We have a need to secure our .net web api using open id and OAuth standards. IdentityServer 3 is perfect for us as we have to use our existing user store.
Edited for more clarity:
Our company services multiple customers. Each of our customers have their own database. In our home grown client application when a customer user enters their user/password, we do a lookup to authenticate and that also determines what backend database the app connects to.
We now have a need to allow a couple of trusted partners to access our database resource for specific needs. We have created a web api for them to make specific calls. The web api needs to know what customer the partner is making the call for. The partner is calling the api from services on their side so there is no user interaction.
I am trying to determine the flow to use to accomplish this. I found some pretty good info on flows at https://gist.github.com/jawadatgithub/638c11f08ecc0d76b05c.
If I define the client using the Client Credentials flow, I don't know how for them to pass the customer they are making the calls on behalf of. I don't think we want to definate a "Client" for every partner/customer combination, but is this the correct way?
What we had thought of initially is to give an additional user/password or secret key that would tell us the customer, but I am not sure what "flow" for the client would allow this.
Any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.
In case this helps anyone else, we decided to go with a Hybrid flow for these types of requests. We considered designating a service account (user/pw) for each of our customer databases that would give this trusted 3rd part access to them by requesting tokens with the Resource Owner Password Credential flow, but decided against it. We decided against it for all the reasons the standards say not to use it for this use.
If the 3rd party wants to interact with us on the behalf of one of our customers, then they will need to build the UI on their side to redirect to us for user/pw authentication and consent.
Related
I'm developing an ASP.NET Core API, and I'm trying to do the authentication and authorization part as best as I can. I'm studying OAuth 2 and OpenIDConnect (very preliminary studies at this point). But from an API developer standpoint, what can I gain from inserting an Identity Provider like Auth0 or Azure AD B2C in the process instead of just storing the user credentials using some form of cryptography?
Also, Oauth 2 seems to allow many flows, is the job of the API to be concerned with the flow of the application consuming that API? Seems a bit unreasonable. What I want is just to have a safe way to store the user credentials, and allowing the users of my API to perform authentication and authorization before consuming and manipulating resources within the other services within the API.
I understand that authentication and authorization is a sensitive topic within an application, as they deal with security concerns, and I'm planning on building an application that will deal with sensitive financial operations. That's the reason I wend after Auth0 and Azure AD B2C. But to be honest I'm having a little trouble trying to understand what Identity Providers like these will bring to the table, I know they'll bring something of importance, I just need some help to see what and why should I use them.
what can I gain from inserting an Identity Provider like Auth0 or Azure AD B2C in the process instead of just storing the user credentials using some form of cryptography?
Well, you get the freedom of not storing credentials in your database.
Most likely these service providers are taking better care of their security than you would.
Another thing that you gain is Single Sign On.
Many apps can use the same identity provider for the users, so the users only need to sign in once to use all of the apps.
Of course it is not zero cost, there is complexity involved in OAuth/OIDC.
But neither is building your own user store.
Also, Oauth 2 seems to allow many flows, is the job of the API to be concerned with the flow of the application consuming that API? Seems a bit unreasonable.
No, the API usually does not care what flow the caller uses.
What it cares about is that it receives a valid access token that contains the necessary permissions to access a particular resource.
It is a concern of the client app to choose the flow to use.
But to be honest I'm having a little trouble trying to understand what Identity Providers like these will bring to the table, I know they'll bring something of importance, I just need some help to see what and why should I use them.
Well, here are the things that come to my mind:
Better security (most likely, it isn't only about the password hashing algorithm etc.)
Better SLA (building a 99.95% SLA service like Auth0 is not cheap)
Proven track record
Single Sign-On
Single identity for users to all your apps, can easily disable their account as well to prevent access to all apps at once
Can easily add support for federated authentication with other identity providers
No need to store password hashes etc. in your app
Ready-made administration tools (which you need to build otherwise)
To add to #juunas:
AI to proactively monitor user access and disable dodgy logins e.g. logging in from USA and Russia a minute apart
Reporting and stats.
Password protection e.g. not allowing password that has appeared in a breach
Portal and API for user CRUD
MFA
Self-service password reset
Passwordless support
Fido 2 support
I am building an API meant to be sold to various clients. These clients will be given an API Key or something similar and they'll use the API in a widget on their website.
The end users of the clients' website must be able to use the widget anonymously (no login).
Workflow:
My current idea is to have the Client's server retrieve a temporary key and use that in the webpage. The End user's browser will use that temporary key to call our API.
Is there any reason why this is not a good practice and/or insecure?
Or is there a better good practice solution? Can I for exmaple use OAuth 2 for this?
You need to secure your API from the clients app. So, for that you can use OAuth 2 with Client Credentials grant type and setup each client as an app so they each get their own set of key/secret credentials.
Since you don't know anything about the end user, but still need to track them, require an endUserId custom header on every request to your API and you'll just have to trust the client to provide you with a valid id for the end user making the request.
To setup OAuth, use an existing library or OAuth service. I don't recommend writing your own. If you can spend some money, Okta and Auth0 are good choices. If your API is written in .net, you can use IdentityServer as a free option.
