Someone to explain please (hopefully with simple words for newbies) why a web application built upon a RESTful API can be CSRF exempt?
I received such assertion after asking: Serializing FormView data in JSON, but honnestly I can't figure out why?
Thanks in advance
CSRF or Cross Site Request Forgery, in layman terms, is meant to allow only selected sources(your own website) to submit data to particular url. It prevents misuse of your functionality by other websites or robots.
Say, I have an url for registration, /registration/, but I don't want to allow external submission of POST data to /registration/. So, I would provide a crsf cookie(depending on host and other stuff) when GET request is issued for /registration/, and ensure that same cookie is provided with POST request. This will ensure that users who have requested the registration form(i.e. genuine web users, not robots), would be able to register. It is not completely full-proof, but ensures some level of security.
Now, We don't use CSRF in API's due to following:-
Technically, CSRF is stored as cookie, since browser is not the intended client of API's, it is of no use.
Secondly, API's are supposed to use specialized client and user authentication, thereby eliminating the need for using any CSRF protection.
Thirdly, Restful api's are supposed to be stateless, therefore the order of API calls should not matter, which is essential for working of CSRF.
Note:-
If you have frontend framework like Angular or intend to use api's on browser too, then it is perfectly ok to use CSRF. In that case you are suppose to write two types of authentication for your apis.
Token Based Authentication - for non-browser clients
Session Authentication - for browser based clients (With csrf)
In this case, any request to api must authenticate with atleast one of the authentication.
According to owasp.org:
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is a type of attack that occurs when a malicious Web site, email, blog, instant message, or program causes a user's Web browser to perform an unwanted action on a trusted site for which the user is currently authenticated.
This is not an issue for REST Web services because either:
1) you usually want your service to be accessible from multiple applications (Mobile app, browser, etc.)
2) you have to provide a direct authentication for each request, so this kind of attack is not applicable for REST services. The authentication is done by your application (let's say javascript) and no directly by your browser (sending the session id), so even if a malicious application redirect the user to your webpage, it cannot automatically trigger your javascript function to perform the request (and the authentication).
Related
Consider that we have:
An SPA or a statically generated JAMStack website.
A REST API.
The website is being served with nignx that also reverse proxies to our API.
--
It is required that a user should be able to register/authenticate with an identity provider (say, Google) through the OpenID Connect protocol. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that the user has already registered with our API.
Talking about authentication using OIDC, from what I have read on the subject, the steps you take are the following:
Register the application with the IdP and receive a client id and a secret.
When the user initiates a login (with Google) request on the API ('/api/loginWithGoogle') the API sets a state variable on the request session (to prevent CSRF) and redirects the user-agent to the IdP's login page.
At this page, the user enters their credentials and if they are correct, the IdP redirects the user to the callback URL on the API callback (/api/callback).
The request received on the callback has the state parameter (which we should verify with the one we set on the session previously) and a code parameter. We exchange the code for the identity token with the authorization server/IdP (we also receive access/refresh tokens from the auth server, which we discard for now because we do not want to access any APIs on the behalf of the user).
The identity token is parsed to verify user identity against our database (maybe an email).
Assume that the identity is verified.
-- The next part is what's giving me trouble --
The documentation that I have read advises that from here we redirect the user to a URL (e.g. the profile page)and start a login session between the user agent and the API. This is fine for this specific architecture (with both the SPA/static-site being hosted on the same domain).
But how does it scale?
Say I want to move from a session based flow to a JWT based flow (for authenticating to my API).
What if a mobile application comes into the picture? How can it leverage a similar SSO functionality from my API?
NOTE: I have read a little on the PKCE mechanism for SPAs (I assume it works for JAMStack as well) and native mobile apps, but from what I gather, it is an authorization mechanism that assumes that there is no back-end in place. I can not reconcile PKCE in an authentication context when an API is involved.
Usually this is done via the following components. By separating these concerns you can ensure that flows work well for all of your apps and APIs.
BACKEND FOR FRONTEND
This is a utility API to keep tokens for the SPA out of the browser and to supply the client secret to the token service.
WEB HOST
This serves unsecured static content for the SPA. It is possible to use the BFF to do this, though a separated component allows you to serve content via a content delivery network, which some companies prefer.
TOKEN SERVICE
This does the issuing of tokens for your apps and APIs. You could use Google initially, though a more complete solution is to use your own Authorization Server (AS). This is because you will not be able to control the contents of Google access tokens when authorizating in your own APIs.
