I have tried Google with queries similar to the title of this question, but haven't found anything useful.
Background: I am building a web app and would like to add a user authentication level to it. I cannot imagine anything worse than building a user authentication system from the ground up, so I want a quick solution.
I'm looking for open source software I can host on my server that provides an auth layer I can connect to, with multiple user accounts
Criteria:
I want to host the software on my own server
Provide a log in screen that works with multiple sign in strategies - twitter, facebook, vanilla email, etc.
Persists users to a database (preferably postgres) and persists session data
Preferably lets me store a minimal amount of data per user, like key value store
Has a client-side (Javascript) API, like Facebook's JS, so I can use this auth service on multiple sites. Namely, I want to use it on localhost or my own file system (when allowing file cookies). Client side JS API exposes methods like log in / log out
Has a server side API (such as exposes local RESTful endpoints) so that when I do build out my server side app for other data storage outside of the user, my app can query the auth service for log in status.
I want to run this stack completely independently of my own app - in fact I want to run this auth service and purely communicate to it from my local dev environment without building any server side app of my own.
I have used Firebase and they do many of the things that I want, including log in strategies and the client / server side APIs, but I want to be able to host my own version of this.
I can't imagine anyone takes pleasure out of building user authentication of any kind, so I'm surprised I haven't found anything in research.
I also know this is an open-ended question, but as far as I can tell I haven't found anything satisfying my requirements.
I like Devise (https://github.com/plataformatec/devise), which is for Rails. It has an active community with a boatloads of plugins available that can fulfill many of your requirements.
I didn't see a language specified; most languages and frameworks have their own implementations. Can you provide more information?
Example: I use the Flask framework on python. In addition, I use the Authomatic library which provides Oauth access for twitter, google, facebook, etc.
What I was looking for is something called a Single Sign On solution. According to this list there is nothing currently that meets my criteria.
Instead I have chosen to just run a local webserver and implement a regular auth flow.
Related
I'm just starting a new project. The result will be an API server and a progressive web app. The API server is implemented with TypeScript and the NestJS framework, the client with Angular 6.
I've been flirting with keycloak for some time. Still, I'm not quite sure it's right for me yet. But I don't want to worry about things like token renewal anymore and find it sexy that Keycloak tells me how to create user roles.
What bothers me, is the following - integration. For my use case it is necessary that the login and all features like password reset and so on are part of my application. That means I want to create forms myself in order to be able to do this perfectly in my own design and not have a second translation process, etc. Keycloak themes are not an option. So is it possible to hide keycloak in such a way, or is it so complex that I shouldn't use Keyloak in the first place? Afaik there is already an issue with password resets - I can't request it from the user side but have to make an REST call to the admin endpoint - which is okay but not ideal since it requires me to do more server side logic ( and that is not why I want to use Keycloak).
In addition, Keycloak is too much about the GUI - which makes it difficult for me, especially during development. Because I also want to provide my team with a local instance of keycloak during development. But what is the concept to import the initial data into realms, apps and also users into Keycloak? I found some JSON imports - but so far only for realms and apps. Is there also a function to import a whole dumb?
So that my team builds on a pre-built setup and has a user for each role. A reproducible setup with Vagrant or Docker which contains the import of initial data - that would be the goal.
So in short my questions:
Is it still worth the effort using Keycloak if I want to use everything via the API or should I simply use Passport and JWT?
Can I have a reproducible setup during my development that includes realms, apps, users, user roles, etc?
So, the question asked few months ago, but I also faces with that question, and I want to answer on it.
I think that you don't need Keycloak, it is fairly enough for you to use OAuth2 and JWT.
Let's justify my answer:
You have just one client - Angular application. Keycloak useful, when you have many clients (web-js, mobile platforms) and you want to create and manage them dynamically. But, I think that, in your case, you create your client once without modification in the future.
Also, Keycloak very useful, when you have a lot of integration with third part systems (Google, Fb, Twitter and etc) because Keycloak has them out-of-box. Or you need to integrate with some SAML or LDAP provider.
You may use Keycloak, if you need some Identity and User management platform, and when you have complicated user access flow.
In the end, you could consider Keycloak, if you need SSO (Single Sign On) feature. Once logged-in to Keycloak, users don't have to login again to access a different application. But, by your description, you have just one application.
Keycloak offers features such as Single-Sign-On (SSO), Identity Brokering and Social Login, User Federation, Client Adapters, an Admin Console, and an Account Management Console.
It's an out of box solution for rapid security layer development of application.You could have single common security layer for multiple application .
You can implement you security mechanism without using keycloak.
I am working on a news media website, and I am looking to add feature to allow users to register, login and make comments.
For example (New York Times login/register screen)
May I know what options are available, what are the common approaches publishers would choose ?
So far I have been looking at:
AWS Cognito: Allows to create own user directory, and authenticate.
Disquss SSO: also implemented commenting.
In house development: Code a new microservice to manage user directory and store/serve comments, alternatively using AWS Lambda. I am very keen to go down that path, example, but this might costs a lot to develop + maintain.
User data security is my top consideration, I would prefer to use a separate system to store user data. Either a robust third party service or complete in house development of a new system.
Any suggestions?
Thank you.
These are web-standards for single sign on:
OpenID
OpenID Connect
Companies like Google and Facebook provide authentication using Google-/Facebook-accounts. As far as I know, Google uses OpenID Connect which is based on OAuth. However, I don't know if you don't have to store user data any more at all when using this.
I believe it's worth checking again if authentication and commenting should be combined, especially when using a third-party-solution. It makes it harder to change one of the two.
This could give you some more ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_single_sign-on_implementations.
