I'd like to implement a Facebook authentication that does not perform traditional oauth redirects. It doesn't play nicely with my single-page-application and GraphQL API.
On the JS side, I can invoke FB.login to trigger a dialog for the user to login. If this is successful, I receive an object containing an accessToken and a signedRequest.
signedRequest can be decoded on the server and it spits out a code for me. I can use code with /oauth/access_token to get an accessToken.
However, I already had the accessToken this whole time from the FB.login response. So my question is: is there any point of me decoding the signed request, if I had the access token this whole time?
Bonus: Why does the FB API provide a signed request in the first place, and why does the oauth redirect by default forward the code and not an accessToken?
Yes, you can use the token you got from the client-side login, directly on the server.
It might however be a short-lived one, whereas the server-side login flow should give you a long-lived one right away. If you only need to perform API calls while the user is active on your page, the short-lived one will probably do. (And it could still be exchanged for a long-lived one with a server-side API call, https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens/refreshing)
Why does the FB API provide a signed request in the first place
It also contains a bit more info, that might be useful for a client-side app (user id, token expiry, externally passed in data in case of the old “Canvas” type apps), and might save on one additional API call to get that kind of info. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/login/signed-request/
and why does the oauth redirect by default forward the code and not an accessToken?
General security measure. The token contained directly in the return URL, could easily be stolen by 3rd-party scripts that might be embedded on that page (ad servers etc. can get hacked from time to time, too), or leaked as part of the HTTP referrer.
The code parameter requires your app secret for the API call that exchanges it for a token, so if the code were to leak in any such way, whoever else got their hands on it, can’t do anything with it.
Related
I am developing a REST application with its own authentication and authorization mechanism. I want to use JSON Web Tokens for authentication. Is the following a valid and safe implementation?
A REST API will be developed to accept username and password and do the authentication. The HTTP method to be used is POST so that there is no caching. Also, there will be SSL for security at the time of transit
At the time of authentication, two JWTs will be created - access token and refresh token. Refresh token will have longer validity. Both the tokens will be written in cookies, so that they are sent in every subsequent requests
On every REST API call, the tokens will be retrieved from the HTTP header. If the access token is not expired, check the privileges of the user and allow access accordingly. If the access token is expired but the refresh token is valid, recreate new access token and refresh token with new expiry dates (do all necessary checks to ensure that the user rights to authenticate are not revoked) and sent back through Cookies
Provide a logout REST API that will reset the cookie and hence subsequent API calls will be rejected until login is done.
My understanding of refresh token here is:
Due to the presence of refresh token, we can keep shorter validity period for access token and check frequently (at the expiry of access token) that the user is still authorized to login.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
A REST API will be developed to accept username and password and do
the authentication. The HTTP method to be used is POST so that there
is no caching. Also, there will be SSL for security at the time of
transit
This is the way most do it, so you're good here.
At the time of authentication, two JWTs will be created - access token
and refresh token. Refresh token will have longer validity. Both the
tokens will be written in cookies so that they are sent in every
subsequent requests
Storing the tokens in cookies I not dangerous in itself, but if you somehow get you JWT module on your server to read them from there you vulnerable to CSRF attacks where any webpage can trigger a users browser to send a form + you sites cookie to your server unless you use CSRF tokens. So generally they are stored in localStorage and "manually" added to request headers every time.
On every REST API call, the tokens will be retrieved from the HTTP
header. If the access token is not expired, check the privileges of
the user and allow access accordingly. If the access token is expired
but the refresh token is valid, recreate new access token and refresh
token with new expiry dates (do all necessary checks to ensure that
the user rights to authenticate are not revoked) and sent back through
Cookies
Apart from the cookie dangers, it seems safe.
Provide a logout REST API that will reset the cookie and hence
subsequent API calls will be rejected until login is done.
You don't even need to make an API call, you can simply just purge the cookies or the localStorage object and make sure your client doesn't break on missing tokens.
