We currently have a stateless REST api, authenticated by JWT bearer tokens. (each of our servers trust the incoming JWT token as long as it's unexpired, load the user, and auth using the loaded user.)
We currently store the JWT token in localstorage, for development convenience. However, we're starting to implement security and defences, and we want to change our implementation. So:
We're going to send the JWT token as an HTTPonly and secure cookie (incidentally, this means that we don't have to manage it on the client side Javascript, because, well, we can't.)
We're going to include a CSRF token in our JWT response.
A couple of questions:
Introducing CSRF introduces state to our system, in that we're going to have to share this token across all our servers. While not being a stateless purist, this does bother me a little. Are there other ways of dealing with this?
Should we change the CSRF token each time? It seems like there's still 30 mins (our timeout setting) worth of vulnerability if we don't. However, if we do, does this introduce timing issues with pages that would make multiple API calls?
Related
I'm looking for some clarity regarding security concerns with just JWT in our current project.
basically it is working right now like this:
User authenticates with username + password at an authentication Service
frontend gets JWT
frontend can use this JWT in the communication with the backend.
but that seems unsecure for many reasons, so we discussed this so far and had a few ideas to make it more secure:
additionally encrypt the JWT, basically make an nested JWT (JWE) and work with a blacklist on logout... but here the question remains why work with an JWT and not a stateful authentication like Shared Sessions and a Redis service
Implementing an Api-Gateway so that the frontend or User gets a Session cookie and the gateway works with JWT for backend and auth. unfortunatly i've found no implementation like this whatsoever
We just want to be kinda secure in Login/Logout AND be scaleable in the the future so that there might be X other backends.
apologies for any errors, english is not my first language and i'm happy to answer any questions regarding this.
take care.
You are right that keeping tokens on the front end has some security issues. The current best practice is to try to keep tokens out of the browser altogether. At Curity we have described one possible solution as the Token Handler pattern. It adds a bit more complexity to your system but enables you to use secure sessions on the front instead of any tokens. We have provided a few implementations of the components needed by the Token Handler, you can have a look at how to run our complete example here: https://curity.io/resources/learn/token-handler-spa-example/
As to your first idea, if you want to implement blacklisting tokens, then you're in fact implementing sessions, and you're better off with cookies and plain old HTTP sessions. JWEs protect the contents of your token but an attacker can still steal such a token and use it to call your APIs.
This question already has answers here:
Where to store JWT in browser? How to protect against CSRF?
(7 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
For the purpose of securing REST API using JWT, according to some materials (like this guide and this question), the JWT can be stored in either localStorage or Cookies. Based on my understanding:
localStorage is subjected to XSS and generally it's not recommended to store any sensitive information in it.
With Cookies we can apply the flag "httpOnly" which mitigates the risk of XSS. However if we are to read the JWT from Cookies on backend, we then are subjected to CSRF.
So based on the above premise - it will be best if we store JWT in Cookies. On every request to server, the JWT will be read from Cookies and added in the Authorization header using Bearer scheme. The server can then verify the JWT in the request header (as opposed to reading it from the cookies).
Is my understanding correct? If so, does the above approach have any security concern? Or actually we can just get away with using localStorage in the first place?
I like the XSRF Double Submit Cookies method which mentioned in the article that #pkid169 said, but there is one thing that article doesn't tell you. You are still not protected against XSS because what the attacker can do is inject script that reads your CSRF cookie (which is not HttpOnly) and then make a request to one of your API endpoints using this CSRF token with JWT cookie being sent automatically.
So in reality you are still susceptible to XSS, it's just that attacker can't steal you JWT token for later use, but he can still make requests on your users behalf using XSS.
Whether you store your JWT in a localStorage or you store your XSRF-token in not http-only cookie, both can be grabbed easily by XSS. Even your JWT in HttpOnly cookie can be grabbed by an advanced XSS attack.
