I want to make a Facebook batch call to read registered users walls.
As far as I know, I need to especify the user access token in the body of each call in batch. But with offline_access depreciation, I need to revalidate all users access token before use it.
So, if I am batching multiple calls, it makes no sense to revalidate each access token separatly (like discribed here: http://goo.gl/M3Jrr).
How can I revalidate those access token faster?
How can I re-validate those access token faster?
You can't. Once a user access token is expired, you need to capture this and get the user to engage with your app to refresh the access token.
Now I don't know why would you need to read your registered users walls in bulk which, depending on your motives, might be a violation of Facebook policies but I suppose in the response body of the batch call you should receive a clear error about an expired access token and hence, for example, add a flag in the DB for those (inactive) users to re-engage them later.
Related
I'm building a REST API and using AWS Cognito's user pools for authentication. I've got a "get_token" endpoint that returns the JWT access and refresh tokens to the user, which they use to authenticate access to the other REST endpoints provided by the API.
The access token has an expiration timeout. If the user of my API is an application program, what are the best practices for the application to handle when the access token expires? Does the application have to remember the username/password and re-authenticate to continue? Is using the refresh token to get a new access token and use that going forward the best approach?
Is there any documentation, suggestions anyone can point out that might help me out?
Cognito provides 3 types of tokens, id, access and refresh tokens when you login. The way this usually works is that you send either of the first two (depends on whether you want to be sending user payload information to your backend) to your backend via an Authorization header and verify the token there.
Your id and access tokens usually have a shorter expiration time compared to the refresh token. What you should do is, when the id (or access) token expire, you should use the refresh token to generate a new id (or access) token. When the refresh token expires that means that you can no longer generate new id/access tokens from it. In this case, the user (or app) must login again.
I read something like this:
1-Once a user logs in, you can generate a token and store it in MySQL database and share the same token with the response of login API.
2-Store the token using shared-preferences.
3-When a user opens the app, check if the token exists if it does, then send the token with all the APIs inside the request header which requires the user to be logged in.
But what is the point of using token if i was keeping it in database.Eventually this token related with userid and with this userid everthing can be reachable.So I want to ask why should I use some token to keep user loged in instead of user email or something.
Using token is much more secure and useable. Storing just token more secure becase in case of leak, the token can be revoked or something. On the other side storing user's username and password is security risk. Also, most of the services use tokens on their API's and there is no username+pass authorization. For example whole OAuth2 concept is built on top of this. In short, tokens are much more secure and flexible.
Optimal usage of bearer token using as a set with an access token and refresh token. While you are passing access token on header while you are making HTTP request typically access token dies frequently especially when security is a prominent feature of the app, like banking apps. When a user makes an HTTP request and if the access token is dead then you should refresh it via another API call with the refresh token and return the same API call with the new access token.
Please don't mark as duplicate I came through a lot of questions like this but still I didn't get the point of refresh token. Some of the reason they said are:
If an attacker gets the access token it will expiry soon
But where I am confused is if the attacker was able to get the access token why they wouldn't be able to get the refresh token (both of them needed to access token by JS to sent request so they needed to store in local storage)
If the attacker gets the refresh token we can block it in server.
But we can also block the access token in server right. (with DB)
Note I am not talking about OAuth refresh token, because as per the answers I read,
The idea of refresh tokens is that if an access token is compromised,
because it is short-lived, the attacker has a limited window in which
to abuse it.
Refresh tokens, if compromised, are useless because the attacker
requires the client id and secret in addition to the refresh token in
order to gain an access token.
So it makes sense here but what about JWT?
Typically the access token gets sent with every request, and to your API.
Typically a refresh token only gets sent once, immediately expires after use and only goes to your authentication server. All these measures generally reduce risk.
JWT and OAuth2 can be used together, and it's highly recommended to use OAuth2 instead of trying to write something from scratch.
I talk a bit more about the pitfalls in my article: https://evertpot.com/jwt-is-a-bad-default/
The refresh token allows the client to make a call and ask for a new access token. For setups where the access token does have a certain expiry, the refresh token will typically have an expiry which is later than the access token itself. Here is a typical workflow using access and refresh tokens:
The client authenticates to the server via 1FA or 2FA
The server responds with an access token having an expiry in 5 minutes, along with a refresh token which expires a minute later
The client then uses the access token as needed.
When authentication fails using the current access token, under the hood the client will take the refresh token and hit the server to get a new access token. We then go to step #2 above and recycle.