The standard for the express-jwt module expects the tokens to be in its own "Authorization: Bearer [Token]" header, which I would strongly recommend over cookies. The localStorage API is available all the way back to IE8 so you should be good.
Edit:
First, it's important to know the difference between XSS and CSRF attacks since they're often believed to be the same thing.
XSS is when users get unsafe JS running on your domain in other users browsers when that happens neither JWT in localStorage or sessions and JWT in cookies are safe. With httpOnly flag on cookies, you can't directly access them, but the browser will still send them with AJAX requests to your server. If this happens you generally out of luck. To prevent this, make sure to escape all user input if it's sent to the browser.
If you load 3rd party JS with script tags or iframes this might compromise localStorage unless you are careful, but I haven't worked enough with this to help you here.
CSRF is only when other domains are trying to send normal HTML forms to your server by getting the browser to send cookies automatically. Frameworks prevent this by inserting unique random strings as hidden fields and checking them again when it's submitted. JWT's in localStorage is safe from this since each domain gets its own separate localStorage area.
But ultimately all this depends on if your service will be using one single domain, in which case httpOnly cookies will be plenty secure and easier to set up, but if you wanna spread your service out on multiple domains like api.domain.com + app.domain.com or add a native app you're forced to store you're JWTs in localStorage or some other native storage area.
Hope this helps!
I asked this question two years back and also accepted the answer. However, based on my experience and study in the last two years, I'd like to answer this just in case someone stumbles on this thread with the same question.
The approach mentioned in the question is similar to the "Resource Owner Password Credentials" grant type of OAuth 2.0. However, I think it is better to use the "Authorization Code Grant" type instead and Cookie to store the tokens instead of browser localStorage or sessionStorage. I have detailed my reasons, implementation points, security considerations and references in this StackOverlow answer.
Like OP I been using resource owner password grant.
I learned so much from Saptarshi Basu's other answer in a different post I think anyone looking into OAuth Code Flow should take a look at it, it has outlined a very solid approach to auth SPA and resource servers. It primarily relies on your backend(resource server) to handle authentication with the auth provider as a private client.
However, I will just add that people looking at implementing authentication with SPA should also consider OAuth Code Flow with PKCE. The main goal of PKCE is to allow public client such as SPA to authenticate directly with auth provider. All PKCE adds, is that when a SPA app initiates authentication, a hashed value is sent to the auth provider when the user is authenticated. And after user authenticate with the authorization provider, it redirects the user back to SPA with that hashed value as well as authorization code. Now, for the next part where the SPA calls auth provider to exchange code for tokens, instead of providing client secret, it has to provide the key that was originally used to create the hashed value. This mechanism guarantees the code cannot be used by someone who intercepted the code, and the SPA doesnt need to store a client secret like a server-side app does.
Now the only thing I'm not certain at this point is which is technically more secure, server-side authentication using standard Code Flow without PKCE or SPA authenticating directly using PKCE? Most resources I could find online currently describes and recommends the latter . However I feel that letting a private server side client handle authentication (as Saptarshi Basu described) might still be more secure. I would love to hear his opinion on this as well.
My understanding of refresh token here is:
Due to the presence of refresh token, we can keep shorter validity period for access token and check frequently (at the expiry of access token) that the user is still authorized to login.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Assuming you're talking about using JWT as Bearer-token in OAuth (and I would strongly advice to follow the OAuth 2.0 protocol), that's right.
With an additional auth-time (timestamp of authentication) claim in your JWT, you could even drop the second token and sent your access- as a refresh-token (the auth-server could then issue a new access-token if token is valid & auth-time within allowed range)... but sure, it's also good to follow the standard ;)
Anyway, there are certain additional aspects (that tend to get difficult or are even against the fundamental ideas of JWT) you should consider before using JWTs as refresh-token, as this basically means you introduce long-living JWT:
do you need to have something like forced user logout/ token revocation by subject (e.g. if user got identified as fraudulent)?
do you need to have something like revocation of a specific token (e.g. if a user looses a device)?
