Was investigating how to work with JWT and found not obvious thing for me:
Why for refreshing access token are not using both access and refresh tokens but only refresh token?
In this case we will be able to:
Verify access token signature, even if it is expired.
Get from access token information from payload, which may help in finding refresh token in database.
Your question is a bit unclear and is assuming some things that may not be true. Neither access tokens not refresh tokens have to be JWTs and JWTs are not specific to OAuth2 (which defines access and refresh tokens, but doesn't say how they should be implemented).
The audience for access tokens and refresh tokens is also different - access tokens are sent to a (possibly separate) resource server (the issuing authorization server may not even have kept a copy if they are self contained). Refresh tokens are sent to the authorization server.
Locating either type of token in a database (assuming they aren't self-contained tokens like JWTs) should never be a problem because they should be unique tokens which make ideal primary keys for a database table. So there would be no reason to send an expired access token as part of a refresh request.
Welcome to Stack Overflow, by the way :).
Related
Please don't mark as duplicate I came through a lot of questions like this but still I didn't get the point of refresh token. Some of the reason they said are:
If an attacker gets the access token it will expiry soon
But where I am confused is if the attacker was able to get the access token why they wouldn't be able to get the refresh token (both of them needed to access token by JS to sent request so they needed to store in local storage)
If the attacker gets the refresh token we can block it in server.
But we can also block the access token in server right. (with DB)
Note I am not talking about OAuth refresh token, because as per the answers I read,
The idea of refresh tokens is that if an access token is compromised,
because it is short-lived, the attacker has a limited window in which
to abuse it.
Refresh tokens, if compromised, are useless because the attacker
requires the client id and secret in addition to the refresh token in
order to gain an access token.
So it makes sense here but what about JWT?
Typically the access token gets sent with every request, and to your API.
Typically a refresh token only gets sent once, immediately expires after use and only goes to your authentication server. All these measures generally reduce risk.
JWT and OAuth2 can be used together, and it's highly recommended to use OAuth2 instead of trying to write something from scratch.
I talk a bit more about the pitfalls in my article: https://evertpot.com/jwt-is-a-bad-default/
The refresh token allows the client to make a call and ask for a new access token. For setups where the access token does have a certain expiry, the refresh token will typically have an expiry which is later than the access token itself. Here is a typical workflow using access and refresh tokens:
The client authenticates to the server via 1FA or 2FA
The server responds with an access token having an expiry in 5 minutes, along with a refresh token which expires a minute later
The client then uses the access token as needed.
When authentication fails using the current access token, under the hood the client will take the refresh token and hit the server to get a new access token. We then go to step #2 above and recycle.
Note that for certain instances, the refresh token is not needed. One example would be sites like Stack Overflow, which uses token which never expire. Another example would be certain high security sites such as banking sites. In these cases, the site might force you to reauthorize via 1FA/2FA in order to keep the session going.
One way in which an update of the authentication token can be carried out through another and without exposing it to client applications (avoiding its use in a malicious way), is to store it in a cache system such as REDIS and in the When the request token has expired, check in storage if the user has a refresh token that allows him to regenerate the authentication. This could be implemented within the same middleware that validates the token that accompanies the request or in an endpoint intended for this purpose.
So, i'm trying nest js for a side project. Reading a lot lately about jwt authentication flow. Conceptually, the flow would be something like:
Client logs in and receives and access token and a refresh token. Access Token will be short lived and will be stored in memory, not in localstorage, to reduce the risks of being stolen.
Refresh token will be used only when the access token is expired to get a new one. The new one will be stored in memory. The refresh token will be stored in an httpOnly cookie, so no javascript access will be allowed hence improving the security.
Everything is cristal clear, but, my question is... why do we need the access token and why don't we always use the refresh token? In the end, if we are trusting the refresh token to generate new access tokens... why don't we simplify the whole thing and use only the long lived, stored in an httpOnly cookie on every request?
I mean I get the whole process, I just don't get why is not "secure" to use the token stored in an httpOnly cookie every time.
Can anyone share some light here?
Thanks!
You use the access token to access the API. It contains the necessary claims to authenticate and authorize the request.
