attacker in order to gain the JWT access token in the first place.
How do JWT refresh tokens solve this problem exactly? Once the access token expires, you would have to transfer the refresh token, which can also be hijacked if we assume that HTTPS is not secure enough. If the attacker gains control of the refresh token, then he now has access to a large supply of access tokens since refresh tokens typically have a long lifespan. By extension we could also say that the initial username/password authentication can be stolen if the HTTPS protocol is compromised.
Since the refresh token must be kept in the frontend (I am building a Angular/Spring boot application), we must take extra care that the refresh token can not be stolen client side as well. LocalStorage is clearly unsuitable to store the refresh token since it is not meant to be a secure storage. They are also unsuitable to be sent every request since they would be stolen together with the access token otherwise, which defeats the purpose of having short lifespan access tokens in the first place. Where should one store the refresh token?
If I wish to provide remember-me functionality at the loginpage, can I simply set the refresh token with an infinite lifespan?
I already went through several well written answers from the following links (and more):
What if JWT is stolen?
SPA best practices for authentication and session management
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/119371/is-refreshing-an-expired-jwt-token-a-good-strategy
But I am left unsatisfied regarding these 3 questions.
I shall attempt to answer all the points in your question
Do not use JWT refresh tokens. Use Opaque refresh tokens. Typically, JWTs are to have very short life times. The reason for this is that revoking them may not be possible if you do not have blacklisting
You can store refresh tokens in HttpOnly, secure cookies. If you want to avoid CSRF and XSS, then you can split the access token and store half in cookies, and other half in localstorage
If you assume that https is compromised (which is actually possible), the best defence here is to have measures in place to detect stolen refresh tokens. You can do do by implementing rotating refresh tokens. This can also be used to implement remember me functionality quite easily and with the highest level of security.
In general, this topic is quite complex and it would be impossible for me to explain everything here. So here is a blog post I like that explain everything todo with session security. They also have an open source library called SuperTokens you can use that is by far the most secure implementation I have seen. They have it in various tech stacks, and can also implement one for your tech stack.
You've already received an answer and have selected it, but I thought I'd add another perspective.
I'll start by pointing out a bit of myth with one of your assumptions:
LocalStorage is clearly unsuitable to store the refresh token since it
is not meant to be a secure storage.
I'm sure some will disagree with me on this, but to me LocalStorage is just as secure as Cookie storage, if not more.
Cookies are susceptible to CSRF attacks, while LocalStorage not so much. And both LocalStorage and Cookies are susceptible to XSS attacks (even httpOnly cookies, since injected code could perform any operation withCredentials).
So from that perspective, Cookies offer a greater attack surface than LocalStorage.
Therefor I don't see any problem in storing access NOR refresh tokens in LocalStorage from purely a security perspective.
Beyond the security concern, you may need to store them in LocalStorage (or a non-Cookie store) depending on the platform(s) you deploy to, ex: some mobile frameworks don't support Cookies.
Conversely, if you plan to run a JS Web app that does server-side rendering, you may need Cookies since typically the server process will not have access to LocalStorage.
So the issue is not entirely one of security.
As for the main gist of your question, which I understood as:
If access tokens are susceptible to attacks, what makes refresh tokens helpful, as they too must be susceptible to the same attacks?
You're right. Both access tokens and refresh tokens can be compromised. The question is... what can your server do about it once it finds out?
The idea of access tokens and refresh tokens is that access tokens are short lived and refresh tokens are long lived.
Personally, I see little use in refresh tokens unless you're using JWTs as your access token, which is what you eluded to in your post.
As you probably know, JWTs are stateless (albeit you can implement white/black lists which would make them stateful, but that sort of defeats the purpose). Therefor there is nothing the server can do to disable a stateless JWT.
Due to this fact, some consider it risky to have long expirations on JWTs because they can't easily be disabled if compromised. I agree with this.
