I'm trying to verify subscription purchase in our backend servers, considering from this hms-iap-serverdemo GitHub repo.
I'm trying to connect OAuth 2.0-based authentication servers using app ID and app secret. I took ID and secret from AppGallery Connect → my app → app information. The auth servers returns base64 encoded token. When I try to verify with this subscription purchase, I am getting ResponseCode:6 ResponseMessage:Token is expired or invalid InappPurchaseData error from server.
The status of the application is currently draft. Is that why I'm getting this error? I believe client ID and client secret is correct. Or something else. I do not know. Do you have an idea?
Thank you
ResponseCode:6 ResponseMessage:Token is expired or invalid InappPurchaseData
The possible causes are as follows:
Check whether the token is invalid.The token validity period is 1 hour. If the token expires, obtain a new token to ensure that the token is valid.
Check whether the AT is invalid and whether only the AT in the cache is obtained. If the AT is invalid, clear the cache and obtain the AT again. Generally, use the token interface to obtain the application-level AT again.
For details about how to obtain the application level AT, see docs.
The token format is incorrect.
According to the docs:
App-level access token: Authorization: Basic Base64(APPAT:atvalue)
Example: The app-level access token is thisIsAppAtValue, then APPAT:atvalue is APPAT:thisIsAppAtValue.
Therefore, replace APPAT:atvalue in Base64(APPAT:atvalue) with "APPAT:thisIsAppAtValue" to generate value QVBQQVQ6dGhpc0lzQXBwQXRWYWx1ZQ==.
The value of Authorization in the request header is as follows: Basic QVBQQVQ6dGhpc0lzQXBwQXRWYWx1ZQ==
The site request is incorrect.
Switch to a proper site based on your location and try again.
China: https://subscr-drcn.iap.hicloud.com
Germany: https://subscr-dre.iap.hicloud.com
Singapore: https://subscr-dra.iap.hicloud.com
Russia: https://subscr-drru.iap.hicloud.com
I'm building a REST API using Elixir's Phoenix framework. In the API, I need to authenticate the user by phone number i.e., via sending an SMS OTP code. After authenticating the user, the Auth server sends the Access token and Refresh token to the client. The client(mobile app) stores those tokens locally and sends the Access token in the HTTP header as Authorization: Bearer <Access_Token> in every request to resource server. My actual question is, how do resource server validates the Access token that is received from the mobile app/client?
Does resource server needs to contact Auth server to validate the Access Token? That would a lot of overhead. Please help me understand RestFull API Authentication.
Thanks for taking the time to read my question.
It sounds like you have everything working up to validating the token. You are going to need the public key for the server that signed the token. It depends on what auth server you're working with on how you get that. In some cases you may be able to preload this key as a configuration setting on your backend. Otherwise you can probably get it via https request to the auth server. Most auth servers these days I expect to provide a JWKS api that you can use to get the keys you need. Then with the token and the public key you can use your elixir jwt library to validate that the token you have was signed by the server you trust, meaning the SMS code was validated, and you can proceed with whatever is needed in the backend to handle the request.
If you're using Joken for elixir you can review https://hexdocs.pm/joken_jwks/introduction.html and https://hexdocs.pm/joken/introduction.html for more information.
how do resource server validates the Access token that is received from the mobile app/client?
The same way a nightclub bouncer verifies your driving license as proof-of-age to let you in: by validating the authority and signatures, but it does not need to phone-up your DMV to verify that your license is real because it trusts the signatures (in this case, cryptographic signatures).
That said, some systems do use "reference tokens" which are short (say 32 bytes) of meaningless random data which are used as an unpredictable record identifier for some user-permissions record held by the authorization server. The resource-server will need to contact the auth server initially, but then it can simply cache the auth result itself for some time window.
I would like to implement the Streamlined Identity Flow base on this documentation:
https://developers.google.com/actions/identity/oauth2-assertion-flow
I created my server (Node.js + node-oauth2-server) and successfully tested with OAuth 2.0 Playground.
Authorization code flow implemented, account linking enabled.
According to the documentation: "When Google needs to access your service's resources, and the user is signed in to their Google Account, Google sends a signed JWT with information about the user to your token exchange endpoint.".
The expected request is:
POST /token HTTP/1.1
Host: oauth2.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer&intent=ACTION&assertion=JWT&consent_code=CONSENT
The problem is that there is no such request, the token endpoint get called with grant_type=authorization_code without any JWT information.
I tried the Google Account Linking Demo and the Action simulator, same results.
Why is the JWT grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer request is missing? What should be changed in order to receive such requests?
I encountered the same problem. In my case, every time I validated the "Quick account linking" I had an error during the tests with the simulator. And as a result, the 'seamless account linking' was not engaged.
It was enough that I fill the field: Link to Terms of Service 'in App information for the simulator to start test without error.
