OAuth REST access_token and instance_url expiry time? - rest

I am working with Oauth2.0. In that i could able get the access_token and instance_url. Is there any expiry time for these two.
Can I store them and use it for all my REST calls without getting the new access_token and the instance_url. Is it possible for me to use it for long hours or even days.

The access token is only valid for the length of a session (as defined in the Salesforce Org's settings — I believe the longest this can be is 8 hours without activity), as it's actually a session ID, that said, you should also be given a refresh token. The refresh token has a much longer lifetime and can be used to authenticate the user once the session has expired, without them having to enter any credentials — this allows you to do it in the background without them even having to concern themselves with the login process.
model metrics do a good job of explaining the token flow here.

Related

How to handle JWT expiration

I have a question on "make the browser send out a request to exchange for a new token at the sixth day. Accordingly, on the server side, create a restful API named /token/extend which will return a new token if given a valid token."
Let's assume that I implement this concept. When token is about to expire, we will generate new valid token if old valid token is provided.
Now, let's assume, Hacker gets the token. He uses this token to communicate with APIs. Hacker communicates for 6 days. On 6th day, our "/token/extend" API will generate new token for him so he can communicate for another 6 days, and probably forever. Will this situation occur? or Am I missing something here?
The general way you would force your users to obtain a new token after 6 days would be by simply setting the exp field (expiry) in the claims of the JWT to expire after 6 days. The exact mechanism by which users would use to obtain a new token depends on your implementation.
The most basic implementation would be to just let the incoming request on the sixth day to fail, forcing the consumer of the API to redirect to the login page. From there, the user would have to login again to obtain a new valid JWT. A more elaborate method would use refresh tokens. With this approach, when the user first logs in, he would receive an authentication token with a 6 day expiry (as before), but would also receive a refresh token which would expire a little bit later. On the sixth day, when the user tries to access a service, the request would again fail. However, in this case, the consumer (e.g. a website or mobile app) could take the refresh token and request a new access token under the hood. This would be a more seamless way of handling the mandatory 6 day expiry. Note that with the refresh token approach, the user might never know about the 6 day expiry.
Regarding your concerns about hackers obtaining other people's tokens, you should mostly just forget about this. If someone stole your wallet, there is all sort of havoc he could do to you, e.g. using your credit cards, stealing your identity, etc. The same could happen with a stolen/sniffed JWT. The best practice here is to just make sure you are using two-way SSL for all communication, and also encourage your users not to use your services in places like Internet cafes.

Azure AD OAuth Refreshing Tokens

I'm making an application that among it's task will use the REST API in KeyVault. I already have functions written that will query the KeyVault for the secret without an issue.
I also have functions written to request an OAuth token from AAD, following the documentation on this link:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/active-directory-protocols-oauth-code
What I'm not sure about is; Since the application is going to be installed on hundreds of computers when a token expires and the function to refresh the token is called chances are that more than one PC is going to make the POST. What is the best practice for a scenario like this? Should i just configure an exponential back off after a refresh token function is called?
The app installed on the machines will not have the ability to talk to each other.
The only way I can think to do this is to use a logic app as the broker but that would defeat the purpose of the KeyVault.
The document you provided is using the code grant flow to acquire the access token. This flow requires users to login to acquire the token. And did you mean all the PC you installed will use the same account to acquire the token?
If yes, you can design you own token cache. For example, you can using an SQL server to store the cache. Then the app will search the token/refresh token in the token cache before it sends the token request. And if the token is expired, you can refresh it. In this scenario, all PC will share the same access token since they are sign-in with same account.
If not, you need to refresh for the every PC when the access token is expired. Because the access token is different from each user.
So after some testing and verifying with MS it looks like the documentation on the link is outdated. When a token is generated it has a lifetime of 8 hours (this is configurable) so every time I make a request to /token a new token is handed out, since the time window is small I don't need to worry about token refreshes since PCs won't be on for over 8 hours.
The other part of this is that i built a function to test the validity of the existing token, before i query any azure service i test the token validity, if it fails a new token is requested. Since the token lifetime windows are short and each machine gets it's own token (i thought all machines were getting the same token, code error on my part) this is a non-issue anymore