So to get the "best of both" worlds, one can use short-expiry JWTs (10 minutes or so) with long-expiry refresh tokens (many OAuth implementations never expire the refresh tokens).
This strategy gives your server some control back by allowing it to deny issuing new refresh tokens, thereby denying new access tokens, while also benefiting from some of the selling points of JWTs.
I'm building an electron desktop app, and in the app it will call the remote API with JWT token. However, where should I persist this JWT token safely without the threats like XSS, CSRF, man in the middle attack etc... and cannot be accessible by other applications
I've tried using node-keytar package, which uses an encryption key derived from the user’s login.
But according to this issue(https://github.com/atom/node-keytar/issues/88), the credential(JWT in our scenario) can still be compromised if the user's environment got a malware installed.
The code of node-keytar is fairly easy, here's the add secret
keytar.addPassword('KeytarTest', 'AccountName', 'secret');
and here's the get secret
const secret = keytar.getPassword('KeytarTest', 'AccountName');
console.log(secret); // "supersecret"
I'm thinking about just storing JWT into the memory might be the safest way, but will require user to re-login and get JWT token everytime they reopen the electron desktop app.
Any suggestions or thoughts are welcomed. Thanks!
In many use cases involving JWT, you would not need to necessarily do any additional encryption/obfuscation of the JWT before you send it to the API, because:
When you send the JWT to the API, you would be doing so via SSL or HTTPS, which encrypts the entire payload. This in theory would eliminate most chances of man-in-the-middle attacks.
Even if someone managed to sniff your JWT token, they would lack the server's key which is required to unlock it. Also, even if they managed to unlock the JWT, it would be almost impossible to alter its contents without also altering the checksum, which is contained within the JWT itself. This eliminates the chance of injection attacks by inserting something into the JWT.
So in general, the JWT pattern is a way of pushing server side session state outside of the application. And it does it in such a way that this state is protected from tampering on the outside. If it were possible to easily tamper with a JWT on the outside, the entire pattern would fall apart.
I have implemented JWT based security in a test Core Web API REST project, it is working fine but I am not sure that I see the benefit of this. The web says JWT is good because it's lightweight and can be used to verify that the source of data but in my implementation:
The client first provides a username and password to authenticate
If user + pwd is ok the a token is returned and every subsequent call to the api uses that jwt token (instead of the username and password) to authenticate.
This is fine but why not just use the username + password on every call to the api (and skip the complication of managing the token)?
In fact in my case there's additional complications because I now have to factor in an expiry date (of the token) that resides outside of my system.
Can someone explain what I'm missing here?
One of the main benefits and motivations for using JWT is that it allows your server side application to push all session state information outside of the application. That is, in a theoretical limit, a JWT implementation is actually stateless.
To directly answer your question, we can compare the workflows for what happens when username/password is submitted in every request versus submitting a JWT.
First, a JWT contains a claims section, which is typically written by the issuer of the token, i.e. the server side application. One of the fields is called exp, and contains the expiry time of the token. One property of JWT is that it is not possible for the user to tamper with them. This is enforced via a checksum, which would change if any part of the JWT changes. Taken together, this means that the user cannot alter the expiry time (or any other claim), and the server can implicitly trust this time. When the user submits a request with a JWT, in theory all the server has to do is just check exp to see if the token still be valid. That is, the session state actually lives outside the application, at least in theory.
In contrast, when the user submits a username/password each time, the server has no way of knowing what to do just based on that information. Rather, the server has to maintain the session state itself, and this can be costly both in terms of memory and performance.
In practice, JWT is never completely stateless, but, using a good implementation, it is usually possible to get the memory footprint very small, requiring only a bit of space in a cache (e.g. Redis or a similar tool).
I am going through various javascript/auth tutorials -- I understand salting password and storing it in the DB, using Passport, generating the token and storing it in the request header, etc. Overall, I got the whole flow going -- for signing up and signing in. But I am not sure why the following is not being mentioned in any of the tutorials: if I can view http traffic on the network, cant I steal someone else's token and "impersonate" that user? I wont be able to decrypt the token since I dont have the "secret phrase" used to generate the token, but I can surely take it "as is"?
