I'm currently trying to setup FOSOAuthServerBundle with my Symfony2 app.
Everything seems to be setup and functional, anyway I'm stuck after the installation.
What is the proper workflow with URLs to get the access_token ?
I tried /oauth/v2/auth, but sounds like I need to define a Client object first.
How to create/generate Client ? Clients are always supposed to be created manually ?
FOSOAuthServerBundle doc is great, but seems to skip all the usage workflow. Am I supposed to check the OAuth2 doc for this ?
Thanks !
In short, yes. You should be using the oAuth2 RFC to determine which workflow you want to use. In regards to client registration the RFC specifically states that the means through which a client registers is beyond the scope of the specification (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-2).
With that being said I can give you some insight into how I did this. My application is a mobile phone application that connects to several services running on various servers. I'm also using the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant.
The way I approached this was: when the application loads, the first thing it does is to check if it has an oAuth2 client id. If it doesn't, then it POSTS to a create client endpoint I've setted up with the meta-data I need. The endpoint validates the POST, creates the client and returns the client information. The application stores the client id and the process doesn't have to be repeated the next time.
Application loads;
Application checks for oAuth2 client id;
If there is one, the process ends;
If there isn't, it posts to http://www.example.com/client;
If we get a 200, store the oAuth2 client id.
I could have also created the oAuth2 client when the user created an account in the application, but I wanted to make the registration process as fast as possible. Creating the client would have added some extra waiting time to the process.
Check this: http://blog.logicexception.com/2012/04/securing-syfmony2-rest-service-wiith.html
It's quite simple to convert to Doctrine, whether you use it.
There's a command-line that does exactly what you need: create a Client!
Related
My task is to implement a resource server(RS) for IdentityServer4(IS4). The RS should fetch data from a database and send the necessary information as a json object back to the caller (client). This is needed because we have to return complex objects.
I already setup IS4 succesfully and its already running in Docker for testing purpose. I also setup the needed database.
My understanding of the flow would be, the user requests data from the RS sending the access-token, the RS then validates the token, checking if the caller is allowed to access the api using the IS4, if everything is okay the RS returns the data to the caller.
My problem is, as I'm new to this subject, how would I implement a RS? Do I create an API which is added as a scope to the user? Or is there a RS already implemented in IS4?
So yes you'll need to write your own API to serve your own resources, IdentityServer will only manage your identities for you (as well as handling external logins if that's what you need). I'd recommend going to the IdentityServer docs and working through the quick starts in order as shown below:
This will give you a good start but you'll then need to go away and research APIs more generally, there's a tonne of good info online about building (RESTful) APIs. You may find it useful to sign up to something like PluralSight and work through a couple of their courses, they're often very good.
One other thing to bear in mind is that IdentityServer is for identity, in other words Authentication and not specifically for Authorisation so you may need to add something for this. You can of course use a users identity for authorisation purposes but in most cases you'll probably need to augment the info you store about their identity to authorise them for access. See this link for more info around this topic.
I am attempting to make a website's back-end API (I want to make the back-end independent of the front-end so I'm only making a server-side API for now, abiding to RESTfulness as much as possible). I haven't done this before so I'm unaware of the 'best' & most secure way to do things.
How I do it now:
Some parts of the API should only be accessible to a specific user after they login and up to 24 hours later.
To do this, I am generating a random Session ID whenever a user logs in (I'm using passwordless logins so the user is assigned that ID when they click on a link in their email) on the server side, which respond by sending that session ID to the client once. The client then stores this session ID in localstorage (or a file in disk if the client is not a web browser).
Next, I store that ID along with the associated email in my DB (MySQL table) on the server side.
Now every time the client want something from my API, they have to provide the email & session ID in the URL (I don't want cookies for now), which the server checks against the ones in the DB, if they exist then the server responds fully else responds with an error.
After 24 hours, the server deletes the email/session ID pair and the user has to login again (to generate another session ID and associate it with their email).
Now the questions:
Is my method secure or does it have obvious vulnerabilities? Is
there another battle-tested way I'm not aware of?
Is there a better way for the client to store the session ID (if
they are a web browser)?
What is the best way to generate a unique session ID? Currently I
generate a random 16-char string that I set as the primary key of
the session-email table.
Is using a MySQL table the most performant/best way to store session
IDs (given it will be queried with each request)?
Do I need to encrypt session IDs in any way? Is it secure for the
client to send it as a 'naked' URL param?
Sorry for having too many questions in one post but I think they're related by the single scenario above. If it makes any difference, I'm using F# and I expect my client to either be an android app or a web app.
Your REST API MUST not know anything about the REST client session, not even the session id. If you don't want to send a password by every request, all you can do is signing the user id, and the timeout, so the service can authenticate based on the signature. Use JSON web token: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_Web_Token
You can have a server side REST client, which can have the session your described. The question is, does it really worth the effort to develop a REST service instead of a regular web application? I am not sure in your case, but typically the answer is no, because you won't have any 3rd party REST client and your application does not have enough traffic to justify the layered architecture or it is not big enough to split into multiple processes, etc...