...
Dependent on your use-case you should consider all the possible implications, long-living tokens have as they usually require you to introduce some kind of state on your server-side (e.g. to allow revocation/ blacklisting). Keep in mind the beauty and security of the JWT concept lies within JWTs being short-lived.
TL;DR When using google oauth on desktop app, what to save on disk to avoid repeated sign in? Save the google user id? or the token? or an session id?
I'm creating an little desktop app, whitch must authenticate to my REST API server. I'm using google oauth2 for that.
The idea is, that when the desktop app will be authentivated, it generates some data that will be send to my server. The server will store the data with the google user id received from https://www.googleapis.com/userinfo/v2/me.
On the first run of the desktop app, it will open the default browser, with and url for my server and start an local http server. then:
my server will redirect the browser to google (with the clientid, secret, etc.)
user logs in and it will be redirected back to the server with the oauth code
server uses the code to get the token, and then the user profile and stores the token and the profile in db, then redirects the browser to localhost with an paramerer
the desktop app catches the parameter and stores it in an file on the disk
next time the desktop app will start it only reads the file for the parameter to send the generated data with it to my server
my question is: what the parameter should be? the google user id? the oauth token? an generated session id for this desktop app? or something else?
when it will be the google user id, it can conveniently sent the data with the user id and the rest server will just store it in db as is. but I don't think it's safe
when it will be the token, the rest server has to with every request also get the user profile from google with the token. and imho sending the token with every request isn't safe either
generating an session id means to store it with the user and the token on the server and the desktop app will just store it and send it with every request. but I don't know if it's safe to do that
As it's normally the case in software development you have a couple of options depending on requirements.
The mandatory requirement is that your client (desktop) application needs to send something to your REST API so that the API can perform up to two decisions:
Decide who the user is.
Decide if the user is authorized to perform the currently requested action.
The second step may not be applicable if all authenticated users have access to exactly the same set of actions so I'll cover both scenarios.
Also note that, for the first step, sending the Google user ID is not a valid option as that information can be obtained by other parties and does not ensure that the user did authenticate to use your application.
Option 1 - Authentication without fine-grained authorization
Either always sending the id_token or exchanging that token with your custom session identifier both meet the previous requirement, because the id_token contains an audience that clearly indicates the user authenticated to use your application and the session identifier is generated by your application so it can also ensure that. The requests to your API need to use HTTPS, otherwise it will be too easy for the token or session ID to be captured by an attacker.
If you go with the id_token alternative you need to take in consideration that the token will expire; for this, a few options again:
repeat the authentication process another time; if the user still has a session it will indeed be quicker, but you still have to open a browser, local server and repeat the whole steps.
request offline_access when doing the first authentication.
With the last option you should get a refresh token that would allow for your application to have a way to identify the user even after the first id_token expires. I say should, because Google seems to do things a bit different than the specification, for example, the way to obtain the refresh token is by providing access_type=offline instead of the offline_access from OpenID Connect.
Personally, I would go with the session identifier as you'll have more control over lifetime and it may also be simpler.
Option 2 - Authentication + fine-grained authorization
If you need a fine-grained authorization system for your REST API then the best approach would be to authenticate your users with Google, but then have an OAuth 2.0 compliant authorization server that would issue access tokens specific for your API.
For the authorization server implementation, you could either:
Implement it yourself or leverage open source components
⤷ may be time consuming, complex and mitigation of security risks would all fall on you
Use a third-party OAuth 2.0 as a servive authorization provider like Auth0
⤷ easy to get started, depending on amount of usage (the free plan on Auth0 goes up to 7000 users) it will cost you money instead of time
Disclosure: I work at Auth0.
There should be no problem sending the access_token with every request since they are created for that purpose and are thus short lived. You can use the Google Authorization Server endpoint to verify a token instead of using it to do a request for a users profile.