Single Page Application JWT, token refreshing vs long lived tokens

I'm beginning a Single Page Application, and I'm using JSON Web Tokens to Authenticate client side (JS Client with Server API).
In my app, user provides credentials (app auth, facebook, google) and then server checks for user existence and returns a token.
Client JS adds token to each request in order to use the Server API.
When token gets issued, it has an expiry time and a max refresh time. If a set a short expiration time for the token and a "good" max refresh time I get into having to know when to refresh tokens. Best approach I've found so far, is to check on client when the token is being expired (5 minutes before) and then issue a refresh request. Then I'd get a new token. This could be done till max refresh time is reached. Then, user should have to reauthenticate.
Another approach I've seen, is that on server, if token is nearly or has just expired, it gets auto-refreshed and returned to client (which has to detect token change and store it)
But... what is the difference between this and having a single token that is long lived?
Is having a short lived access token which can be renewed with a refresh token tons of times better than having a single long lived access token?
The primary reason to use a short-lived token is to defend against session hijacking, when an adversary, through one method or another, steals session credentials (in this case, the token) and acts maliciously in the victim's session. The shorter-lived the token, the less time the attacker has to carry out whatever malicious activity they have planned.

Is "logout" useless on a REST API?

Considering that, by definition, a REST API is stateless: is the "logout" operation useless?
I mean, I'm creating a REST API using encrypted JWT. Each token has an expiration time of, let's say, 60 minutes. If I save on a database table the last tokens generated by the API, the "logout" would be done deleting them from the table of valid tokens. But, if I do that, I understand that the API will cease to be stateless, right?
So, I understand that I shouldn't do that. The only solution that I'm thinking is make the JWT expiration time shorter, to 5 minutes, don't implement a "logout" operation and just let the tokens expire.
Is this the correct approach?
I mean, I'm creating a REST API using encrypted JWT
The JSON Web Token (JWT) tokens encodes all the data about the grant into the token itself. The most important advantage of this approach is that you do not need a backend store for token storage at all. One disadvantage is that you can't easily revoke an access token, so they normally are granted with short expiry and the revocation is handled at the refresh token. Another disadvantage is that the tokens can get quite large if you are storing a lot of user credential information in them. So if:
If I save on a database table the last tokens generated by the API,
the "logout" would be done deleting them from the table of valid
tokens
Then you would lose the most important advantage of using JWT and also, still have all those disadvantages, which seems unreasonable to me.
So, I understand that I shouldn't do that. The only solution that I'm
thinking is make the JWT expiration time shorter, to 5 minutes, don't
implement a "logout" operation and just let the tokens expire.
Is this the correct approach?
In my opinion, if you're planning to use JWT, YES! it's better to rely on the token expiration. For more details on this approach you can check this question out.
Is “logout” useless on a REST API?
Regardless of the fact that you're using JWT and similar to any other decent questions on computer science, the answer would be It Depends. The most important advantage of Statelessness is that your API would be more scalable. If you choose this path, probably, every request on your API should be authenticated, since you may need to search a backend store for the given token or decode a JWT token. So, in this case you may have some performance cost on a single node but in a big picture, you would still have the scalability. I guess what i'm trying to say is, if you do not need that scalability, you're better off to choose a Stateful approach. Otherwise, pure REST principles is the way to go.
Automatic token expiry is a separate concern from an explicit "log out" mechanism and, as such, they are both perfectly valid actions regardless of whether your API is ReSTful or not.
When a user logs out they are making a conscious decision to invalidate their access token - for example, if they're using a public computer or borrowing someone else's device temporarily.
Automated expiry is used to ensure that the user must revalidate, in some fashion, on a regular basis. This is good for server-side security.
Access tokens are not about sharing session state between client and server - it's entirely possible to implement an access token system without shared state and the token itself doesn't implement session state, it's only used to verify that the user is who they claim to be. As such, access tokens are not really anything to do with the statefulness of the API.
I think it depends on the behavior that you want for your application, and how secure you need it to be. Do you really need to invalidate the token?
For instance, you could just remove your token from your frontend (browser or app). In theory, it is the only place that stores that particular token. If the token is compromised, it will still be valid until it expires, though.
If you really need to invalidate it server side, a common approach would be to create a blacklist with the token, and clear the expired entries from time to time.
But what if you need your application to accept just one token for each user, like in a bank app that you can only be logged in one device at time? For that purpose the blacklist won't do the job, so you will need to store a single token for each user and check if the passed token is the same. At logout, you would just clear that unique entry. Or you may just use sessions.
So, it is not useless, It just depends on your application.
I would argue that your API is already stateful just by the sheer fact that you have a token around. I also wouldn't get too hung up on REST purity, meaning that everything has to be stateless come hell or high water.
Put simply, if your application requires login, then you need a way to logout. You can't implement a short expiry because that's just going to be a really annoying experience to consumers of the API. And you can't just have no logout at all, because thats a potential security flaw.
I have a similar REST API that I support and I implemented a logout endpoint that is a DELETE call. It simply deletes the token information on the server side and clears any type of authentication for the logged in user.
TL;DR
No, a logout is not useless in a REST API. In fact, for APIs that require authentication, it is more or less a necessity.
With a short expiration time on the token I would think for most applications deleting the token from the client on logout would be a good solution. Anything more would rely on the server and no longer be stateless.
The good solution here would be to delete the token from the user.
So typically when you log in, you will get back a token from the server and store it in localStorage or sessionStorage (depending on the user wanting to be logged in after closing the tab) in the browser, and then send the token from there in the headers with any request that you make to your api.
Then if the user logs out, you don't even contact the api (you don't make any requests to your server), you just clear the sessionStorage or localStorage, use the command localStorage.clear() or sessionStorage.clear() , and then if the user will want to send more requests, he'll have to login again in order to get another token.
One drawback to this approach is, that if a virus, for example gets the token from the local or session Storage before the user logs out then, it will still be able to send requests as you, as the token will still be valid.
One solution to that would be to create a token blacklist in the database, and store the token there if the user logs out, until the token expiration time. However, every time the user would request something, the database would have to be consulted to check if his token is blacklisted, lengthening the process, and making your API stateful.
You can generate a new token that it already expired i.e. expiration is 1sec. and pass it to the user. Any upcoming request will be invalid. This is not optimal solution though..