So, do tokens and https go together? Is my understanding about user impersonation via a token correct? Thank you
As somebody who intercepts a JWT you ...
... are able to "decrypt" the JWT since it is not encrypted. It is only Base 64 encoded,
... can validate the signature if an asymmetric scheme is used and you know the public key,
... can use the JWT to impersonate the user,
... can not change the claims made in the JWT since then the signature would no longer be valid which would be noticed by the server.
So, yes, use HTTPS.
Also on the server side don't rely on the JWT alone. Check that ...
... it is not on the blacklist of revoked tokens (you have such a list, don't you?),
... the request is coming from a network address that is a claim in the JWT (you include the network address for which the JWT was issued, don't you?.
I have a general question regarding JSON Web Token (JWT).
If the JWT is stolen from the client (say, it was stored as a cookie or the app's database) by hacking or physical access, it can be used to send to the server which the server will think it is the legitimate user. Is this correct?
Is there any common or standard practice to guard against this, for example, by sending the type of device/browser or some reference code together from the client and the server checks it matches additional data the JWT token was generated and stored with. (However, I read that the standard practice is not to store anything on the server.)
Please advise as I need to implement Java JWT (JJWT), RESTful Java Jersey and Google Web Toolkit. (I've been reading documentation such as this: [https://stormpath.com/blog/where-to-store-your-jwts-cookies-vs-html5-web-storage]).
Thank you!
Possesion of a JWT is the proof of authentication. An attacker who stoles a token can impersonate the user.
So, keep tokens secure:
use a TLS channel
add extra security measures depending on the type of storage. Cookies are vulnerable to CSRF attacks. use HttpOnly if you do not need to access token from javascript. LocalStorage is vulnerable to XSS attacks
set short expiration time on authentication tokens and require credentials if token is expired
Blacklisting is not useful because you won`t know that a JWT has been stolen. And its usage breaks stateleness, one of the advantages of JWT
Additionally is possible to add the IP the token, but consider the usage scenario because it can be problematic on mobile devices or systems behind a proxy
On the client you are building the JWT like:
byte[] key = getSignatureKey();
String jwt = Jwts.builder().setIssuer("myTestApplication")
.setSubject("myTest")
.setExpiration(expirationDate)
.put("scope", "testing")
.signWith(SignatureAlgorithm.HS256, key)
.compact();
On the server side you can verify the JWT in regards to the the key and the expiration date exp (and more i.e. creation date, issuer iss, audience aud):
String subject = "notMyToken";
try {
Jws jwtClaims = Jwts.parser().setSigningKey(key).parseClaimsJws(jwt);
subject = claims.getBody().getSubject();
//OK, we can trust this JWT
} catch (SignatureException e) {
//don't trust the JWT!
}
Stealing the JWT should be avoided by using SSL,...but if the JWT is stolen there would be the risk of replaying exactly this JWT - right. That's where jti comes in.
The jti (JWT ID) claim provides a unique identifier for the JWT. The
identifier value MUST be assigned in a manner that ensures that there
is a negligible probability that the same value will be accidentally
assigned to a different data object; if the application uses multiple
issuers, collisions MUST be prevented among values produced by
different issuers as well. The jti claim can be used to prevent the
JWT from being replayed. The jti value is a case-sensitive string. Use
of this claim is OPTIONAL.
With this identifier you could recognize if this ID was already sent (you have to blacklist it on the server side which somehow undermines the nature of JWT). Because you should use the expiration date you could clean the IDs if the expiration date leads to a SignatureException.
However, if the 'hacker' stole the JWT out of the database, as you wrote in the question, you have further problems beside the stolen JWT probably, because than the attacker could also steal other data etc.
Hope this helped a bit.