Is using sessions in a RESTful API really violating RESTfulness? I have seen many opinions going either direction, but I'm not convinced that sessions are RESTless. From my point of view:
authentication is not prohibited for RESTfulness (otherwise there'd be little use in RESTful services)
authentication is done by sending an authentication token in the request, usually the header
this authentication token needs to be obtained somehow and may be revoked, in which case it needs to be renewed
the authentication token needs to be validated by the server (otherwise it wouldn't be authentication)
So how do sessions violate this?
client-side, sessions are realized using cookies
cookies are simply an extra HTTP header
a session cookie can be obtained and revoked at any time
session cookies can have an infinite life time if need be
the session id (authentication token) is validated server-side
As such, to the client, a session cookie is exactly the same as any other HTTP header based authentication mechanism, except that it uses the Cookie header instead of the Authorization or some other proprietary header. If there was no session attached to the cookie value server-side, why would that make a difference? The server side implementation does not need to concern the client as long as the server behaves RESTful. As such, cookies by themselves should not make an API RESTless, and sessions are simply cookies to the client.
Are my assumptions wrong? What makes session cookies RESTless?
First of all, REST is not a religion and should not be approached as such. While there are advantages to RESTful services, you should only follow the tenets of REST as far as they make sense for your application.
That said, authentication and client side state do not violate REST principles. While REST requires that state transitions be stateless, this is referring to the server itself. At the heart, all of REST is about documents. The idea behind statelessness is that the SERVER is stateless, not the clients. Any client issuing an identical request (same headers, cookies, URI, etc) should be taken to the same place in the application. If the website stored the current location of the user and managed navigation by updating this server side navigation variable, then REST would be violated. Another client with identical request information would be taken to a different location depending on the server-side state.
Google's web services are a fantastic example of a RESTful system. They require an authentication header with the user's authentication key to be passed upon every request. This does violate REST principles slightly, because the server is tracking the state of the authentication key. The state of this key must be maintained and it has some sort of expiration date/time after which it no longer grants access. However, as I mentioned at the top of my post, sacrifices must be made to allow an application to actually work. That said, authentication tokens must be stored in a way that allows all possible clients to continue granting access during their valid times. If one server is managing the state of the authentication key to the point that another load balanced server cannot take over fulfilling requests based on that key, you have started to really violate the principles of REST. Google's services ensure that, at any time, you can take an authentication token you were using on your phone against load balance server A and hit load balance server B from your desktop and still have access to the system and be directed to the same resources if the requests were identical.
What it all boils down to is that you need to make sure your authentication tokens are validated against a backing store of some sort (database, cache, whatever) to ensure that you preserve as many of the REST properties as possible.
I hope all of that made sense. You should also check out the Constraints section of the wikipedia article on Representational State Transfer if you haven't already. It is particularly enlightening with regard to what the tenets of REST are actually arguing for and why.
First, let's define some terms:
RESTful:
One can characterise applications conforming to the REST constraints
described in this section as "RESTful".[15] If a service violates any
of the required constraints, it cannot be considered RESTful.
according to wikipedia.
stateless constraint:
We next add a constraint to the client-server interaction:
communication must be stateless in nature, as in the
client-stateless-server (CSS) style of Section 3.4.3 (Figure 5-3),
such that 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. Session state is
therefore kept entirely on the client.
according to the Fielding dissertation.
So server side sessions violate the stateless constraint of REST, and so RESTfulness either.
As such, to the client, a session cookie is exactly the same as any
other HTTP header based authentication mechanism, except that it uses
the Cookie header instead of the Authorization or some other
proprietary header.
By session cookies you store the client state on the server and so your request has a context. Let's try to add a load balancer and another service instance to your system. In this case you have to share the sessions between the service instances. It is hard to maintain and extend such a system, so it scales badly...
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with cookies. The cookie technology is a client side storing mechanism in where the stored data is attached automatically to cookie headers by every request. I don't know of a REST constraint which has problem with that kind of technology. So there is no problem with the technology itself, the problem is with its usage. Fielding wrote a sub-section about why he thinks HTTP cookies are bad.
