I have been reading up on how CSRF Tokens are implemented to prevent CSRF attacks. The OWASP page (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet) and various articles state that one can generate a random unique token either on a per page basis or a per session basis. (of which they recommend generating it once per sessions)
If only one token is generated per session, then wouldn't that mean that all form pages using tokens for that session will have to have the same token every time the page is loaded (whenever say it is refreshed)? But in most implementations I have seen each load for the form has a different random token.
How does it work? After every successful check at the server side, is the CSRF token present in the session invalidated?
I just wanted to know if I am understanding this right. I read many similar questions on Stackoverflow and other blogs but I am still confused.
Thanks !!
I haven't read the OWASP page, but I believe in this context a session starts when a visitor first arrives at a site, and continues until the session expires (whether through inactivity or other generally server-defined criteria) or the visitor closes their browser.
When a session is first started, there won't be a CSRF token present in the session, so the server will generate one, and store the token in its internal data. A session handle is returned to the browser, and when the visitor loads or reloads another page on the site, it returns the session handle to the server, the server finds it has a CSRF token already set, and uses the existing one, rather than creating a new one. Thus, you don't need to worry about the token being invalidated as long as you only create a new one only if there isn't one already present in the session.
Even if the CSRF secret is only generated once per session, it's possible for each form to get a different token, by salting and hashing the secret (similar to how passwords are salted and hashed) that's sent to the browser. On form submission, the server can verify the salted token against its secret (again, similar to how passwords are checked). That way, each form can get its own unique token, without the server needing to remember or invalidate anything other than the per-session secret.
Related
I've successfully used cookies before and I'd like to begin using JWT. My biggest question is how to pass your token to a website during the initial GET operation, for example when a user types your domain into their address bar or clicks on a link from some other website like google.
When using cookies for example, if you type stackoverflow.com into your web browser, the persistent cookie is sent to the website which seamlessly allows your own stackoverflow session to be automatically authorized.
I am aware that I can programatically pass my JWT token via a javascript GET through the HTTP headers but how do you pass the token when a visitor types in your URL into their web browser?
Possible solution #1
My thoughts have been to have javascript code check if 'authorized'. If not, check for a JWT token in local storage. If found, redirect to the same address. The problem of course would be that there is no way to pass the token during a redirect.
Possible solution #2
Similar to above but not issuing a redirect, I would update the current page to reflect the 'authorized' state.
Possible solution #3
Use a permanent cookie containing the JWT token. I am thinking that this 3rd option would be the best. If I did this, there would be no need to pass the JWT via an HTTP header.
I've thought about this for a few days, read up on JWT and here are my conclusions for avoiding JWT in my particular case:
No easy way to authorize a user who opens their browser and types in your website. With cookies, your server immediately knows how to respond to this headerless GET request.
No way to easily change the JWT token signature. All users are immediately affected by such a change, essentially forcing everyone to authenticate again.
No way to easily invalidate a specific JWT token. The best you can do is to maintain and check a banned signature list on the server. This of course would require a centralized or distributed server method almost identical to a cookie session management system. This would force a coupling between the token and the server, no longer stateless as intended by JWT.
SUMMARY
Cookie management requires more server infrastructure but you have much greater session control. State is seamless (in the case of #1 above). You can instantly invalidate state. For example, the user can log out (deleting the session at the server level) or the session can be instantly banned by an administrator by simply deleting the session.
I also see the benefits to JWS:
no need to hit the db or cache system when authorizing.
simple authorization between multiple servers having the secret key.
simple authorization, no session management programming and no db session state storage required.
...but the drawbacks stated previously are too great for my particular needs.
I'm in the process of rolling my own JWT token auth, however, I would really like it to be a one time-token – so once it's used, the server generates a new token and the client will have to use that token during the next request/call.
However, it has come to my understanding that JWT is supposed to be 'stateless' – but with the approach of a one time token, I guess I would need to somehow store the valid tokens, since the token will be refreshed once it's used. Or is there any way to avoid storing a value on the server, and still be able to create one-time tokens?
The two main reasons for why I don't want to store any value is first of all scalability (sure, I could have cache-server inbetween to store the values, but it would be nice if that wasn't required), secondly, JWT is supposed to be stateless from my understanding, which it wouldn't be if I need to store a value on the server to be able to validate the token.
Any ideas?
Use the user's current password's hash for signing the JWT token, in this way all tokens generated before a successful password change would get invalidated the next time. I got the idea from here https://www.jbspeakr.cc/howto-single-use-jwt/.
Solutions exist, of course.
As with any distributed system (you mentioned scalability) you have to choose between availability and consistence.
You choose availability. In this case you could maintain a list of already-used tokens that you replicate in a eventually consistent manner between all the endpoints. For example when a token is used the respective endpoint send that token to the other endpoints in the backgound. There is however a (short) time frame when that token can be used a second time by another endpoint until that endpoint is updated.