So in addition of the Double Submit Cookies method, you must always follow best practices against XSS including escaping contents. This means removing any executable code that would cause the browser to do something you don’t want it to. Typically this means removing // <![CDATA[ tags and HTML attributes that cause JavaScript to be evaluated.
A timely post from Stormpath has pretty much elaborated my points and answered my question.
TL;DR
Store the JWT in cookies, then either pass the JWT in the Authorization header on every request like I've mentioned, or as the article suggests, rely on the backend to prevent CSRF (e.g. using xsrfToken in case of Angular).
Do not store your token in LocalStorage or SessionStorage, because such token can be read from javascript and therefore it is vulnarable to XSS attack.
Do not store your token in Cookie. Cookie (with HttpOnly flag) is a better option - it's XSS prone, but it's vulnarable to CSRF attack
Instead, on login, you can deliver two tokens: access token and refresh token. Access token should be stored in Javascript memory and Refresh token should be stored in HttpOnly Cookie. Refresh token is used only and only for creating new access tokens - nothing more.
When user opens new tab, or on site refresh, you need to perform request to create new access token, based on refresh token which is stored in Cookie.
I also strongly recommend to read this article: https://hasura.io/blog/best-practices-of-using-jwt-with-graphql/
To help prevent CSRF attacks that take advantage of existing cookies, you can set your cookie with the SameSite directive. Set it to lax or strict.
This is still a draft and as of 2019 is not fully supported by all current browsers, but depending on the sensitivity of your data and/or your control over the browsers your users use, it may be a viable option. Setting the directive with SameSite=lax will allow "top-level navigations which use a 'safe'...HTTP method."
I am struggling to understand how JWT refresh tokens are safer than just using normal JWT access tokens with a long lifespan. I understand that by keeping the lifespan of JWT access tokens short, it limits the window of opportunity for attackers to abuse it. This assumes that the SSL layer of HTTPS has somehow been bypassed by the attacker in order to gain the JWT access token in the first place.
How do JWT refresh tokens solve this problem exactly? Once the access token expires, you would have to transfer the refresh token, which can also be hijacked if we assume that HTTPS is not secure enough. If the attacker gains control of the refresh token, then he now has access to a large supply of access tokens since refresh tokens typically have a long lifespan. By extension we could also say that the initial username/password authentication can be stolen if the HTTPS protocol is compromised.
Since the refresh token must be kept in the frontend (I am building a Angular/Spring boot application), we must take extra care that the refresh token can not be stolen client side as well. LocalStorage is clearly unsuitable to store the refresh token since it is not meant to be a secure storage. They are also unsuitable to be sent every request since they would be stolen together with the access token otherwise, which defeats the purpose of having short lifespan access tokens in the first place. Where should one store the refresh token?
If I wish to provide remember-me functionality at the loginpage, can I simply set the refresh token with an infinite lifespan?
I already went through several well written answers from the following links (and more):
What if JWT is stolen?
SPA best practices for authentication and session management
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/119371/is-refreshing-an-expired-jwt-token-a-good-strategy
But I am left unsatisfied regarding these 3 questions.
I shall attempt to answer all the points in your question
Do not use JWT refresh tokens. Use Opaque refresh tokens. Typically, JWTs are to have very short life times. The reason for this is that revoking them may not be possible if you do not have blacklisting
You can store refresh tokens in HttpOnly, secure cookies. If you want to avoid CSRF and XSS, then you can split the access token and store half in cookies, and other half in localstorage
If you assume that https is compromised (which is actually possible), the best defence here is to have measures in place to detect stolen refresh tokens. You can do do by implementing rotating refresh tokens. This can also be used to implement remember me functionality quite easily and with the highest level of security.
In general, this topic is quite complex and it would be impossible for me to explain everything here. So here is a blog post I like that explain everything todo with session security. They also have an open source library called SuperTokens you can use that is by far the most secure implementation I have seen. They have it in various tech stacks, and can also implement one for your tech stack.