From my point of view:
authentication is not prohibited for RESTfulness (otherwise there'd be little use in RESTful services)
authentication is done by sending an authentication token in the request, usually the header
this authentication token needs to be obtained somehow and may be revoked, in which case it needs to be renewed
the authentication token needs to be validated by the server (otherwise it wouldn't be authentication)
Your point of view was pretty solid. The only problem was with the concept of creating authentication token on the server. You don't need that part. What you need is storing username and password on the client and send it with every request. You don't need more to do this than HTTP basic auth and an encrypted connection:
Figure 1. - Stateless authentication by trusted clients
You probably need an in-memory auth cache on server side to make things faster, since you have to authenticate every request.
Now this works pretty well by trusted clients written by you, but what about 3rd party clients? They cannot have the username and password and all the permissions of the users. So you have to store separately what permissions a 3rd party client can have by a specific user. So the client developers can register they 3rd party clients, and get an unique API key and the users can allow 3rd party clients to access some part of their permissions. Like reading the name and email address, or listing their friends, etc... After allowing a 3rd party client the server will generate an access token. These access token can be used by the 3rd party client to access the permissions granted by the user, like so:
Figure 2. - Stateless authentication by 3rd party clients
So the 3rd party client can get the access token from a trusted client (or directly from the user). After that it can send a valid request with the API key and access token. This is the most basic 3rd party auth mechanism. You can read more about the implementation details in the documentation of every 3rd party auth system, e.g. OAuth. Of course this can be more complex and more secure, for example you can sign the details of every single request on server side and send the signature along with the request, and so on... The actual solution depends on your application's need.
Cookies are not for authentication. Why reinvent a wheel? HTTP has well-designed authentication mechanisms. If we use cookies, we fall into using HTTP as a transport protocol only, thus we need to create our own signaling system, for example, to tell users that they supplied wrong authentication (using HTTP 401 would be incorrect as we probably wouldn't supply Www-Authenticate to a client, as HTTP specs require :) ). It should also be noted that Set-Cookie is only a recommendation for client. Its contents may be or may not be saved (for example, if cookies are disabled), while Authorization header is sent automatically on every request.
Another point is that, to obtain an authorization cookie, you'll probably want to supply your credentials somewhere first? If so, then wouldn't it be RESTless? Simple example:
You try GET /a without cookie
You get an authorization request somehow
You go and authorize somehow like POST /auth
You get Set-Cookie
You try GET /a with cookie. But does GET /a behave idempotently in this case?
To sum this up, I believe that if we access some resource and we need to authenticate, then we must authenticate on that same resource, not anywhere else.
Actually, RESTfulness only applies to RESOURCES, as indicated by a Universal Resource Identifier. So to even talk about things like headers, cookies, etc. in regards to REST is not really appropriate. REST can work over any protocol, even though it happens to be routinely done over HTTP.
The main determiner is this: if you send a REST call, which is a URI, then once the call makes it successfully to the server, does that URI return the same content, assuming no transitions have been performed (PUT, POST, DELETE)? This test would exclude errors or authentication requests being returned, because in that case, the request has not yet made it to the server, meaning the servlet or application that will return the document corresponding to the given URI.
Likewise, in the case of a POST or PUT, can you send a given URI/payload, and regardless of how many times you send the message, it will always update the same data, so that subsequent GETs will return a consistent result?
REST is about the application data, not about the low-level information required to get that data transferred about.
In the following blog post, Roy Fielding gave a nice summary of the whole REST idea:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/rest-discuss/conversations/topics/5841
"A RESTful system progresses from one steady-state to the
next, and each such steady-state is both a potential start-state
and a potential end-state. I.e., a RESTful system is an unknown
number of components obeying a simple set of rules such that they
are always either at REST or transitioning from one RESTful
state to another RESTful state. Each state can be completely
understood by the representation(s) it contains and the set of
transitions that it provides, with the transitions limited to a
uniform set of actions to be understandable. The system may be
a complex state diagram, but each user agent is only able to see
one state at a time (the current steady-state) and thus each
state is simple and can be analyzed independently. A user, OTOH,
is able to create their own transitions at any time (e.g., enter
a URL, select a bookmark, open an editor, etc.)."