How long do the extended access_token lives?

Just read about the offline_access permission being removed and therefore having the new system of "extended access tokens".
My problem is that i'd like to save the expiration timestamp to take care that the saved access tokens are always valid, but the Documentation doesn't provide a time that the extended token is valid for.
Does anyone have more information regarding that?
It'd be interesting to know if they long-living tokens are valid for days, weeks or months.
When you use the new endpoint which is explained in the post you linked to:
https://graph.facebook.com/oauth/access_token?
client_id=APP_ID&
client_secret=APP_SECRET&
grant_type=fb_exchange_token&
fb_exchange_token=EXISTING_ACCESS_TOKEN
The response will have this form:
access_token=xxxxx&expires=yyyyy
The expires param is what you are after I believe.
Long lived tokens are good for 60 days, and you can check tokens (for debugging) with the Debug Tool which will tell you everything you need to know about the token.
Edit
A few more things.
The "expires" parameter gives you the time left until expiration, so the expiration time is timestamp of now + expires.
It's easy to check this with out the need to do any development, just create a fb app (if you don't have one), go to the Access Token Tool and copy the user token from your app, then using curl make a request to the new endpoint.
As for extending the long lived tokens, there's no way to do that, you'll need to re-authenticate the user after that, as it states in the same post:
If you pass an access_token that had a long-lived expiration time, the
endpoint will simply pass that same access_token back to you without
altering or extending the expiration time
Another point is that you can get long lived access tokens by using the Server-Side authentication flow, but those too can not be extended.
It only returns back access_token not
access_token=xxxxx&expires=yyyyy as mentioned above.
Atleast that is what I can see...