You've already received an answer and have selected it, but I thought I'd add another perspective.
I'll start by pointing out a bit of myth with one of your assumptions:
LocalStorage is clearly unsuitable to store the refresh token since it
is not meant to be a secure storage.
I'm sure some will disagree with me on this, but to me LocalStorage is just as secure as Cookie storage, if not more.
Cookies are susceptible to CSRF attacks, while LocalStorage not so much. And both LocalStorage and Cookies are susceptible to XSS attacks (even httpOnly cookies, since injected code could perform any operation withCredentials).
So from that perspective, Cookies offer a greater attack surface than LocalStorage.
Therefor I don't see any problem in storing access NOR refresh tokens in LocalStorage from purely a security perspective.
Beyond the security concern, you may need to store them in LocalStorage (or a non-Cookie store) depending on the platform(s) you deploy to, ex: some mobile frameworks don't support Cookies.
Conversely, if you plan to run a JS Web app that does server-side rendering, you may need Cookies since typically the server process will not have access to LocalStorage.
So the issue is not entirely one of security.
As for the main gist of your question, which I understood as:
If access tokens are susceptible to attacks, what makes refresh tokens helpful, as they too must be susceptible to the same attacks?
You're right. Both access tokens and refresh tokens can be compromised. The question is... what can your server do about it once it finds out?
The idea of access tokens and refresh tokens is that access tokens are short lived and refresh tokens are long lived.
Personally, I see little use in refresh tokens unless you're using JWTs as your access token, which is what you eluded to in your post.
As you probably know, JWTs are stateless (albeit you can implement white/black lists which would make them stateful, but that sort of defeats the purpose). Therefor there is nothing the server can do to disable a stateless JWT.
Due to this fact, some consider it risky to have long expirations on JWTs because they can't easily be disabled if compromised. I agree with this.
So to get the "best of both" worlds, one can use short-expiry JWTs (10 minutes or so) with long-expiry refresh tokens (many OAuth implementations never expire the refresh tokens).
This strategy gives your server some control back by allowing it to deny issuing new refresh tokens, thereby denying new access tokens, while also benefiting from some of the selling points of JWTs.
I'm struggling with setting up reliable and performant solution to communicate frontend with different microservices. I do not really now how to maintain (maybe not need) CSRF between my frontend and end services
Solutions stack: PHP, Laravel Passport, JWT, oAuth 2.0, Axios
Current approach:
Actually I've started up with approach from Laravel's passport
https://laravel.com/docs/5.4/passport#consuming-your-api-with-javascript
Using oAuth 2.0 to authorize user from website A to service B.
JWT token is returned for further communication.
Token is saved in cookie within website A
Once user is authorized website A uses JWT token to manage requests without additional to oAuth server, by sending JWT token as cookie using HTTP headers (withCredentials) to authorize user.
For each website A's request there was CSRF token created from service B since user is authorized and cookie could be applied by another unauthorized website to access service B. That was killing my performance since it has to retrieve CSRF for each request made. (that what I actually assume from laravel passport approach and need to create CSRF with JWT token - maybe that was mistake)
My concerns:
Regarding to of James Ward post:
http://www.jamesward.com/2013/05/13/securing-single-page-apps-and-rest-services
The easiest way to do authentication without risking CSRF
vulnerabilities is to simply avoid using cookies to identify the user.
Cookies themselves are not the cause of CSRF vulnerabilities. It’s
using the cookies on the server to validate a user that is the cause
of CSRF. Just putting an authentication token into a cookie doesn’t
mean it must be used as the mechanism to identify the user.
From my understanding setting JWT with website A's cookie with its domain set could not be accessed via any other site from outside. Since that there is no possible way to make request to service B without accessing JWT.
So do we really need CSRF then to secure potential attack to service B while using JWT?
If so, how could I achieve the best (in term of performant) way to generate CSRF through different services to be sure that communication would not be vulnerable for attack from different sites?
Any advice will be appreciated!
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.