Going to the issue of authentication, whether it is accomplished through cookies or headers, as long as the information isn't part of the URI and POST payload, it really has nothing to do with REST at all. So, in regards to being stateless, we are talking about the application data only.
For example, as the user enters data into a GUI screen, the client is keeping track of what fields have been entered, which have not, any required fields that are missing etc. This is all CLIENT CONTEXT, and should not be sent or tracked by the server. What does get sent to the server is the complete set of fields that need to be modified in the IDENTIFIED resource (by the URI), such that a transition occurs in that resource from one RESTful state to another.
So, the client keeps track of what the user is doing, and only sends logically complete state transitions to the server.
As I understand, there are two types of state when we are talking about sessions
Client and Server Interaction State
Resource State
Stateless constraint here refers to the second type in Rest. Using cookies (or local storage) does not violate Rest since it is related to the first.
Fielding says: '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. Session state is therefore kept entirely on the client.'
The thing here is that every request to be fulfilled on the server needs the all necessary data from the client. Then this is considered as stateless. And again, we're not talking about cookies here, we're talking about resources.
HTTP transaction, basic access authentication, is not suitable for RBAC, because basic access authentication uses the encrypted username:password every time to identify, while what is needed in RBAC is the Role the user wants to use for a specific call.
RBAC does not validate permissions on username, but on roles.
You could tric around to concatenate like this: usernameRole:password, but this is bad practice, and it is also inefficient because when a user has more roles, the authentication engine would need to test all roles in concatenation, and that every call again. This would destroy one of the biggest technical advantages of RBAC, namely a very quick authorization-test.
So that problem cannot be solved using basic access authentication.
To solve this problem, session-maintaining is necessary, and that seems, according to some answers, in contradiction with REST.
That is what I like about the answer that REST should not be treated as a religion. In complex business cases, in healthcare, for example, RBAC is absolutely common and necessary. And it would be a pity if they would not be allowed to use REST because all REST-tools designers would treat REST as a religion.
For me there are not many ways to maintain a session over HTTP. One can use cookies, with a sessionId, or a header with a sessionId.
If someone has another idea I will be glad to hear it.
i think token must include all the needed information encoded inside it, which makes authentication by validating the token and decoding the info
https://www.oauth.com/oauth2-servers/access-tokens/self-encoded-access-tokens/
No, using sessions does not necessarily violate RESTfulness. If you adhere to the REST precepts and constraints, then using sessions - to maintain state - will simply be superfluous. After all, RESTfulness requires that the server not maintain state.
Sessions are not RESTless
Do you mean that REST service for http-use only or I got smth wrong? Cookie-based session must be used only for own(!) http-based services! (It could be a problem to work with cookie, e.g. from Mobile/Console/Desktop/etc.)
if you provide RESTful service for 3d party developers, never use cookie-based session, use tokens instead to avoid the problems with security.
A comment below an answer about state and REST recently piqued my interest. For clarity I'll quote the comment in full:
Nothing in my answer implies a solution based on database access on every request, if you think it does, it is a failing on your part to understand authentication and authorization at that scale. The authentication can be implicit in the state, do you think that facebook does a "database access" on every request of its REST API? Or Google for that matter? hint: no
I tried to think how one might authenticate without checking a user-provided value against a centrally-held one, even if one to know what data to display to the user, and came up blank. i freely admit this is a failing on my part to understand authentication and authorization at that scale. My question is therefore: how do sites like Facebook and Google accomplish this?
One way is claims based authentication. Simplified and somewhat loosely interpreted, it boils down to this;
Instead of the server application authenticating the user itself, an un-authenticated user is redirected to a separate authentication server.
The authentication server validates the user in any way it wants to (login+password, certificate, domain membership etc) and creates a signed "document" with the relevant user info (user id, name, roles, ...) It then redirects the user back to the server application with the document enclosed.
The server application validates the signature of the document, and if it trusts the signature, it can use the document contents to assume who the user is instead of accessing the database.
Normally, the server application caches the document in a cookie/session or similar so that the next access to the application does not have to bounce through the authentication server.