If security is important then you MUST use a true random generator algorithm or hardware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation#.22True.22_vs._pseudo-random_numbers It is not safe to send anything through HTTP, you must use HTTPS instead. You MUST use the standard Authorization header instead of a query param. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication
I'm new to Shiro. We are attempting to use Shiro with Stormpath. I've been trying to dissect the examples to come up with a solution to what I want to do, but I'm unsuccessful so far.
For now, I'm simply trying to create REST services to do what I want, and I'll tie a real client in later. This is what I'm trying to achieve as my first step:
I want to have a client hit a REST endpoint (login) on my server. My server would authenticate, and return a JWT to the client. This JWT would then be used to access secured endpoints on my server. (I have written Java code that can successfully authenticate against Stormpath).
My problem is the JWT. I expected that a JWT would be created for me, or at least easily accessible. I can't find a way to get one. I have seen sample code on how to build one, but that doesn't seem like the way I would expect to acquire one.
I have run through several examples, but most seem to deal with JSP interfaces, and I can't seem to make the leap to what I'm trying to do.
Is this approach reasonable? Any guidance is appreciated.
Edit 1
I now have a Java client that can authenticate using the Shiro servlet and retrieve a JWT. I have this running as a deployed application (war) in GlassFish. My next step is to use that JWT to authenticate against a different application that has my REST endpoints. This REST application doesn't need to know anything about how to authenticate - I just want to pass the JWT along in the call to a given REST endpoint and use Shiro (via annotations) to control access to the endpoint (if that is indeed possible). All of the examples I can find seem to be "all-in-one" examples (bundling JSP with Shiro/Stormpath configurations, etc). I'm trying to determine the minimum working configuration for securing REST endpoints and I'm having difficulty determining which pieces of the configuration I need.
Edit 2
I am using the Stormpath-Shiro-Servlet (as stolen from the Shiro Servlet example) as my authentication back-end. Using my Java client, I am sending a login request to the servlet, and I am indeed getting back a JWT. However, I am not able to successfully use the JWT to access my other rest resources. My rest calls result in this error:
org.apache.shiro.authz.UnauthenticatedException: This subject is anonymous - it does not have any identifying principals and authorization operations require an identity to check against. A Subject instance will acquire these identifying principals automatically after a successful login is performed be executing org.apache.shiro.subject.Subject.login(AuthenticationToken) or when 'Remember Me' functionality is enabled by the SecurityManager. This exception can also occur when a previously logged-in Subject has logged out which makes it anonymous again. Because an identity is currently not known due to any of these conditions, authorization is denied.
First, I don't understand why the servlet 'login' doesn't actually log me in and give me non-anonymous principle? Second, I am attempting to do everything on a separate client, so I don't have access to Subject.login (is this a correct assumption?).
Take a look at this example from github/stormpath-shiro
The JWT creation is managed for you by the Stormpath API. If you start up one of the examples, (the servlet one above, or the spring-boot-web example), after login, you will have a JWT cookie. There is background info in this blog post.
I'm working on releasing strompath-shiro now, but figured I'd include these link here so you can start looking.
i know this is a question that has been asked many time. but im still concerned about best practice when trying to develop secure code in meteor.
i know you can prevent the client from being able to access the database with the command:
meteor remove insecure
my code currently adds, retrieves records by using Meteor.methods() so although the client is not able to insert data into a collection, it can use the Meteor.method() function. im concerned about holding the login details in the database because would this not mean that the client can use the Meteor.method() function to add/get/remove data from the database.
the client being able to call the Meteor.methods() function seems to still keep the same risk doesn't it? or have i coded me work wrong?
if it help, here is a run down of what my work is doing:
application loads
client calls to get username and password from database
client sends login details to external server (over https) to initiate socket.io connection.
step 2 is the risk because it seems to allow the client to get the login details. once it has this, it uses the socket.io.js library and the api to my webservice to login. so meteor remove insecure doesnt seem to have secured it because get methods are still available in the Meteor.methods()?
being able to use these functions are quite crucial to retrieving data from the database, is there a way around this? what would be best practice for communicating to the database without exposing private data to the client?
Meteor's insecure package is just a tool provided by MDG to quickly prototype apps. It is not meant to be runned in a production app and some people think is a best practise to remove it all together from the start.
After you remove this package, if you want to interact with the database on the client using mini-mongo you must create the appropiate allow and deny rules on the collection. Here is the link for the Meteor documentation on this topic. The other way to interact with the database, is as you said, using Meteor.methods().
Meteor methods calls don't trigger allow or deny rules, since they are runned on the server. You must hardwire all the security measures you need on the Meteor Call by yourself. So it can be a security problem if you don't take the time to secure the call.
Regarding authenticating your clients I would suggest you take a look at Meteor's Accounts package. For example you can add this two packages for basic username/password authentication:
meteor add accounts-base accounts-passwords
Then you can just use the methods detailed on the Meteor Documentation.
I hope this helps.
Login
If you are using accounts-password, you can check the source here to see details of how it works. But here's a rough overview of it. When you call Meteor.loginWithPassword, the password is hashed client-side. Then a method is called with the parameters. The password is then salted and checked against the database server-side. If it matches, the client gets logged in. The client then subscribes to their own user data (Meteor.user()). The server only publishes their data. So everyone else's data is save.
Methods
A method executes code server-side. So they are generally secure. But you can of course write insecure methods. Just know, that you can't trust the parameters passed by the user.
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....)