Note that for certain instances, the refresh token is not needed. One example would be sites like Stack Overflow, which uses token which never expire. Another example would be certain high security sites such as banking sites. In these cases, the site might force you to reauthorize via 1FA/2FA in order to keep the session going.
One way in which an update of the authentication token can be carried out through another and without exposing it to client applications (avoiding its use in a malicious way), is to store it in a cache system such as REDIS and in the When the request token has expired, check in storage if the user has a refresh token that allows him to regenerate the authentication. This could be implemented within the same middleware that validates the token that accompanies the request or in an endpoint intended for this purpose.
After doing some research in using JWT with Access Token and Refresh Token for authentication. I understand this in this way.
After login, return to user Access Token and Refresh Token (using same technique JWT for both).
Saving Refresh Token in Database (one User can have multiple Refresh Tokens for multiple devices).
Whenever user sends a request with invalid Access Token, check Refresh Token and call another api to get new Access Token (doing this in client side). After that, call api to get data again with new Access Token.
If Refresh Token is invalid, deleting its record in database and user must to login again to get new Refresh Token.
Does I understand Access and Refresh Token technique correctly? Please give me some advices. Thank in advance.
Of the 4 steps you listed, some look more or less correct while others do not. I will begin this answer by giving the premise for why refresh tokens were created and what is their main purpose.
Using the JWT pattern with only access tokens, there is a potential usability problem when the JWT token expires. Consider as an example a banking website. When a user logs in, he receives a JWT token with a certain expiry (typically stored under the exp key in the claims section of the token). If the token is given say a 5 minute expiry, then from a usability point of view, it means that the website would have to force the user to manually login every 5 minutes. Obviously, this is not the best user experience, because it means that a user who happens to be in the middle of some business process when the token expires might lose all that work. This is where refresh tokens step in to alleviate this problem.
Using the JWT pattern with refresh tokens means that the user receives both an access and a refresh token. A typical workflow here might be:
After login, return to user Access Token and Refresh Token (using same technique JWT for both). The receiver notes when the access token is set to expire (say 15 minutes).
As the expiry of the access token approaches (e.g. 10 minutes), the UI will send the refresh token to the backend to obtain a new access token (and refresh token). This could be done explicitly, e.g. on a website which displays a popup asking if the user wants to continue. Or it could be done in stealth mode, with a REST call being made under the hood to get the new access token.
For the edge case where the refresh token cannot be used to obtain a new access token, then the very next user action which requires authentication would fail. In this case, the user would have to redirected to the login page. But, as this case should generally be rare, it does not disqualify the refresh token pattern.
I would also point out that storing the access/refresh tokens in the database largely defeats the purpose of the JWT pattern. One major reason for using JWT is that it pushes the user session state out of the application and onto the user. By storing tokens in your database, you are totally making your user sessions very stateful, which has all sorts of potential drawbacks. Consider using the suggested workflow above to avoid doing this.
The way I see it, your refresh token needs to be stored and associated with the device and the user.
Example:
User Logs In in Device A
Call Login endpoint
Validate user is valid
If valid, generate a refresh token associated with the userid & device
id
store required data to your table or storage engine (user_sessions..etc)
user_id | device_id | refresh_token | expires_at
Return the payload with access_token, refresh_token , access_token_expires_at, refresh_token_expires_at
Front-end, store the payload
when consuming a resource, check the following
If refresh_token_expires_at > now then logs them out , show your session is timeout (or you can have a never expired refresh_token.. ex. refresh_token_expires_at can be 0)
if access_token_expires_at > now then call refresh token endpoint along with your payload.
on the refresh endpoint, validate the call and check the refresh token against the data stored.
if refresh token is valid for this user+device, generate a new access_token
return the access_token and its expires_at
If the refresh token is INvalid , return invalid
front end will log the user out.
** in any case, if a refresh token was compromised, it will be only for that particular device/user. A user can then deactivate or remove the device from their list. This action will invalidate the refresh_token on their next refresh call.
I'm aware that access is returned as X-Access-Level header in response to API requests. But I noticed read-write is returned for both Read and Write and Read, Write and Direct Messages. So, how do I know if the app has access to Direct Messages as well?
Testing with the Apigee Twitter console I get x-access-level:
read-write-directmessages as a response header. The access token granted for the account you are testing likely doesn't have DM access granted. Try revoking the access token and authorizing it again.