If you're only relying on Google for authentication, here's how your workflow can look:
the client (desktop application, in your case) retrieves the
Google id_token following the user's log in, and then sends it to
the server
the server validates the integrity of said token and extracts the user's profile data; this could mean a simple GET on Google's endpoint to verify this token: https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v3/tokeninfo?id_token={0}
On subsequent requests, nothing should change really, except that the user's login process will be automated (since he's given permissions & all), and thus much faster. #danielx is right, there's no problem with sending the token each and every time.
Preface
I'm developing several web services and a handful of clients (web app, mobile, etc.) which will interface with said services over HTTP(s). My current work item is to design an authentication and authorization solution for the product. I have decided to leverage external identity providers, such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and the like for authentication.
I'm trying to solve the problem of, "when a request comes to my server, how do I know who the user is and how can I be sure?". More questions below as well...
Requirements
Rely on external identities to indicate who I'm dealing with ('userId' essentially is all I care about).
The system should use token-based authentication (as opposed to cookies for example or basic auth).
I believe this is the right choice for scaling across multiple clients and servers while providing loose coupling.
Workflow
Based on my reading and understanding of token-based authentication, the following is how I imagine the workflow to be. Let's focus for now on Facebook in a web browser. My assumption is that other external identity providers should have similar capabilities, though I have not confirmed just yet.
Note, as of writing, I'm basing the following off of Facebook login version 2.2
Client: Initiates login to Facebook using the JavaScript SDK
Facebook: User authenticates and approves app permissions (to access user's public profile for example)
Facebook: Sends response to client which contains user’s access token, ID, and signed request
Client: Stores user access token in browser session (handled by SDK conveniently)
Client: Makes a request to my web service for a secure resource by sending along the user’s access token in the authorization header + the user’s ID (in custom header potentially)
Server: Reads user access token from request header and initiates verification by sending a request to the debug_token graph API provided by Facebook
Facebook: Responds back to the server with the user access token info (contains appId and userId)
Server: Completes verification of the token by comparing the appId to what is expected (known to itself) and the userId to what was sent on the client request
Server: Responds to the client with the requested resource (assuming the happy authorization path)
I’m imagining steps 5-9 would be repeated for subsequent requests to the server (while the user’s access token is valid – not expired, revoked from FB side, app permissions changed, etc.)
Here's a diagram to help go along with the steps. Please understand this system is not a single page application (SPA). The web services mentioned are API endpoints serving JSON data back to clients essentially; they are not serving HTML/JS/CSS (with the exception of the web client servers).
Questions
First and foremost, are there any glaring gaps / pit falls with the described approach based on my preface and requirements?
Is performing an outbound request to Facebook for verifying the access token (steps 6-8 above) per client request required / recommended?
I know at the very least, I must verify the access token coming from the client request. However, the recommended approach for subsequent verifications after the first is unknown to me. If there are typical patterns, I’m interested in hearing about them. I understand they may be application dependent based on my requirements; however, I just don’t know what to look for yet. I’ll put in the due diligence once I have a basic idea.
For instance, possible thoughts:
Hash the access token + userId pair after first verification is complete and store it in a distributed cache (accessible by all web servers) with expiry equal to access tokens. Upon subsequent requests from the clients, hash the access token + userId pair and check its existence in the cache. If present, then request is authorized. Otherwise, reach out to Facebook graph API to confirm the access token. I’m assuming this strategy might be feasible if I’m using HTTPS (which I will be). However, how does performance compare?
The accepted answer in this StackOverflow question recommends creating a custom access token after the first verification of the Facebook user token is complete. The custom token would then be sent to the client for subsequent requests. I’m wondering if this is more complex than the above solution, however. This would require implementing my own Identity Provider (something I want to avoid because I want to use external identity providers in the first place…). Is there any merit to this suggestion?
Is the signedRequest field present on the response in step #3 above (mentioned here), equivalent to the signed request parameter here in the ‘games canvas login’ flow?
