Well, in OAuth2 specification is foreseen cases where you are authenticating in an application that runs fully on the client side (browsers, mobiles, etc.) and so they are incapable of protecting their code/data.
In the memo regarding Security Considerations they say you should not store credentials in our code (for obvious reasons, I think):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6819#section-5.3.1
Also, in the memo about native clients, they highly recommend that an authorization server do not require an application secret:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8252#section-8.5
So, it should be possible to obtain an access token without using the client secret using a "client" grant type, like this:
https://www.oauth.com/oauth2-servers/mobile-and-native-apps/authorization/
Anyway, in the Github documentation, it's stated that the client_secret is mandatory to retrieve the access token:
https://developer.github.com/apps/building-oauth-apps/authorizing-oauth-apps/#2-users-are-redirected-back-to-your-site-by-github
By the official specification, you should be able to achieve this, but I couldn't find a way to achieve that using the Github OAuth, and here is my question:
Is there a way to use Github OAuth getting an access token without using the client_secret?
So, is there a way to use Github OAuth, get an access token without using the client_secret?
Not that I can see, when considering the authorization grant step
The application exchanges that code for the access token.
When the application makes the request for the access token, that request is authenticated with the client secret, which reduces the risk of an attacker intercepting the authorization code and using it themselves.
That means, if an application needs to automate that step on behalf of client, it needs to fetch that secret from a third-party referential, like a vault.
See for instance puppetlabs/vault-plugin-secrets-oauthapp, which is a plugin providing a secure wrapper around OAuth 2 authorization code grant flows, allowing a Vault client to request authorization on behalf of a user and perform actions using a negotiated OAuth 2 access token.
(here, Valut is hashicorp/vault)
I have 3 services (in the real much more):
Authorization service (uses OAuth 2.0)
Frontend service
Resource service
and client (web-browser).
I store session_id, access_token and refersh_token in cookies of the user's web-browser. The user goes to Auth service, signs in and gets these tokens. After his web-browser is redirected to Frontend.
Frontend and Resource services can't validate tokens because they know a nothing about it, so they must make a request to Auth service.
The current scenarios:
The user (web-browser) sends a request to Frontend service, the Frontend sends a request to Auth service to validate access_token. If it's invalid the Frontend sends a request to refresh token using refresh_token.
If the Frontend needs an access to Resource service to process a request then the Frontend sends its client_id and access_token to Resource service. The Resource service sends a request to the Auth service to validate an access_token too.
Are my thoughts right? Or it has simpler schema?
P.S. All services use RESTful architecture.
OAuth talks about how the tokens be exchanged. What you have mentioned it seem liek you are talking about using implicit grant, which is little less secure and you may think of opting for authorisation flow.
Other than that, in microservices when you have many services and one user request pass through many downstream services, verifying the token with auth provider at each and every step might become a bottleneck.
There are ways out there by which you can skip this call to auth server and still validate the sanctity of the token without making an explicit call.
One way is to make use of JWT. These tokens are signed by the Auth provider and your services have keys which can help you validate if the token is modified on it way, and token itself has all the information you need to ensure validity of it, like expiry time, intended audience, clients, roles etc.
On login you get AT and RT. AT could be passed along to downstream for authentication and authorization and RT could be used when AT is expired.
You only need to talk to auth provider at the time of login and when you need to refresh the token.
You can read more about the JWT OAuth2.0 with JWT and OIDC to get more information around it
I have a scenario where a user has logged into to a web application (authenticated with OpenID Connect) and then needs to access data from a separate REST service.
The REST service needs to determine whether or not the user has permission to access the requested data, but if the user does have permission, then it should grant authorization to the web application without requiring the user to interact with the UI.
Essentially, what I need is a two-legged OAuth solution where the client/relying party is fully trusted but the user, who's already been authenticated, is not.
Going in, I assumed that OAuth could accommodate these requirements, but none of the grant types seem to match the requirements:
Authorization Code is the opposite of what I need, as the user is pretty much automatically trusted but the client is not, requiring that the user grant access to the client via a web form.
Client Credentials trusts the client (which is what I need) but does not give the service an opportunity to determine if the user has permission to the resource (user auth tokens are not passed to the service, making all requests essentially "anonymous").
ROPC (Resource Owner Password Credentials) would appear to be the only option, but requires the web application to know and possibly store the users' login credentials (which is untenable).
Is this a gap in OAuth? Or am I misunderstanding these grant types? If OAuth can't support this scenario, is there another widely adopted open standard that I've missed?
Of note: I only own/control the web application, while the customers (all of which are businesses) own/control both the authentication servers and the REST services. Therefore, a shared, non-proprietary standard is necessary so that our customers will know how to configure their services (IBM, Microsoft, whatever) and so that I'll know how to pass along any authentication tokens, etc.
I think this is possible using normal OAuth2 flows. You have your web application use the code authorization grant to get a token to call the API on behalf of the user.
Your web application makes the call to the API attaching the JWT token in the Authorization header. If the REST service determines the user does not have permission to access the resource, it returns a 401 Unauthorized HTTP response code.
Your web application handles the 401 response by going back to the authorization server and using the client credentials grant to get an access token to call the REST API on behalf of the client itself.
As both grants allow you to get a refresh token, you should be able to switch between access tokens easily.
If there is no trust relationship between the web application and the REST service, there's no way around using the Authorization Code grant since the user needs to be involved anyhow to allow the web application to make the call on behalf of the user.
If there is a trust relationship between web application and REST service you should be able to use the regular OpenID Connect flow to get an access token to the web application at login time that can also be used in calls towards the REST service.
You may pass on the user information as part of a JWT (i.e. a structured) access token that is signed by the web application itself or the OP; that would be OAuth 2.0 compliant. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-1.4 and May an OAuth 2.0 access token be a JWT?.
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.