We intend to develop rest based api. I explored the topic but it seems, you can secure api when your client is an app (So there are many ways, public key - private key etc). What about websites / mobile website, if we are accessing rest based api in website which do not use any login for accessing contents ( login would be optional ) then how could we restrict other people from accessing rest based api ?
Does it make sense using Oauth2.0 ? I don't have clear idea of that.
More clear question could be ,How can we secure get or post request exposed over web for the website which doesn't use any login ?
If it's simple get request or post request , which will return you json data on specific input, now i have mobile website , who will access those data using get request or post request to fetch data. Well, some else can also access it , problem is i am not using Login, user can access data directly. But how can we restrict other people from accessing that data.
What do you think is the difference between securing a website that is not using REST vs one that is using REST API?
OAuth provides authorisation capabilities for your site, in a REST architecture this means a user of the mobile application will have to provide their credentials before being allowed to access the resource. The application can then decide on if that user has access to the requested resource. However you've said your website doesn't need use authorisation.
You can use certificates however good luck managing the certificate for each client. My take on it is for your explanation you don't need to secure your website because you will never be able to manage a trust relationship between the client and the server. There are some options though:
You build your own client application that you ship out to people which can verify itself with the server using a packaged certificate with the client. E.g. iOS has this kind of feature if you build for that device.
You provide a capability to download a certificate that is 'installed' in the browser and used when communicating to your REST API
Use something like a handshaking protocol so when a client wants to make the first request it says; 'hi I'm a client can we chat?' And the server responds with 'yes for the next X minutes we can however make sure you send me this key everytime you tell me something YYYYYY' (you can use something like SecureUDID or equivalent for other devices than iOS).
There are probably others but you get the basic idea. Again in my opinion if your resource doesn't need authorisation then you don't need to secure that REST API. Can I ask what kind of data are you exposing via this REST API or functionality your providing? That might help provide a better answer.
You want authorization: only some agents (mobile clients) and/or users should be allowed to access those APIs.
To solve that problem, you need identification: a way for the server to tell who is who (or what), so the right decision can be made.
There are many different way to provide some form of identification, depending how much you care about security.
The simplest is a user agent string, specific to your mobile clients. But it can be faked easily. Slightly harder to fake are client based 'secrets' - embed some kind of secret or key in your mobile client code. You can make it really complicated and secret, but as ramsinb pointed out, you can't get security this way as it would require you to be able to guarantee that the secret you're shipping with the client (wether it's code, algorithm or any other fancy construct) can't be compromised or reverse engineered. Not happening when you don't control the client.
From there, 3 choices:
Security isn't really required, don't bother
Security isn't really required, but you still want to limit access to your API to either legit users/agents or people ready to invest some time hacking your protection - go with a specific user agent or a client embedded secret - don't invest much into it as it won't block people who really want access to get it anyway
Security IS required - and then I don't think there is a way around authentication, wether it's login/password, user specific (device specific?) keys, OpenID, etc... No matter what, you'll have to add to the user burden to some extent, although you can limit that burden by allowing authentication to persist (cookies, storage....)
I would like to have some guidance regarding how to handle authentication for my restful service to be able to support a couple of different scenarios, see included image?
I've been thinking about this problem for a couple of week without finding a solution for all of the cases and even if I'll make trade offs I'll be running into problems
If we skip the Mobile application and the use of Curl, there's no need to expose the service to the public and it would be possible to use basic authentication for the server to server communication. But we'll still need to put some responsibility at the "Web site for ninjas only" to pass the (openid authenticated user) as part for the http header?
In this case we're using Google apps to manage credentials for our co-workers and I don't like the idea to manage another username/password within the service if it's possible to avoid.
Is there any sustainable solution for my dreams, so that I can build awesome features for the client and implement a tight api that manages the authorization for different resources for a specific user?
Another possible to solution might be to integrate the service with the openid provider, but then I'll have problem with passing the user from "Web site for ninjas only"
Jeff Atwood argues that we should stop asking users to register on our websites because we should rather use their "internet driver's license -- that is, [their] existing Twitter, Facebook, Google, or OpenID credentials" for authenticating them.
While I am beginning to think that he may be right, I could not yet decide and I am looking for arguments against letting foreign sites gain control over personal web pages.
Do you see any dangers of authenticating users like this?
if you want a more in depth response based from someone who has dealt with this technology before, you should listen to the recent .NET Rocks with Rob Connery which was precisely about this topic.
http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=626
After listening to it I decided to NOT use OpenID on my site.
Here is the link to Rob's blog post on the subject:
http://blog.wekeroad.com/thoughts/open-id-is-a-party-that-happened
Here are a number of reasons why not, although each comes with caveats:
If you only authenticate with one external service, anyone who doesn't use that service cannot use yours.
If your external authentication service goes down, users won't be able to use yours until theirs comes back up; similarly, slowdowns in their authentication server will also affect you.
Requiring users to authenticate with another service requires them to accept that service's EULA, which may be a turnoff for some; similarly, it ties you morally to whatever decisions your authenticating service makes. In particular it can make you appear to be a satellite, spinoff or affiliate of the auth site, since users have to see their logo every time they try to use your service.
The external auth domain gets a perfect snapshot of your viewership, giving them a lot of insight into what your company is doing. Since their analytical tools and staff are generally top-notch, they may conceivably know more about your user base than you do.
The major way to avoid this problem is to allow people to use the service of their choice, instead of a single service. If you are limited to developing one, for development time constraints, using OpenID is the best bet because many other authentication domains also qualify as OpenIDs, and therefore ameliorates most of the above problems.
I think using IDs from any of these big names are ok as long as you don't provide service that needs an endpoint like email, IM etc.
However, OpenID is just not trust-worthy. If you have any doubts, try this OpenID
http://opennoid.appspot.com/anyid
This is a disposable ID that doesn't require a password to login.