They seem to be hinted as equivalent since the former links to the latter in the documentation. However, I’m surprised the verification strategy mentioned on the games page isn’t mentioned in the ‘manually building a login flow’ page of the web documentation.
If the answer to #3 is ‘Yes’, can the same identity confirmation strategy of decoding the signature and comparing to what is expected to be used on the server-side?
I’m wondering if this can be leveraged instead of making an outbound call to the debug_token graph API (step #6 above) to confirm the access token as recommended here:
Of course, in order to make the comparison on the server-side, the signed request portion would need to be sent along with the request to the server (step #5 above). In addition to feasibility without sacrificing security, I’m wondering how the performance would compare to making the outbound call.
While I’m at it, in what scenario / for what purpose, would you persist a user's access token to a database for example?
I don’t see a scenario where I would need to do this, however, I may be overlooking something. I’m curious was some common scenarios might be to spark some thoughts.
Thanks!
From what you describe I'd suggest to use a server-side login flow as described in
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2
so that the token is already on your server, and doesn't need to be passed from the client. If you're using non-encrypted connections, this could be a security risk (e.g. for man-in-the-middle attacks).
The steps would be:
(1) Logging people in
You need to specify the permission you want to gather from the users in the scope parameter. The request can be triggered just via a normal link:
GET https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?
client_id={app-id}
&redirect_uri={redirect-uri}
&response_type=code
&scope={permission_list}
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#login
(2) Confirm the identitity
GET https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?
client_id={app-id}
&redirect_uri={redirect-uri}
&client_secret={app-secret}
&code={code-parameter}
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#confirm
(3) Inspect the access token
You can inspect the token as you already said in your question via
GET /debug_token?input_token={token-to-inspect}
&access_token={app-token-or-admin-token}
This should only be done server-side, because otherwise you'd make you app access token visible to end users (not a good idea!).
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#checktoken
(4) Extending the access token
Once you got the (short-lived) token, you can do a call to extend the token as described in
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens#extending
like the following:
GET /oauth/access_token?grant_type=fb_exchange_token
&client_id={app-id}
&client_secret={app-secret}
&fb_exchange_token={short-lived-token}
(5) Storing of access tokens
Concerning the storing of the tokens on the server, FB suggests to do so:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#token
(6) Handling expired access tokens
As FB doesn't notify you if a token has expired (and if you don't save the expiry date and compare this to the current timestamp before making a call), it's possible that you receive error messages from FB if the token got invalid (after max. 60 days). The error code will be 190:
{
"error": {
"message": "Error validating access token: Session has expired at unix
time SOME_TIME. The current unix time is SOME_TIME.",
"type": "OAuthException",
"code": 190
}
}
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens#expiredtokens
If the access token becomes invalid, the solution is to have the person log in again, at which point you will be able to make API calls on their behalf once more. The login flow your app uses for new people should determine which method you need to adopt.
I dont' see any glaring gaps / pit falls, but I'm not a security expert.
Once your server has verified the given token (step 8), as you said:
The accepted answer in this StackOverflow question recommends creating a custom access token after the first verification of the Facebook user token is complete. The custom token would then be sent to the client for subsequent requests. I’m wondering if this is more complex than the above solution, however. This would require implementing my own Identity Provider (something I want to avoid because I want to use external identity providers in the first place…). Is there any merit to this suggestion?
IMHO is the way to go. I would use https://jwt.io/ which allows you to encode values (the userId for example) using a secret key.
Then your client attach this token to every request. So you can verify the request without need to a third party (you don't need database queries neither). The nice thing here is there is no need to store the token on your DB.
You can define an expiration date on the token, to force the client authenticate with the third party again when you want.
Let's say you want your server be able to do some action without the client interaction. For example: Open graph stories. In this scenario because you need to publish something in the name of the user you would need the access token stored on your DB.
(I can not help with the 3 and 4 questions, sorry).
Problem with Facebook is that they do not use OpenId connect on top of Oauth (https://blog.runscope.com/posts/understanding-oauth-2-and-openid-connect).