SPA CLIENT
This interacts with the Backend for Frontend during OAuth and API calls. Cookies are sent from the browser and the backend forwards tokens to APIs.
MOBILE CLIENT
This interacts with the token service and uses tokens to call APIs directly, without using a Backend for Frontend.
BUSINESS APIs
These only ever receive JWT access tokens and do not deal with any cookie concerns. APIs can be hosted in any domain.
SCALING
In order for cookies to work properly, a separate instance of the Backend for Frontend must be deployed for each SPA, where each instance runs on the same parent domain as the SPA's web origin.
UPDATE - AS REQUESTED
The backend for frontend can be either a traditional web backend or an API. In the latter case CORS is used.
See this code example for an API driven approach. Any Authorization Server can be used as the token service. Following the tutorial may help you to see how the components fit together. SPA security is a difficult topic though.
I'm working on creating a REST API and one feature is to allow users to register. The general flow is the following:
The user specifies his email and password using the client application (SPA application) and presses the submit button.
A request to the API is made. The API adds the user to the database, generates a verification token and sends an email to the user.
The user verifies his email and clicks a confirmation link.
The API marks the user account as verified.
My question is regarding the confirmation link.
Should the link point to the client SPA application? In this case, the client application will make a POST request to the API with the verification token and the user email.
Also, how should the API know the link to the client application (the link needs to be added in the email and this is done by the API). Should the API store this link, or should the SPA client send the verification link to the API when sending the request to register the user?
Another approach would be for the link to go to an endpoint defined by the API. In this case a GET request will be made with the user email and verification token and the API will set the account as verified and inform the user that his account is now active.
I have read that this approach doesn't conform to the REST principles because a GET request should never change the state of a resource. In this case, the user resource will be modified.
I'm not sure which of the 2 solutions is better or if there is a better solution, so my question is what is the best approach?
Thanks!
Should the link point to the client SPA application?
If your 'Client SPA application' is the sole frontend for end-users, then yes: it should point there. Some people deploy a separate oauth2 / authentication server but that doesn't sound like it's the case here.
The client application will make a POST request to the API with the verification token and the user email.
The token should be enough. I'd avoid sending email addresses through urls.
Also, how should the API know the link to the client application (the link needs to be added in the email and this is done by the API). Should the API store this link, or should the SPA client send the verification link to the API when sending the request to register the user?
Both seem like really valid designs. If you want the API to be completely unaware of the front-end and support a multitude of frontends, it would make sense to me that the client sends their own endpoints. There is a security concern though, you don't want arbitrary clients to register arbitrary urls.
If you're just building a single frontend, I don't see a problem with the API knowing the activation url. It also sounds like it would be easy to change if your requirements change later.
I'm not sure which of the 2 solutions is better or if there is a better solution, so my question is what is the best approach?
Ultimately it doesn't really matter that much. Neither approach sounds like you're really painting yourself into a corner. Either you have a standard endpoint that uses a javascript HTTP request to activate a user, or you have a separate endpoint that redirects a user after activation. Both will work.
Preface
I'm developing several web services and a handful of clients (web app, mobile, etc.) which will interface with said services over HTTP(s). My current work item is to design an authentication and authorization solution for the product. I have decided to leverage external identity providers, such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and the like for authentication.
I'm trying to solve the problem of, "when a request comes to my server, how do I know who the user is and how can I be sure?". More questions below as well...
Requirements
Rely on external identities to indicate who I'm dealing with ('userId' essentially is all I care about).
The system should use token-based authentication (as opposed to cookies for example or basic auth).
I believe this is the right choice for scaling across multiple clients and servers while providing loose coupling.
Workflow
Based on my reading and understanding of token-based authentication, the following is how I imagine the workflow to be. Let's focus for now on Facebook in a web browser. My assumption is that other external identity providers should have similar capabilities, though I have not confirmed just yet.