I saw then arrive the screen described in the doc "Exchange JWT assertions for tokens" which allows to select a google account
then google sent to my OAuth2 server a request with grant_type = urn: ietf: params: oauth: grant-type: jwt-bearer
and I saw the arrival of the famous JSON Web Token (JWT)
(For the test authentication, you have to use https://gala-demo.appspot.com/ with the name of the project with _dev).
In my case, now, seeamless account linking works well.
I hope It can help.
In my REST API, user will log in with their username and password for the first time.
When they logged in successfully, we will response with the following format.
{
"token": "0c7f8b870675bc61d92baeef1e274c2d31343736393530373230",
"expire_on": "2016-11-19T18:05:20+0000",
"user_id": 30,
"user": {...}
}
On the subsequent to the REST API, we will just send token in the header to verify the user. token is 52 letters long.
Is it secure enough?
Should I send both token and user_id to verify to secure more?
It depends on how do you generate your token.
If someone can guess how they are generated then it can create a fake one.
If this is a random string that is saved on your server and for each request you check the existence in your server then you are safe.
The best current solution for stateless token is JWT. Take a look at https://jwt.io/
Did you implement your authentication layer? I would suggest having a look at the Oauth2 specification and you are interested in the section when the grant_type is password. If you follow it, it will be safe to return just the access token:
5.1. Successful Response
The authorization server issues an access token and optional
refresh token, and constructs the response by adding the following
parameters to the entity-body of the HTTP response with a 200 (OK)
status code:
access_token
REQUIRED. The access token issued by the authorization server.
token_type
REQUIRED. The type of the token issued as described in
Section 7.1. Value is case insensitive.
expires_in
RECOMMENDED. The lifetime in seconds of the access token. For
example, the value "3600" denotes that the access token will
expire in one hour from the time the response was generated.
If omitted, the authorization server SHOULD provide the
expiration time via other means or document the default value
.
Why do you need both a "code" and a "token" in the Facebook OAuth2 authentication flow as described here: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/authentication/ ?
If you look at the OAuth dialog reference (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/dialogs/oauth/), it seems like you only ever use the token to fetch information about the user, and if you specify the response_type parameter as token or code,token, then you get the token on the first time.
Why do you need to get a "code" and then use the code to get a "token" as opposed to getting the token directly?
I guess I'm misunderstanding something basic about how OAuth works, but it seems you avoid the request to https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token entirely if you get the token the first time with the dialog.
Let us take a simple example to differentiate authentication code vs access token.
You as a user want to try a new Facebook app called Highjack.
So you click on the application and the Highjack app asks you to log into your Facebook account. When you are done, Facebook generates an authentication code for you.
This code is then passed to the Highjack server which uses its own FB client id, FB secret and your authentication code to get an access token.
In the above example the authentication code is confirming you as a user is a valid FB user. But the second steps says "you as a FB user is giving access to the Highjack app for certain resources".
If the Highjack app wanted implicit grant (i.e direct access token), then the access token would be visible to you also since it is being exchanged with the browser. This means you can now call all Facebook APIs on behalf of Highjack using the access token. (You can only use the access token to get your personal information but Facebook has no way of knowing who is calling their APIs.)
Since we have 2 parties (You and Highjack) authenticating with Facebook we have this 2 fold mechanism.
Borrowed shamelessly from Salesforce Documentation:
Authorization Code
An authorization code is a short-lived token representing the user's access grant, created by the authorization server and passed to the client application via the browser. The client application sends the authorization code to the authorization server to obtain an access token and, optionally, a refresh token.
Access Token
The access token is used by the client to make authenticated requests on behalf of the end user. It has a longer lifetime than the authorization code, typically on the order of minutes or hours. When the access token expires, attempts to use it will fail, and a new access token must be obtained via a refresh token.
From the OAuth 2.0 Spec:
The authorization code provides a few important security benefits
such as the ability to authenticate the client, and the transmission
of the access token directly to the client without passing it through
the resource owner's user-agent, potentially exposing it to others,
including the resource owner.
So, basically - the main reason is to limit the # of actors getting the access token.
"token" response is intended primarily for clients that live in the browser (e.g.: JavaScript client).
Answer) You need/want both the code and token for extra security.
According to Nate Barbettini we want the extra step of exchanging the authentication code for the access token, because the authentication code can be used in the front channel (less secure), and the access token can be used in the back channel (more secure).
Thus, the security benefit is that the access token isn't exposed to the browser, and thus cannot be intercepted/grabbed from a browser. We trust the web server more, which communicates via back channels. The access token, which is secret, can then remain on the web server, and not be exposed to the browser (i.e. front channels).