Currently my organization uses a number of web apps/mobile apps/APIs, some of which authenticate against an in-house IdP and others which use a third-party proprietary system (over which we have no control).
We have been asked to implement SSO for these web applications and as a result I have been reading up on OpenID Connect. I believe this would be a better solution than SAML given that (a) end-users are not always enterprise users, and (b) SAML not designed for mobile applications.
I believe I understand the flow reasonably well but have one sticking point. To allow users to authenticate using an external IdP, we would need to map the user back to our internal id. For example, user authenticates using OIDC/Google, resulting in us receiving the user's unique Google idenitifer (and email etc if we queried further), but this is not useful to us until we can map the Google identifier back to our internal customer id.
Is this mapping out of scope for OIDC? If so, is there a best-practice method for doing this? I'm sure we are not alone in this requirement...
Thanks,
John
Is this mapping out of scope for OIDC?
Short answer, yes.! If your backend require a comparison/validation with internal identity details, then it has to be done out-of-scope of OpenID Connect(OIDC) protocol. OIDC simply define the process of obtaining tokens (ID and access token), which are required for authentication and authorization.
is there a best-practice method for doing this?
One option is to use out of band directory synchronization. For example, Google provider Google Cloud Directory Sync (GCDS), which allows you to synchronize identity details to LDAP or MS Active directory. Other alternative is to use SCIM protocol to communicate and provision users dynamically. For example Google provide that support as well.
Alternatively, you can use just-in-time provision at the time you receive tokens. This support will depend on your identity provider implementation. For example, WSO2 identity server support both JIT provisioning as well as SCIM.
I apologize if this has been answered, but I have been searching for hours, and still don't quite understand. This is a specific question, and not a "which is best" question.
Specific questions are in italic.
I have created a RESTful API, which was at first meant to be completely open. However, the organization has now decided to create a first-party mobile app to consume and (to some degree) update the data.
I am investigating authentication frameworks (oAuth2), and was not sure if oAuth2 was the correct way to go to meet our goals. And, if it is, which Authorization Grants applied to which set of users.
Our goals are:
To allow users to login and create accounts in the first-party app, entirely through oAuth 2 providers (twitter, facebook, google). These users would have access to the greatest set of data via the first-party app.
Assign different roles to the users (admin, moderator, etc).
Allow other applications to register, receive token credentials, and have limited write access or expanded access to the data. This would open them for creating third-party apps or research systems.
Finally, we would like to keep some of the data completely open, with no authentication needed.
So, am I right in assuming that we want to setup an oAuth2 *Server* (Authorization and Resource Server)?
If so, which Authorization Grants apply to the above situations?
One last question: For users using the first party app, would the app be responsible for logging them in and keeping their access credentials? The API server serves NO html, and is 100% RESTful. Does it need to serve login forms?
If you need to both authenticate and authorize users to your API based on various OAuth2 social logins, you do need some kind of API server or service where you can define your users and groups/role and the scopes that are available to users based on your rules.
Some cloud-hosted options for this are:
Auth0
Firebase
If you integrate with a service such as the ones above, you can let the service take care of authenticating users and just make sure that every user call checks against the service first for permission before it goes ahead and does anything.
I'm working in a company that uses Microsoft Active Directory. We have an external company that provides an internal web site for a particular project. The site is external to the company. The sign on to the external site is the user's company email.
We want a system whereby the external site calls into the organisation's AD to verify if an email address is still valid or if the user has left the company. It should be a simple call to Active Directory Federation Services or some sort of SAML interface. The call would be a simple request 'here's an email, is it valid?' and the response is either yes or no.
Our IT department are trying to tell us that it's too complicated and I don't believe them. I think they just don't want to do it.
Does anyone know how easy it would be to create a simple system that would allow an external service to do the query outlined above.
ADFS is not meant to do that. However, a by-product of using it, would be the validation you are looking for.
The first question would be: what is the authentication method of your app? e-mail and what else? password? which password? Does the app keep a database of users/passwords?
ADFS works as an "identity provider" and would authenticate users in AD. ADFS would supply a security token that can be consumed by your app. Part of the information sent in the security token could very well be (and often is) the user e-mail address (that's why it is a "by-product").
For this to work, the app would have to be changed to accept security tokens (SAML tokens to be specific). If the app is .NET based, then it is done usually with WIF (WIndows Identity Foundation).
This approach would be the most elegant and secure because the app would delegate the responsibility of authenticating users to the authority of these employees: AD.
App --trusts--> ADFS --authenticates--> AD
Setting up ADFS, etc is not super-difficult, but it is not super-simple either, and might not be worth just for this app. There are other lighter weight alternatives: open source products like Identity Server, or products like the one I work on.
Now, if all you need to do is to validate that the e-mail actually exists, the best is to send a verification message to that address with some unique code that the user sends back. This is the same approach used in many common web apps.
Agree with everything #Eugenio said - have same questions about authentication.
But if you simply want code to query an user's email address in AD, you use the AD API's.