Note, as of writing, I'm basing the following off of Facebook login version 2.2
Client: Initiates login to Facebook using the JavaScript SDK
Facebook: User authenticates and approves app permissions (to access user's public profile for example)
Facebook: Sends response to client which contains user’s access token, ID, and signed request
Client: Stores user access token in browser session (handled by SDK conveniently)
Client: Makes a request to my web service for a secure resource by sending along the user’s access token in the authorization header + the user’s ID (in custom header potentially)
Server: Reads user access token from request header and initiates verification by sending a request to the debug_token graph API provided by Facebook
Facebook: Responds back to the server with the user access token info (contains appId and userId)
Server: Completes verification of the token by comparing the appId to what is expected (known to itself) and the userId to what was sent on the client request
Server: Responds to the client with the requested resource (assuming the happy authorization path)
I’m imagining steps 5-9 would be repeated for subsequent requests to the server (while the user’s access token is valid – not expired, revoked from FB side, app permissions changed, etc.)
Here's a diagram to help go along with the steps. Please understand this system is not a single page application (SPA). The web services mentioned are API endpoints serving JSON data back to clients essentially; they are not serving HTML/JS/CSS (with the exception of the web client servers).
Questions
First and foremost, are there any glaring gaps / pit falls with the described approach based on my preface and requirements?
Is performing an outbound request to Facebook for verifying the access token (steps 6-8 above) per client request required / recommended?
I know at the very least, I must verify the access token coming from the client request. However, the recommended approach for subsequent verifications after the first is unknown to me. If there are typical patterns, I’m interested in hearing about them. I understand they may be application dependent based on my requirements; however, I just don’t know what to look for yet. I’ll put in the due diligence once I have a basic idea.
For instance, possible thoughts:
Hash the access token + userId pair after first verification is complete and store it in a distributed cache (accessible by all web servers) with expiry equal to access tokens. Upon subsequent requests from the clients, hash the access token + userId pair and check its existence in the cache. If present, then request is authorized. Otherwise, reach out to Facebook graph API to confirm the access token. I’m assuming this strategy might be feasible if I’m using HTTPS (which I will be). However, how does performance compare?
The accepted answer in this StackOverflow question recommends creating a custom access token after the first verification of the Facebook user token is complete. The custom token would then be sent to the client for subsequent requests. I’m wondering if this is more complex than the above solution, however. This would require implementing my own Identity Provider (something I want to avoid because I want to use external identity providers in the first place…). Is there any merit to this suggestion?
Is the signedRequest field present on the response in step #3 above (mentioned here), equivalent to the signed request parameter here in the ‘games canvas login’ flow?
They seem to be hinted as equivalent since the former links to the latter in the documentation. However, I’m surprised the verification strategy mentioned on the games page isn’t mentioned in the ‘manually building a login flow’ page of the web documentation.
If the answer to #3 is ‘Yes’, can the same identity confirmation strategy of decoding the signature and comparing to what is expected to be used on the server-side?
I’m wondering if this can be leveraged instead of making an outbound call to the debug_token graph API (step #6 above) to confirm the access token as recommended here:
Of course, in order to make the comparison on the server-side, the signed request portion would need to be sent along with the request to the server (step #5 above). In addition to feasibility without sacrificing security, I’m wondering how the performance would compare to making the outbound call.
While I’m at it, in what scenario / for what purpose, would you persist a user's access token to a database for example?
I don’t see a scenario where I would need to do this, however, I may be overlooking something. I’m curious was some common scenarios might be to spark some thoughts.
Thanks!
From what you describe I'd suggest to use a server-side login flow as described in
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2
so that the token is already on your server, and doesn't need to be passed from the client. If you're using non-encrypted connections, this could be a security risk (e.g. for man-in-the-middle attacks).
The steps would be:
(1) Logging people in
You need to specify the permission you want to gather from the users in the scope parameter. The request can be triggered just via a normal link:
GET https://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?
client_id={app-id}
&redirect_uri={redirect-uri}
&response_type=code
&scope={permission_list}
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#login
(2) Confirm the identitity
GET https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?
client_id={app-id}
&redirect_uri={redirect-uri}
&client_secret={app-secret}
&code={code-parameter}
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#confirm
(3) Inspect the access token
You can inspect the token as you already said in your question via
GET /debug_token?input_token={token-to-inspect}
&access_token={app-token-or-admin-token}
This should only be done server-side, because otherwise you'd make you app access token visible to end users (not a good idea!).
