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..
Related
I am using a JWT token implementation of this https://jwt-auth.readthedocs.io/en/develop/quick-start/
I need to update the secret key and is there a way to update it without logging out every user? I presume it's not possible to reuse the old token once my secret key is changed. So all my users will be logged off and need to log in again. Is there any way to go around this?
If not, if for security reason, I need to update the secret monthly, that will be pretty troublesome to ask my user to re-login monthly.
Thanks!
If you change your keys it's correct to invalidate all the tokens signed with the old ones as they are to be considered expired.
It's a good practice to let the token expire as well after a certain amount of time. Usually you implement a mechanism based on two tokens, access_token with an expiration of 1h (usually) and a refresh_token with a longer expiration (usually 24h). The second one is used to renew the first one. When the second one expires, the user has to be considered logged out.
What you need is to implement a refresh token mechanism. You can implement it from scratch, for learning purposes, or you could just implement OAuth 2.0 protocol, since it's a flow that it already supports. There are lots of libraries both for server side and client side implementations
https://oauth.net/
Somehow implementing stateless authentication always brings me headaches.
This time it concerns silent auth vs refresh tokens.
Using refresh tokens seems discouraged, however there are certain arguments I don't really get.
If you use an http only cookie to store your refresh token, what exactly is the danger?
Attackers cannot get access the cookie with Javascript and if you use SSL (which you should), I really don't understand the problem.
The resources I read always say "you should not store sensitive data in the client". Seems like an automatic, but that is implicitly impossible if you want to eliminate the need for server session state. Neither do I really understand why, since no resource ever explains how it would be cracked (and I really wonder if anybody really knows).
The reason why I have this question is because using a refresh token offers me more than just authentication.
If a user for example loses his / her device, removing the refresh token will just invalidate all access tokens over all devices (not only browser), which seems like something a user wants to do.
After all, it makes sense that when you lose a device, you need to take action to protect your data.
So the argument "if the attacker gets access to the refresh token, he can infinitely refresh your token" sounds like another argument I don't get. The attacker should not get the refresh token. How would he ever get it? It's the same as saying "if the attacker gets hold of the code of your bank card, he has infinite access to you money". Well if you lose your bank card, you call card stop; likewise if you lose your refresh token, you would delete it to invalidate all access tokens. So how is this an argument?
Can you clarify why I cannot just store my refresh token in an http-only cookie, and how a silent authentication flow improves on this?
Edit:
Note that I read a few other articles that advise to store jwt in the browser by sending the encrypted jwt signature in an http-only cookie. These articles received a lot of upvotes, so that is suddenly okay. It makes zero sense to me.
Edit on comment:
The architecture is very simple:
React / Redux SPA with REST api in the backend
Need for social login through Google, LinkedIn, Github
Need to refresh the token without needed user interaction
Access my own api resources (preferably with jwt)
Ability to revoke refresh token
I don't know why it seems complex (lol).
Refresh tokens are widely used in:
Server side web apps, where they are stored in an HTTP only cookie, as you suggest
Desktop and mobile apps, where they can also be stored in OS secure storage
Refresh tokens should not be infinitely renewable and often represent the user session time - eg:
Refresh token / User session lifetime = 12 hours
Access token / API message credential lifetime = 60 mins
The concern for SPAs in the above article is that there is no real secure storage in the browser - though you are not intending to use browser storage - so no problems there.
One risk is that users can maybe get the secure cookie and replay it to an API via browser developer tools:
To mitigate this it is of course important to ensure that APIs have well engineered authorization - and that what the user can do with a token matches what they can do in the UI.
Another risk is CSRF where a malicious app in another browser tab sends the same cookie to your back end. So you'll need to protect against this.
Note that SPAs have their own token renewal solution based on Authorization Server cookies - I would prefer that option if using an SPA, rather than issuing your own cookie.
I have used JWT before, but they were API that didn't need logout feature.
I need to implement logout feature for a API of an android app and SPA. When I looked it up I found that there are two ways to do it.
the easiest way is to delete the JWT Token from client side and call it a day.
The logic behind this is that since no session of any kind is maintained in server deleting the token in client side should be enough.
But it still leaves the possibility that, if the token falls in wrong hands they can still use it even after the user is no longer using the token.
Given if the app is well designed and uses HTTPS then chances of this happening is very low and can be minimized by keeping the valid time for the token short. But in my case the tokens are valid for 30 days.
the second option is to maintain a blacklist of tokens in server side
This solves the problem of the token still being usable even after user has logged out and stopped using it.
But it adds a complication of needing to run a cronjob to remove expired token form the blacklist table. Otherwise the table will eventually become ridiculously large.
It also kinda defeats the point of using JWT. Maintaining blacklist is very similar to maintaining session. We have to run an additional db query for every request. And it scales badly, as the no. of users grows the no. of token that needs to be blacklisted will also grow (this will be a bigger problem for API like mine with multiple front end apps and long validity period for the tokens).
Then I got an idea for third way.
Add jwt_secret row in user table that stores randomly generated string. Use it to sign the JWT Token then on every request use user id in the jwt payload to get the user form db(which is not an extra query, we have to do this anyway) and validate the token signature using jwt_secret of the user. When the user logs out we change the jwt_secret which makes all token out there useless.
At first I thought this was a great solution only to realize that in this setup if user logs out of one device or browser he/she gets logged out of all devices.
So is there a another option? Or a way to modify any of above approach to solve the problem. Or am I over thinking this and one of the above option should be used?
For logging out, which as you pointed out is a user initiated action, I don't think you need to do anything extra. If the user somehow did not delete his JWT, then so be it. He wouldn't be getting any extra access over to what he is already entitled.
However, your question seems to hint on the problem of how to know that a JWT is valid. Again, as you pointed out, if a JWT somehow fell into the wrong hands, then there may be no avoiding this. But, with each request you would typically be doing several types of validation against that JWT, e.g.
checking the claims of the JWT, such as the token expiry date
assuming the claims pass, then checking that user's ID against your database table to make sure the account is active, has not been suspended, etc.
My point here is that if you need to keep track on the server side that a logout has happened, you might need to persist this to a database. But, I don't think you would need this.
In my company, we are building a web application and most actual problem is to pick an authentication solution. Im thinking about 3 of most used way to maintain
session with authenticated user: stateless JWT (all session data holds JWT token in its payload), stateful JWT (token is only used to validate requests and in its payload it has session ID to session data record at server) and traditional session ID stored in cookie, which requires additional check for matching id in server.
Because i want to build this app RESTful, only first way seems right to me. This way a server does not need to hold any state.
My first question is: Is it ok, to store all session data in token payload (of course, those data are not that big and they are not supposed to be a secret, hence no security is needed).
Also, im going to implement logout logic as well and i know, that blacklisting tokens, which is in my case, i think, best solution ruines statelessness too.
Do you know of any other way to implement logout logic which IMMEDIATELY invalidates JWT token ?
Thank you for your answers.
EDIT:
In case of invalidation, im thinking about sending an updated token with either a flag which tells "im invalidated token" or with expired expire date. This solution but works only for "good boy" users. Hackers will keep previous and still valid token.
Logout with JWT works by deleting the token client-side. Like this.
function removeToken() {
localStorage.removeItem("jwt-token");
}
Without the token, the user is logged out. So I think it is immediate?
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.