For more information, watch this fantastic video:
OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect (in plain English)
https://youtu.be/996OiexHze0?t=26m30s (Start 26 mins)
If you look at the flow of Authorization Code OAuth type, yes, there are actuary two steps:
<user_session_id, client_id> => authorization_code
<client_id, redirect_uri, authorization_code, client_secret> => access_token, refresh_token
In step1: the user tells the OAuth Server that "I want to auth this client (client_id) to access my resource. Here is my authentication (user_session_id or what else)"
In step2: the client (client_id) tells the OAuth server that "I've got the user the authorization (authorization_code), please give me an access token for later access. And this is my authentication (client_id & client_secret)"
You see, if we omit step 2, then there is no guarantee for client authentication. Any client can invoke step1 with a different client_id and get an access token for that client_id instead of its own. That's why we need step2.
If you really want to combine step1 and step2, you can do something like this:
<client_id, redirect_uri, client_secret> => access_token, refresh_token
We use this approach in our Open API Platform, and we haven't find any security problem yet.
BTW, there is actually an Implicit Grant type, that is:
<client_id, redirect_uri> => access_token, refresh_token
It is generally applicable to client only application which have no server backend. In that case, the OAuth server must ensure that the redirect URI belongs to that client (same with the register redirect_uri, for example).
The mix-up came because the user on behalf of himself and not the client app authenticate against the authorization server (i.e. facebook).
Its much simple to secure the client app (with https) then the user-agent (browser).
Here is the original formulation from IETF-oauth (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-08#section-3.4):
3.4. Authorization Code
An authorization code represents the intermediate result of a
successful end-user authorization process and is used by the client
to obtain access and refresh token. Authorization codes are sent to
the client's redirection URI instead of tokens for two purposes.
Browser-based flows expose protocol parameters to potential
attackers via URI query parameters (HTTP referrer), the browser
cache, or log file entries and could be replayed. In order to
reduce this threat, short-lived authorization codes are passed
instead of tokens and exchanged for tokens over a more secure
direct connection between client and authorization server.
It is much simpler to authenticate clients during the direct
request between client and authorization server than in the
context of the indirect authorization request. The latter would
require digital signatures.
Theoretically,
Access Tokens cannot tell us if the user has authenticated but auth code does.
Auth code should not be used to gain access to an API but access token should be.
If you have a single page application or mobile application with no or minimum backend, your application may want to access user's FB data directly at frontend. Hence the access token is provided.
In another case, you may want a user to register/login to your app using some external auth service provider like Facebook, Google etc. In this case, your frontend will send the auth code to the backend that can be used to get access token from Facebook at serverside. Now your server becomes enabled to access user's FB data from the server.
Basically, as an extension of Lix's answer, the access code route allows a Resource Owner (i.e. the Facebook User) to revoke authorization for their User Agent (i.e. their browser), e.g. by logging off, without revoking authorization for an offline Client (i.e. Your Application).
If this is not important, then there is no need to use the access code route.
Furthermore, the access code is provided to ensure that the Token provided to a server is actually registered to the Resource Owner (i.e. the Facebook User), and not the User Agent (or a Man-in-the-Middle).
This seems similar to the question of either choosing the implicit vs authorization code grant flow. In fact, here is what looks like an opposite view point?!.
Also, as Drew mentioned,
When the access token expires, attempts to use it will fail, and a new access token must be obtained via a refresh token.
another piece is the refresh token, but I don't see that being explained too well in the FB Docs. If I'm correct, the implicit grant (the direct token) should be really short lived, but that is to-be-enforced and FB.js seems to hide a lot of that (this one I have not looked as deep into).
If I'm correct, the code%20token is an optimization allowing both the User Agent to have a token and allowing for the server to initiate the token exchange process in a single request (as anything over Network IO is considered expensive, especially to a User Agent).
In OAuth 2.0 with facebook, the overall concept is simple as follows.
Step 1. Obtain "Authorization Code" by a GET request
request URI: https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth
Params:
response_type=code
client_id={add your "App id" got by registering app}
redirect_uri={add redirect uri defined at the registration of app}
scope={add the scope needed in your app}
Headers: None
Step 2. Obtain the "Access Token" by sending the authorization code as a POST request
URI: https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token
Params:
grant_type=authorization_code
client_id=<add your "App id" got by registering app>
redirect_uri=<add redirect uri defined at the registration of app>
code=<obtained authorization code from previous step>
Headers:
Authorization:Basic encode <App Id:App Secret> with base64
Content-Type:application/json
Step 3. Use the access token got from above step and retrieve user resources
It’s because the access token is given to an AUTHENTICATED client (third-party app) using a shared secret that only FB and the client knows. The only way that the user could directly request the access token is by knowing the shared secret, which would make the secret public and could lead to a man-in-the-middle attack. Further, while FB can guarantee a secure connection to the user, FB can’t guarantee the handoff of the token to the client is secure. However, FB (and OAuth2) does require a secure connection between the client and FB. The access token is tied to the client public ID (usually hashed), which means only the original client application can use it to request the token because the secret is sent along with the authorization code to get the access token.
You recieve a token when the user logs in. But you might want to change the token when you are performing other actions. EG posting as your app/page or posting as a user with offline_access.