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#checktoken
(4) Extending the access token
Once you got the (short-lived) token, you can do a call to extend the token as described in
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens#extending
like the following:
GET /oauth/access_token?grant_type=fb_exchange_token
&client_id={app-id}
&client_secret={app-secret}
&fb_exchange_token={short-lived-token}
(5) Storing of access tokens
Concerning the storing of the tokens on the server, FB suggests to do so:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow/v2.2#token
(6) Handling expired access tokens
As FB doesn't notify you if a token has expired (and if you don't save the expiry date and compare this to the current timestamp before making a call), it's possible that you receive error messages from FB if the token got invalid (after max. 60 days). The error code will be 190:
{
"error": {
"message": "Error validating access token: Session has expired at unix
time SOME_TIME. The current unix time is SOME_TIME.",
"type": "OAuthException",
"code": 190
}
}
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens#expiredtokens
If the access token becomes invalid, the solution is to have the person log in again, at which point you will be able to make API calls on their behalf once more. The login flow your app uses for new people should determine which method you need to adopt.
I dont' see any glaring gaps / pit falls, but I'm not a security expert.
Once your server has verified the given token (step 8), as you said:
The accepted answer in this StackOverflow question recommends creating a custom access token after the first verification of the Facebook user token is complete. The custom token would then be sent to the client for subsequent requests. I’m wondering if this is more complex than the above solution, however. This would require implementing my own Identity Provider (something I want to avoid because I want to use external identity providers in the first place…). Is there any merit to this suggestion?
IMHO is the way to go. I would use https://jwt.io/ which allows you to encode values (the userId for example) using a secret key.
Then your client attach this token to every request. So you can verify the request without need to a third party (you don't need database queries neither). The nice thing here is there is no need to store the token on your DB.
You can define an expiration date on the token, to force the client authenticate with the third party again when you want.
Let's say you want your server be able to do some action without the client interaction. For example: Open graph stories. In this scenario because you need to publish something in the name of the user you would need the access token stored on your DB.
(I can not help with the 3 and 4 questions, sorry).
Problem with Facebook is that they do not use OpenId connect on top of Oauth (https://blog.runscope.com/posts/understanding-oauth-2-and-openid-connect).
Thus resulting in their custom ways of providing Oauth authentification.
Oauth2 with OpenId connect identity services usually provide issuer endpoint where you can find URL (by appending ".well-known/openid-configuration") for jwk's which can be used to verify that JWT token and its contents were signed by the same identity service. (i.e access token originated from the same service that provided you jwk's)
For example some known openid connect identity providers:
https://accounts.google.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
https://login.microsoftonline.com/common/v2.0/.well-known/openid-configuration
(btw it is not a coincidence that Attlasian provides only these two services to perform external login)
Now as you mentioned, you need to support multiple oauth providers and since like Facebook not all providers use same configuration of oauth (they use different JWT attribute names, toke verification methods, etc. (Openid connect tries to unify this process)) i would suggest you to use some middleware identity provider like Oauth0 (service not protocol) or Keycloak. These can be used with external identity providers (Social pages as you mentioned) and also provides you with custom user store.
Advantage is that they unify authentication process under one type (e.g both support openid connect). Whereas when using multiple oauth providers with not unified authentication workflow you will end up with redudant implementations and need for merging different information's under one type (this is basically what mentioned middle-ware identity providers solve for you).
So if you will use only Facebook as identity provider in your app then go for it and make implementation directly for Facebook Oauth workflow. But with multiple identity providers (which is almost always case when creating public services) you should stick with mentioned workaround or find another one (or maybe wait till all social services will support Openid connect, which they probably wont).
There may be hope.. This year, Facebook have announced a "limited login" feature, which, if they were to add to their javascript sdks would certainly make my life easier:
https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2021/04/12/announcing-expanded-functionality-limited-login/
At the time of writing, I can only find reference to iOS and Unity SDKs, but it does seem to return a normal JWT, which is all I want!
When using User-agent flow with OAuth2 for mobile platform, there is no way for Authorization server to authenticate the client_id of the application.
So, anyone can impersonate my app by copying the client_id (and so get all access tokens on my behalf), and this is applicable to Facebook, Foursquare,...
This is not managed by OAuth2 ? Or I missed something ?
For Web applications (Web server flow), access token is stored on the server side, and the client is authenticated using secret key.
There's no good answer. Native app callbacks typically happen via custom registered URI schemes (e.g.: callback redirection URI is something like: myapp://oauth?code=xyz123). Unfortunately, any app can claim ownership of a given protocol scheme and receive the callback.
This problem is very synonymous with trying to lock down any protocol with "trusted clients". Think of the IM networks battle to lock out 3rd party clients (in early 2000's). Eventually they gave up - since whatever client & protocol endpoints are deployed could be reverse engineered by 3rd party developers.
