I am using OkHttp to login to a website with username and password. After login any attempt to request a resource is followed with a token=xxxxxxaxx-xxax-xxxa-xxaa-axaxxaxaxxxx in the query path.
I am not certain this is a security token, or just a UUID? It follows the format 8-4-4-4-12 in length and is always lower case alphanumeric.
In order to send new requests to the service I need to acquire/generate token after login. In some cases I note in future requests that both the InstanceId=&token= is passed - where they both pass the same value for token and instanceid.
After login I do not see this token in the of the response headers, it just starts to appear in all future requests.
After login the following URLs are accessed:
portal
launch
htmlnavigator
getCSRFTokenVaue
getUserLocale
createToken
I have confirmed that the token returned by the createToken URL is not the same token that is used in later requests.
The various cookies sent by the server I can user with CookieManager, but where does the security token come from (or usually come from?) - What browser tools might help me beyond reading all the headers and responses.
It is a REST service, and each frame within the browser gets its own token, so difference requests in the same frame use the same token, open a new frame and that frame uses a new token.
The token is passed in the URI.
The web application UI has frames/pages within the main page and opening each new page generates a new token specific to that page
Multiple requests to each frame all send the same token so the tokens are not query authentication (like here)
If more information is required I will update the question but I can not name the system.
It may not be possible to know exactly what the url token is used for, but from what you say, different frames (tabs) in the same browser get different tokens, so it could be a frame specific session id (unusual but might be used to permit multiple sessions in systems where auth is stateless while preventing side-channel attacks) or more likely a form of double-submit CSRF token.
I have created a REST application in Delphi using kbmMW middleware. It works really great, is fast, efficient etc. But in testing I've used both a Delphi client - which more closely simulates how it will be used in production (iOS, Android, Windows Tablet clients), and several different web browsers with manual REST uri entry.
The REST response format for the most part is JSON, but can be anything I want it to be. One of the REST calls I coded returns the session token.
In order to obtain the session token one has to request a resource using https; when the server sees that you have not yet authenticated it kicks back a 401 unauthorized, which tells the browser to force an authentication dialog, seeking username and password, or triggers the indy client to supply the pre-coded credentials.
I set the internal, kbmMW-wrapped Indy http component to use basic authentication (only inside ssl, of course); once authenticated the server generates a session-based token and returns the token to the client.
When I test this in my Delphi client, which uses Indy's TIdHTTP client, and I set it to use basic auth, set the username and the password, and initiate the request, the Indy components preserve the session token and apparently reuse it. I can call the function on the server that returns my session token, and the token remains the same for the lifetime of the session.
If I authenticate with the browser and the un/pw dialog, then call the function to return the session token, I am required to authenticate once using un/pw, but every subsequent request to retrieve the session token returns a different token every time.
My question is, does this mean that a web browser poses a potential security risk to my server? What governs how long a session lasts when the requesting client is a TIdHTTP vs. when the requesting client is a web browser (I've tested IE, Chrome, Firefox, Opera - all the same response)?
Why does a browser get a different token with every request, while an indy client reuses the same token over and over until expiration?
Does this mean that a potential hacker could compromise my server by utilizing a DDOS attack vector and creating sessions on my server until it runs out of memory?
I thought that the Indy http server would distinguish a requestor based on form vars like Referer, IP Address, Browser type etc. How can a browser, executing the same request over and over with the same IP, Referer etc. force a new login at the server side each time?
Is the browser caching the username and password and ignoring the token?
The server side authentication event only fires once with an indy client request, but fires with every request from a web browser, resubmitting the un/pw combo every time, and ignoring the token.
Should I set an ETag in the response header to the token so that the browser won't keep logging in and creating new sessions?
Help!
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.
I'm building a REST server and a client for it. Now I need to embed some third party oauth2 authentication. Right now I'm directing the user to the server, let him authenticate to the service and then I redirect to the client, somewhat like this:
Client: Not Authenticated -> Server -> Redirect to Third Party -> Redirect to Server -> Redirect to App.
Then I store a cookie on the client to identify the user (the cookie is sent using withCredentials and CORS).
My problem now is what should I do with re-authentication when the token expires? Since the client and server only communicate through json, I would have to initiate the full authentication process again and therefore the user would lose all state in the app. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to get around this problem? Is it better to do authentication on the client side and store the access token on the server or something?
Whatever you have done is the proper way to get OAuth access_token. And your access_token is temporary so can expire.
I think you can do either of these :
Check if Authorization Server ( which you use for getting token) provides option to get a longer duration token using your access_token. This is suggested in OAuth 2 specification as well.
Try to store User's state without using session.
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.