The refresh token is a separate token that you use to renew the access token and you can not use the refresh token to access any API, as it is typically just a random string without any specific meaning (no claims).
The refresh token is never sent to any API and having separate tokens gives a better separation of concerns. By using refresh tokens, we can have short-lived access tokens, so if the access token is stolen, it can only be used for a short time. The refresh token is stored in a more secure way and it is only used between the client and the identity provider, so there is less risk that it will be stolen or intercepted.
Some platforms (like ASP.NET core) stores the token by default in the session cookie) but to secure it it is encrypted using strong encryption. This means that the hacker or browser can't see the actual tokens inside the cookie.
More you travel, more you exposed.
As you know the refresh token is meant to be used in case of short lived access token expiration. The idea for the use of two tokens is very simple. As access token (short lived token) will travel more frequently over the wire, increasing it chances of getting it caught by external parties. Therefore, short life expectency of access token will deny the access to the resouces for longer run in case of compromisation.
If the refresh token is secured, why don't we use just the refresh on
every request?
Nothing can make the refresh token secure. It's totally client responsibility to store it in secure location/storage for later use.
Im playing around and creating a custom access token system using JWT. I have already created a system for signing and validating JWT access tokens.
However, I find it hard to obtain information about what claims a refresh token should consist of.
Should i create refresh tokens identical to the access token - with a longer expiratiom time so that the same function that validates access tokens can be used to validate the refresh token?
A refresh token is typically an opaque value that is only used by clients to refresh access tokens. The flow works like this:
Web or mobile client implements OpenID Connect to authenticate users and get tokens - prompting the user to consent in some cases
An Authorization Server (AS) issues the tokens and stores details of this 'delegation' in a database - tokens are a pointer to this state
Client sends access tokens to APIs until a 401 expired response is received
Client then tries to refresh the access token by sending the refresh token to the Authorixation Server, which then looks up claim details from the stored state
I would make sure you get these responsibilities right - in particular avoid building your own AS and use a free one provided by experts, such as Curity Community Edition. Many security solutions will then be easier to develop.
I'm trying to get my head around refresh tokens and how they work with JWT, so I can use it without auth0 API service.
Why refresh token format is different from JWT?
refresh tokens are just simple tokens store in the db?
How is the flow to use a refresh token to get a JWT token?
Thanks!
UPDATE
As #Florent Morselli suggested. The fundamental question of this post is wrong and confusing. Since JWT and refresh tokens are not really concepts that can be related. A better question can be:
What is the difference between a JWT Token and an opaque token?
What is the difference between a Access Token and a Refresh Token?
I'm not changing the question in the title, since somebody might be looking wrongly for the same thing and it will lead them to this post.
Token can be of two types:
Tokens by Reference
Tokens by Value
With the first type, the tokens are opaque strings (often random strings) that refer to a database index where the values associated to the tokens are stored.
With the second type, the tokens contain the values. To avoid alteration they are digitally signed or hashed. As they also may contain sensitive data, they can be encrypted.
JSON Web Token is a suite of specifications (mainly RFC7515 to RFC7520) that introduces a new format for the second type.
Why Refresh tokens issued by oauth0 are of the first type and not JWT (second type)?
The main benefit of the tokens by value is that they can be stateless i.e. you don't need any kind of database.
This is really helpful when tokens are sent several times to a server as they drastically reduce database calls and thus reduce the response time.
The drawback is that you cannot revoke them. Or if you add a revocation system, then you have to manage and call a database.
Therefore , tokens by value should have a very limited lifetime which is not compatible with refresh tokens.
Refresh token are used in Code flow or Hybrid flow as per OpenID Spec See Image below
Reference: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#CodeFlowSteps
Why refresh token format is different from JWT?
The format of Refresh token is also as per spec from OpenID
Reference: https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#CodeFlowSteps
refresh tokens are just simple tokens store in the db?
Refresh tokens would be generated from your IDP(Identity Provider dynamically).
How is the flow to use a refresh token to get a JWT token?
Once you have the refresh token as shown in previous step, you can make a request to Token Endpoint with Refresh token to get Access Token
Access token
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.