Note: There is also some active discussion on this topic on the OAuth WG mailing list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08177.html
Normally client_id is associated with site's URL - OAuth responses/redirects will be sent only to the registrated Url. So attacker will not be able to receive results of the request on own site (unless somehow your and attacker pages are on the same domain).
I'm building a picture diary on web application google app engine using python. Users can sign up and post pictures to their diary.
Also, I'm trying to conform as much as I can to the REST architecture of doing things.
The authentication scheme is based like this for the web application:
1. Post username/password from the frontend
2. Backend sets up a cookie if authentication is successful
3. The rest of the AJAX calls made are authenticated using this cookie.
Is there any way to conform to REST without using cookies ?
Now, I'm also building an android application where users can sign in and post/view their picture diary. I need to expose the data from web application's datastore so I'll be building a webservice to fetch data from the datastore.
The authentication scheme for the android client:
OPTION a
1. Post username/password over https to the web service
2. Web service returns a unique authorization token (store the token in the username/pwd table on the datastore)
3. Request subsequent services by adding this token to the Request Header of the request
4. Server maps the token to the username/pwd table and returns data if token is found
5. Authorization token expires after a certain period of time
OPTION b
1. Set up a secret key on the client and server side
2. Use "username:hash of password and secret key" in the authorization header of every request
3. server generates the password by extracting the password from the hash value using the same hash algorithm ; if successful returns data
btw, I didn't wanna use basic authorization because of its security vulnerabilities.
Which is better ?
Are there other significantly better ways to accomplish what I'm trying to do ? Security is quite a concern for me btw.
I'd appreciate if anyone has any insight into this issue. thanks.
I've been doing some research myself as to what would be the best solution. I think the 2-legged oauth might work in my case as Leonm suggested.
In this case the server has to provide the client with a consumer key/secret which in my case is hardcoded in the app.
The steps now would be:
1. Generate a signature using the oauth_parameters(consumer_key, signature_method, timestamp), request url, request parameters, and the SECRET.
2. Include the signature, oauth parameters when making a request.
3. Server verifies the request by generating the signature again except in this case it uses the SECRET that corresponds to the key
I think this way I am pretty much confirming to the REST principles. The server is statless as I far I understand now.
What are the pros/cons on doing things this way?
If "security is a concern" then I would say that you'd be a lot better off using open standards and a library to achieve what you want. The main reason for this is that if you do it yourself, you're very likely to forget something; these standards have had a lot of eyes looking at them, looking for holes.
Your options include (in increasing level of complexity)
Basic authentication and HTTPS
Everything is encrypted, which makes it impossible to compress or look into, it increases the overhead somewhat, using more horsepower on the server, and more perhaps battery power on the client. Simple to implement, since it's well supported by libraries.
Digest authentication
Unencrypted messages pass the wire, but the authentication is securely managed in the Authorization headers. See the wikipedia entry for more information.
OAuth
See how Google is providing OAuth for installed applications. I believe it isn't what you're looking for, since you're not asking to share data between applications, just authenticating users.
Roll your own
If you want to roll your own, I suggest looking at e.g. how Google's (now deprecated ?) ClientLogin used to work.
Clients would GET a protected resource, and get a 401 with instructions to perform a GoogleLogin authentication, including a URI for where to perform the login itself
Clients (knowing how to do this) POST a request in a specific manner to that URI
The server responds with a specific response including a (long) token
The client can now perform GET requests to the protected resource with that token.
Statelessness
You cite REST, which dictates that requests should not specifically depend on prior interaction: "... each request from client to server must contain all of the information necessary to understand the request, and cannot take advantage of any stored context on the server." (fielding) This means that a server shouldn't store conversational context (like an authentication token) in a table.
One way of fixing this is by using any of the token based approaches (where the server tells the client about a token it should use for future requests) where the token is not a random number, but a message to the server itself. To protect yourself from client tampering, it can be signed, and if you're afraid of clients looking at it, you can encrypt it.
Edit: Although I'm not certain, it seems unlikely that Google has a table of all authentication tokens ever issued; The length of their tokens suggests that the token is some encrypted message proving that whoever holds this token actually provided real credentials in some realm at some time.
OAuth does exactly what you want to do in a standard way.
You could use a combination of HTTPS and HTTP Basic Auth. Both are existing standards and should be secure enough when used together.