In this way, the server application does not need to concern itself with how the user is authenticated, just whether it trusts the judgement of the authentication server. If the authentication server (and possibly the client unless it's a browser) adds Facebook login support, the server application will automatically "just work" with the new login type.
In a RESTful application, there's no state maintained between two requests. Each request is treated as a completely new one, even though it would have been sent by the same user. I.e. There's no session.
In that case, how does the User Login information handled by a REST application?
Is that, after a successful login, the server generates a security token and sends it to client and the client sends it back for each and every request there after?
If above is true, where the security token is stored in server? Database? (Remember: No session).
Is that, after a successful login, the server generates a security token and sends it to client and the client sends it back for each and every request there after?
If above is true, where the security token is stored in server? Database? (Remember: No session).
Ehrm. Sending a token to the client which will be sent back on each subsequent request, only to retrieve information associated with that token from the database on the server-side? That's called a session. It's exactly what PHP sessions do, apart from storing the information in a file, instead of a database. You're recreating sessions.
Anyway, I think the "no session, no state" mantra is overrated and not very practical. I think it's more than okay to store a simple cookie that contains a token so you can identify a user, and associate (some) data with that user. Anyway, I think that not storing application state (e.g. what has the user previously done, and what is he doing now) is the most important.
Or you can have everything encrypted in token and each request can get all user information including name, timestamp, etc. from that token.
The only thing server would need to know, is the encoding/decoding algorithm.
Even better, the server can call authentication service (that could be totally independent box) to authenticate and authorize user.
Simple is always good !
I'm going to develop site accessible to anonymous and registered users. Planed security schema is similar to let's say YouTube and most of others "web 2.0" sites. Logged user will get access to more functions, more data etc. What is best approach to implement that?
I'm thinking about create simple service returning random session code to client, and adding session object to singleton application object. When user provide credential, I'll change parameter "logged" in his session object. Session token will be passed as one of parameters in every single request, and services will change their behavior if user is registered or not (i.e. there will be returned only "public" data, or restricted content only)
Is it good approach, or should I use something different?
There is nothing inherently different about GWT security, it is the same with JSP,PHP, ASP, ROR, etc..., that is web application security.
There is already a session mechanism on the server side, that generates secure random session cookies, use it. As a bonus, it handles session expiration and other things you would have to handle if you rolled your own.
You cannot trust ANYTHING the client sends you, so if you send the username or some kind of token from the client to the server (other than the user logging in), you are doing it wrong.
If your information has any value, force SSL on all connections.
Your implementation of the server calls should check the server session for the current user info, and determine if the user is authorized to perform the action. Again, your RPC information should not include any information about the user making the call, other than the session cookie that is sent automatically with the request headers. Anything you store, such as whether the user is logged in, should be in the server side session.
Of course, you need to do something on the client to present logged in and anonymous users with the proper user interface. But that is not security, only work to present a consistent interface. All the security is on the server side.
We have a REST application that is utilized mostly by applications that dont need to maintain their state, so till date we have been quiet "RESTFUL" without maintaining a state. We use the Private/Public (similar to Amazon) for authentication.Currently the client passes the credentials for every request
Now we have a new requirement where we have to maintain the state (or conversation).The client can be a Rich application or a hand held device .I am trying to comeup with the best way to implement the state .Should we pass on a session Id and maintain that ID ..is that the best and the only solution ?
Passing on a session ID is not the only way and not the best way to maintain conversational state. The best way, if you have a RIA is to maintain the state on the client itself, where it belongs, as some of the comments suggest. This means still sending the credentials every request.
Re-authentication on every request is the only way, and if you feel that there's a performance hit on the server, the server can (as suggested) cache the result of an authentication request for a period of time. Digest authentication could help avoid caching responses by cryptograpically signing the tokens going over the wire.
If that's not good enough you could use something akin to Google ClientLogin, and giving the client an encrypted token that can be verified without needing to ask an authorization, and without passing the user's real credentials over the wire. Google themselves this by doing the login over https, and then using the generated tokens over http. It's open for replay attacks for the lifetime of the token.