You choose consistency (you won't allow a token to be used multiple times whatsoever). In this case you use a central database with already-used tokens and you check that database everytime you need to perform an action. Scalability? You could use sharding on the token and have n databases, each one being responsible for a tokens subset.
It depends on your business what solution fits best.
Not really no, a JWT token is valid if it hasn't expired and the signature is correct, commonly people will keep a DB of blacklisted tokens which are usually ones where people have logged out etc.
The only sensible way I can think of is give them a short expiry time and maintain a list of tokens that have already been used, you'd then periodically remove the ones that subsequently expire from the DB.
There are actually some DB's that have a TTL on records (dynamoDB, mongodb) so you'd just put the tokens in and set a TTL for when the token expires.
Update 2022
Just to be clear JWT tokens AREN'T stateless they have claims that, as long as they're signed by the right private key - give you a stateful piece of data that can be reissued by your API to reflect the current state of the user.
You'd just need to handle token re-issue on the consumer.
Like others have mentioned, it depends on your business case. Password resets links can be like mentioned on https://www.jbspeakr.cc/howto-single-use-jwt/.
If you have the Single-Use & Single-Auth scenario, where you might want to invalidate any previously used and unused token, you can store a single nonce and update it on every new token request and also when its used.
Considering that, by definition, a REST API is stateless: is the "logout" operation useless?
I mean, I'm creating a REST API using encrypted JWT. Each token has an expiration time of, let's say, 60 minutes. If I save on a database table the last tokens generated by the API, the "logout" would be done deleting them from the table of valid tokens. But, if I do that, I understand that the API will cease to be stateless, right?
So, I understand that I shouldn't do that. The only solution that I'm thinking is make the JWT expiration time shorter, to 5 minutes, don't implement a "logout" operation and just let the tokens expire.
Is this the correct approach?
I mean, I'm creating a REST API using encrypted JWT
The JSON Web Token (JWT) tokens encodes all the data about the grant into the token itself. The most important advantage of this approach is that you do not need a backend store for token storage at all. One disadvantage is that you can't easily revoke an access token, so they normally are granted with short expiry and the revocation is handled at the refresh token. Another disadvantage is that the tokens can get quite large if you are storing a lot of user credential information in them. So if:
If I save on a database table the last tokens generated by the API,
the "logout" would be done deleting them from the table of valid
tokens
Then you would lose the most important advantage of using JWT and also, still have all those disadvantages, which seems unreasonable to me.
So, I understand that I shouldn't do that. The only solution that I'm
thinking is make the JWT expiration time shorter, to 5 minutes, don't
implement a "logout" operation and just let the tokens expire.
Is this the correct approach?
In my opinion, if you're planning to use JWT, YES! it's better to rely on the token expiration. For more details on this approach you can check this question out.
Is “logout” useless on a REST API?
Regardless of the fact that you're using JWT and similar to any other decent questions on computer science, the answer would be It Depends. The most important advantage of Statelessness is that your API would be more scalable. If you choose this path, probably, every request on your API should be authenticated, since you may need to search a backend store for the given token or decode a JWT token. So, in this case you may have some performance cost on a single node but in a big picture, you would still have the scalability. I guess what i'm trying to say is, if you do not need that scalability, you're better off to choose a Stateful approach. Otherwise, pure REST principles is the way to go.
Automatic token expiry is a separate concern from an explicit "log out" mechanism and, as such, they are both perfectly valid actions regardless of whether your API is ReSTful or not.
When a user logs out they are making a conscious decision to invalidate their access token - for example, if they're using a public computer or borrowing someone else's device temporarily.
Automated expiry is used to ensure that the user must revalidate, in some fashion, on a regular basis. This is good for server-side security.
Access tokens are not about sharing session state between client and server - it's entirely possible to implement an access token system without shared state and the token itself doesn't implement session state, it's only used to verify that the user is who they claim to be. As such, access tokens are not really anything to do with the statefulness of the API.
I think it depends on the behavior that you want for your application, and how secure you need it to be. Do you really need to invalidate the token?
For instance, you could just remove your token from your frontend (browser or app). In theory, it is the only place that stores that particular token. If the token is compromised, it will still be valid until it expires, though.
If you really need to invalidate it server side, a common approach would be to create a blacklist with the token, and clear the expired entries from time to time.
But what if you need your application to accept just one token for each user, like in a bank app that you can only be logged in one device at time? For that purpose the blacklist won't do the job, so you will need to store a single token for each user and check if the passed token is the same. At logout, you would just clear that unique entry. Or you may just use sessions.
So, it is not useless, It just depends on your application.
