Acumatica Version: 2019R1
I'm looking to either modify the expiry time on granted OAuth tokens using a Connected Application within Acumatica. Currently, my token is granted using the 'api' and the 'offline_access' scopes to be able to access the API, and to get a refresh token.
I am trying to avoid using any type of session/cookie-based authentication, as my system will be solely interacting with the Acumatica REST API from a complete external source, and cannot store any session/cookie-related data.
My ultimate end goal would allow my application a specific token for absolute concurrent access without the need for refreshing, but a longer expiry time would most likely suffice.
For background, I have looked within all of the help docs, and through each of the Acumatica Developer Training courses, but none of them explicitly state if the OAuth protocol is editable.
I've looked in the OAuth 2.0 Framework documentation at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749, but while it shows that it is possible to modify the token expiry time/completely remove the expiry, it has no specific information on how to modify it, since Acumatica implemented the framework.
Here is the x-www-form-urlencoded request body being sent to grant the initial token:
grant_type: <password>
client_id: <applicationID>#<company>
client_secret: <secret>
username: <username>
password: <password>
scope: api offline_access
Here is the response received from both the initial token request, as well as each request to refresh the token:
{
"access_token": "<accesstoken>",
"expires_in": 3600,
"token_type": "Bearer",
"refresh_token": "<refreshtoken>"
}
From what I am searching through, it seems that Acumatica uses IdentityServer3 to implement the OAuth API for Connected Applications. The clients are entered through the SM303010 screen where you can set the ClientSecrets and RedirectURIs. The attribute in IdentityServer3 to modify would be AccessTokenLifetime.
https://identityserver.github.io/Documentation/docsv2/configuration/clients.html
It is defaulted as 3600 seconds (one hour) and does not seem to give you any entry point to modify.
I would verify with Support, but if it is not available, you can always request the feature to be added on https://feedback.acumatica.com
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.
So I am testing the REST API's given by uber to implement uber service into my app, while sending a request to one of their api it sends me response massage:
{
"message": "No authentication provided.",
"code": "unauthorized"
}
while iam doing the same request as given in their doc
the request iam creating:
headers:
Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN>
Accept-Language: en_US
Content-Type: application/json
to url https://api.uber.com/v1.2/me
where iam getting wrong and what else do I need to add?
In order to be able to use any Uber API endpoint, you will need to authorize your user and get access_token. From your sample code we can see that you did not follow the instructions on Uber documentation. So to make sure you are following full authentication process like it supposes to be please find below info:
The Authorization Code flow is a two-step authorization process. The first step is having the user authorize your app and the second involves requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token from Uber. This process is mandatory if you want to take actions on behalf of a user or access their information.
The redirect URL "YOUR_REDIRECT_URI" is the URL we will redirect back to after an authorization by the resource owner. The base of the URI must match the redirect_uri used during the registration of your application. If none is provided the default is the first redirect URI provided in the application's dashboard
"YOUR_LIST_OF_SCOPES" is the list of scopes you have requested in the authorizations tab. Based what you want to achieve and what API calls you want to make - you will need the certain scope to be used in your two-step authorization process. You can use multiple scopes as comma delimited list.
Please follow the steps of the authentication guide.
Briefly, you need to:
• Send user to authorize url. It starts by redirecting the user to the authorize endpoint: https://login.uber.com/oauth/v2/authorize?client_id=YOUR_CLIENT_ID&response_type=code&redirect_uri=YOUR_REDIRECT_URI&scope=YOUR_LIST_OF_SCOPES .
• Receive the redirect with an authorization code. After the user approves the scopes the user will be redirected to the redirect_uri with an auth code that you can post to the /v2/token endpoint to receive an access token.
• Make a POST call to: 'https://login.uber.com/oauth/v2/token'. This call will return access_token and refresh_token.
• After you get your access_token you can use it in the API's endpoints
Although I don't know the procedure, I know that it's possible to use the same token to:
list all the ad accounts under your user
Get ads performance information for each campaign
Plus the token is not a short-live token (doesn't need to be refreshed every 24 hours)
I tried generating a long-live token using curl, as described in this Facebook developers support page in the following manner in bash:
curl https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?grant_type=fb_exchange_token&client_id=$client_id&client_secret=$client_secret&fb_exchange_token=$fb_exchange_token
but got the response:
"error":{"message":"Missing client_id parameter.","type":"OAuthException","code":101
If the long-live token I am trying to generate is the correct approach: What am I doing wrong?
If not, how do I retrieve that token?
I can see the client_id parameter in your url. And you also have & character in your url. If you do not wrap the url with quote " or ' then it will break the command at & character. Which means, your command has executed as below, hence missing client_id:
curl https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?grant_type=fb_exchange_token
Correct approach should be:
curl "https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?grant_type=fb_exchange_token&client_id=$client_id&client_secret=$client_secret&fb_exchange_token=$fb_exchange_token"
The same token can be used for ad accounts and ads performance if it a long-live token, or a lifetime token.
lifetime token can be achieved by making another request with the 60 day token.
Execute the following curl to get the long lasting (2 months) access token:
curl "https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?grant_type=fb_exchange_token&client_id=$client_id&client_secret=$client_secret&fb_exchange_token=$fb_exchange_token"
Where:
client_id - App ID
client_secret - App secret
fb_exchange_token - The temporary token.
Note: Make sure that you are using a temporary token that was created within the last 12 hours
Lifetime token
Paste the Long lasting access token in FB Graph API Explorer with the address
/me/accounts
Use one of the tokens shown there.
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.