Thus resulting in their custom ways of providing Oauth authentification.
Oauth2 with OpenId connect identity services usually provide issuer endpoint where you can find URL (by appending ".well-known/openid-configuration") for jwk's which can be used to verify that JWT token and its contents were signed by the same identity service. (i.e access token originated from the same service that provided you jwk's)
For example some known openid connect identity providers:
https://accounts.google.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
https://login.microsoftonline.com/common/v2.0/.well-known/openid-configuration
(btw it is not a coincidence that Attlasian provides only these two services to perform external login)
Now as you mentioned, you need to support multiple oauth providers and since like Facebook not all providers use same configuration of oauth (they use different JWT attribute names, toke verification methods, etc. (Openid connect tries to unify this process)) i would suggest you to use some middleware identity provider like Oauth0 (service not protocol) or Keycloak. These can be used with external identity providers (Social pages as you mentioned) and also provides you with custom user store.
Advantage is that they unify authentication process under one type (e.g both support openid connect). Whereas when using multiple oauth providers with not unified authentication workflow you will end up with redudant implementations and need for merging different information's under one type (this is basically what mentioned middle-ware identity providers solve for you).
So if you will use only Facebook as identity provider in your app then go for it and make implementation directly for Facebook Oauth workflow. But with multiple identity providers (which is almost always case when creating public services) you should stick with mentioned workaround or find another one (or maybe wait till all social services will support Openid connect, which they probably wont).
There may be hope.. This year, Facebook have announced a "limited login" feature, which, if they were to add to their javascript sdks would certainly make my life easier:
https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2021/04/12/announcing-expanded-functionality-limited-login/
At the time of writing, I can only find reference to iOS and Unity SDKs, but it does seem to return a normal JWT, which is all I want!
We would like to implement "Sign-in with LinkedIn" in our app. Since the app has JS fronted and RESt-based backend, we decided to exchange JSAPI tokens for REST API OAuth tokens as described here.
If a user successfully signs in, the frontend sends credentials cookie with client-side bearer token and member ID to the backend. On the backend we check if a user with such a member ID already exists and if not, we exchange JSAPI token for REST API OAuth token, retrieve user details from LinkedIn a store it in our database.
Now the question is if we can use that cookie to authenticate each user's request to our REST backend. After a user successfully signed in via JSAPI, the cookie should be automatically passed to our backend on all subsequent requests so we can check member ID. Are there any drawbacks that we missed? Or is this idea as a whole wrong?
Should we rather authenticate a user only once by means of the cookie and then issue our own authentication token and send it back to the client?
The way cookies work in general is they are passed on every request to the domain they belong to. LinkedIn is setting a credentials cookie to your domain.
As long as you are validating those credentials on every request it's perfectly acceptable to use their tokens as authentication.
Personally I don't find that to be a great idea and would prefer to validate their credentials once and create my own auth token to use from there on out. You can always set that token to expire at some-point and re-validate the LinkedIn credentials (which will still be getting sent on every request anyway). This limits the amount of times you're checking with LinkedIn and should increase the responsiveness of your app.
Either way could work.
If you are using the LinkedIn cookie to validate a user by member id, you should validate the cookie's signature on each request per section 2 of the doc you linked and question 2 of the FAQ.
Using your own token could make it easier to implement an account which belongs to your app and is not necessarily connected to LinkedIn, assuming there's the potential to either connect solely with some other service(s) or no 3rd part(y/ies). Still should validate any time you trust the member id in the cookie though.
The doc provides a validation example in PHP, and if you're interested in improving a ruby version, I have a shameless plug.
The flow that you've outlined in your latest comment of going straight for the OAuth tokens is the best way to go if you were only signing in to convert the JSAPI tokens to OAuth tokens and then not using the JSAPI further. If you were planning to actually use both the JSAPI tokens within your front-end app and the OAuth tokens on your back-end, then it's better to take the conversion route.
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.