I would argue that your API is already stateful just by the sheer fact that you have a token around. I also wouldn't get too hung up on REST purity, meaning that everything has to be stateless come hell or high water.
Put simply, if your application requires login, then you need a way to logout. You can't implement a short expiry because that's just going to be a really annoying experience to consumers of the API. And you can't just have no logout at all, because thats a potential security flaw.
I have a similar REST API that I support and I implemented a logout endpoint that is a DELETE call. It simply deletes the token information on the server side and clears any type of authentication for the logged in user.
TL;DR
No, a logout is not useless in a REST API. In fact, for APIs that require authentication, it is more or less a necessity.
With a short expiration time on the token I would think for most applications deleting the token from the client on logout would be a good solution. Anything more would rely on the server and no longer be stateless.
The good solution here would be to delete the token from the user.
So typically when you log in, you will get back a token from the server and store it in localStorage or sessionStorage (depending on the user wanting to be logged in after closing the tab) in the browser, and then send the token from there in the headers with any request that you make to your api.
Then if the user logs out, you don't even contact the api (you don't make any requests to your server), you just clear the sessionStorage or localStorage, use the command localStorage.clear() or sessionStorage.clear() , and then if the user will want to send more requests, he'll have to login again in order to get another token.
One drawback to this approach is, that if a virus, for example gets the token from the local or session Storage before the user logs out then, it will still be able to send requests as you, as the token will still be valid.
One solution to that would be to create a token blacklist in the database, and store the token there if the user logs out, until the token expiration time. However, every time the user would request something, the database would have to be consulted to check if his token is blacklisted, lengthening the process, and making your API stateful.
You can generate a new token that it already expired i.e. expiration is 1sec. and pass it to the user. Any upcoming request will be invalid. This is not optimal solution though..
I was trying to implement CSRF Protection in my new Project. I did the same using creating a session token for every form and the token is stored in a hidden field in the form. Every time the form gets submitted, i check whether the token in the POST and token in the session are the same. If they are the same the required action is done and the session token is updated.
It works well but the actual problem arises when we refresh the submitted page. Token mismatch then occurs.
My question is, is it secure using a single token for each form, and without updating the token for every form submit? Will this be able to prevent CSRF?
Yes, there is no need to update the CSRF token. It just needs to be unique per user session.
As there is no way for an attacker to read the value of the hidden form field, the same value can be reused during the session. No extra security is accomplished by renewing this value.
However, it should definitely be a unique value per user session. Different users should have different tokens, and if the same user logs in again it would be a good idea to expire the previous token.
I had one doubt about CSRF prevention. A lot of sites say that CSRF can be prevented by using 'tokens' which are randomly generated per session.
Now my doubt is,
suppose i have a function like :
$.post("abcd.php",{'fbuid':userid,'code':'<?php echo md5($_SESSION['randcode']); ?>'}
now this md5 hash would obviously be visible to any hacker through the source code.He could simply open this page, generate a token, and keep the page open, so that the session doesn't get destroyed, and useanother tab or anything else , to start hacking,
No ?
Or is my idea of tokens incorrect ?
Thanks for your help :D
I think you are misunderstanding what needs to be done. To protect against CSRF you need to create a token and save it for that session. Then you need to append all your submits and AJAX calls with that token.
For another person to send you to a page on your website they would need to have access to the request with in the same session. It is true that one could parse the HTML and look for the token. But when they try to request a http call on your website they will have a new session created. The new session will have a new token which will not match the token that was passed.
Next you will ask what if you can copy the cookies and the session id as a result. This is not something that is protected. I can simply sit anybody's computer and copy all their cookies and I will then be logged in as them.
As kapep points out, you are confusing the two seperate issues of input validation and cross-site form posting. You must validate your inputs anyway, so the case of your malicious attacker using his own session token is already handled if you have sound input validation. CSRF protection is not there to protect the data, it is simply to ensure that only forms from your own application can post data back to that application. the CSRF protection is simply stopping other people being able to post data directly into your app from forms they put up on their own site.
One specific point to be aware of is that the token is visible to any javascript running on your page, so as soon as you have a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability, your CSRF protection is defeated.
See Cross-site scripting and the prevention cheat sheet
You should use a per request token.
Generate a token and store it in the session.
Pass the token to the client.
Execute actions.
Destroy the token.
The token is safer and cannot be used more than one time.
I would define a stolen token as a token that is used by someone else, and not the one you have send the token to. If you send someone a token he can't really steal it from himself.
If you are concerned that a user can run a malicious script with his own token, your design seems to be broken. You can't prevent a user from sending data that you didn't indented to receive. It's your job to validate any data, the session token is just there to identify multiple requests by the same client.
It could be a security issue if you send that token over unsecured http. Then it could easily be stolen by monitoring the clients network.