Let me clarify my use case:
I have a next.js application which is a plattform for listing real estate objects. I have several api routes which im using inside my next.js app. for example:
/api/createpost ->
Takes informations from my form on my next.js app and creates a database entry to perform a new post
/api/getposts ->
fetching all the real estate posts from my database and displays it
/api/login ->
logs in a user by checking the credentials in the database and sends a jwt
/api/register ->
registers a user by taking the credentials from a form from my next.js app, registering a user and creating an entry in my database
Now in order to secure my apis I want to make sure to check if there is a valid user session if anybody is calling one of the apis (except the register/login api) to get the expected result. Im doing this by calling the /api/login route and getting a valid user session. Until here everything just works fine. Apis like the /api/createpost can only be called if we have a valid user session.
Now I want to create a mobile app and I want to use my api routes from above to provide full functionality in my mobile app too. It should work the same, if i want to call the /api/createpost on my mobileapp for example, i need a valid user session.
But I want to restrict my api by asking for a key in my database which is pointing to my app and saying okay if you call the /api/createpost api, first of all i need to verify that its the mobile app asking. The mobile app will provide the key in the request then.
I didnt try this yet, but it should work i think. Now the big mess: If we call the /api/createpost and the api wants a valid token to check in the database, which will work for the mobile app, because we are giving it a valid token to check in the database, how can we provide a token if we are calling the api from inside our next.js application? Since I have to do the api call clientside, there is no way for me to provide a secret key or something to validate that the call is coming from my next.js application.
If your application is private
(to be used only by you or a few select people)
You can send a private API key over SSL with each request from your application to the server and verify it. Or you can limit your API to only accept requests from certain IPs.
If your application is public
Unfortunately there's no way to determine where the request is coming from, since anything your app can send, an attacker can send it manually.
Think about it, if your app is trying to make a request to your API, any user can intercept this request before its sent out of his/her machine, and send the exact same request from a different app on the same machine.
You might say, well I can encrypt the requests and responses so that they are of no use to the attacker. But such an encryption will require either a key that's already agreed upon, or some way to provide a new key at the beginning of each session.
If the key is already agreed upon, the app must contain it, as you've already guessed in the question, the attacker can retrieve this key no matter how well you try to hide it.
If the encryption key is a new key provided at the beginning of each session, that's almost how SSL works, your browser handles this transaction. Your server sends a public key to your browser to encrypt the requests which the server can then decrypt with a private key. In this case you've circled back to the same problem, how can you verify to whom you give out an encryption key? What would stop an attacker from requesting the encryption key?
There has to be some way you'd be able to design apps that don't require this restriction. I think the question you should be asking isn't how to restrict your api to a certain app, but how to design apps that don't require this restriction.
We might be able to help you out if you could tell us why you need this restriction.
Update
There is actually a way to verify that requests are coming from your app, but not with an api key.
For Webapps
You can use Google's reCAPTCHA to verify a user on your /register and '/login` routes, and provide an access token or start a valid user session on successful captcha response. With reCAPTCHA v3, you could even verify every user action without interrupting the user. This eliminates both the problems I mentioned in my answer above -
You don't have to store an api key into the app/web app.
The request can't be spoofed as it requires human user interaction within your app. The captcha verification success will arrive to your API from Google's reCAPTCHA server, not from your client app. This communication will be authenticated with a pre-mediated private API key shared by Google to you, which works in the same way as to how you authenticate your external domains.
For Android apps
A similar way to achieve the same thing would be via Android SafetyNet Attestation API. This checks the runtime environment and signs the response with a dynamically generated nonce that your app provides the SafetyNet API.
Please read its docs carefully to understand how you could create potential security loopholes and how to avoid them while using this API.
For iOS apps
DeviceCheck works in a similar way, except the device validity is provided to you by Apple server.
Important edit: "secured" is not the right word here! You cannot tell that a request comes from your app just because the domain is yours. The domain name is not a safe information, as it can be altered easily. See #Mythos comments below.
Initial answer:
Web applications access is secured not based on an API key, but based on a whitelist of domains. That's how we achieve security, because only you have access to the domain where you host your own application: so the request has to be coming from an app you own.
If you try some 3rd party services that provides API for web apps, that's often how they'll work: they will let you configure a set of whitelisted domains that can access your data.
If they provide you an API key, this API key is always meant to be used by a server, not a client-only app.
So if I understand you question correctly, you would do like this for each request:
Check the domain. If it's in the whitelist, perfect, you can keep going. This is meant for web apps (look for "CORS").
If not, check for a valid API token in the headers. This is meant for any app that can store this API token securely (another server for instance, or a mobile app in your scenario though I don't know mobile enough to tell how you store such a key)
Related
I have an Angular Single Page Application (SPA) talking to my ASP.NET API.
The API is protected by my own Oauth2 server (IdentityServer4).
One of my customers (let's call him X) wants SSO: Their users on my platform would sign in on their server instead of using the login form in my app that connects to my IdentityServer.
Each customer has its own subdomain for the Angular SPA (e.g. x.myapp.com). Therefore I can easily redirect X's users to their server's authorization page to approve my API, based on the hostname.
However the API itself uses one common hostname for all customers(api.myapp.com). Customers are distinguished by the Origin header of the API call (x.myapp.com) during the login call (and a few other unprotected calls) and by the Bearer token for protected calls to the API.
How does my API introspect the Bearer access token? Who should know which server to query ?
Is it the responsibility of the API server? Or can I tell my IdentityServer about X's oauth2 server ?
X's users would also be defined on my platform since we need specific info (such as config of roles on the platform). My current setup implies specific claims (such as user id) that allow my API to know what the user can do. Obviously, X's server will not provide the same claims. How can I connect the dots ? e.g. get some standard claim from X's server (username, email, whatever) and match it to my list of users.
Note: This question is similar but the answer is not accepted and seems to imply that the provider of both identity servers is the same (not the case here).
Formatting my comments as an answer:
From reading your question it's pretty much clear to me that you could benefit from what is know as Federated identity.
As you said, one of your customer want to achieve SSO - They want users to login using their existing accounts and be able to user your systems normally.
Since you already have an IdentityServer in your domain, what you can do is delegate the login part to the customer's side (whatever they do it). This is illustrated in the Identity server documentation Federation Gateway.
Basically, the approach is that upon hitting the "login" button in your front-end, you would redirect the users to your Identity Server passing some special params (prompt and acr_values for ex) which in turn, tells identity server to redirect the user's to the external Identity provider (the customer's). After a successful login, you have a chance in Identity Server to augment the claims, maybe using something they returned or anything really. Then the process is as normal - you return a JWT Token generated by your Identity Server
The benefit of doing this is:
Your SPA/API doesn't have to change. You will still work with your own bearer tokens and can continue doing authN/AuthZ as before.
You have a chance to add claims that might indicate where this user is coming from if needed
If your customer's server changes, you don't have to worry much, apart from maybe some tweaks related to returned claims
They don't necessarily need to use OpenId/OAuth on their side for this to work
Useful things you probably will need is some params to pass during the call to the authorize endpoint in Identity Server. (acr_values and prompt).
You can also check this in the quickstarts, by looking at Sign-in with external providers (which is pretty similar to what you want)
Now to your individual points:
Your Identity Server should be the "bridge" between you and the customer's "identity provider".
Upon a login from an external provider (X), you need to somehow identify the user on your platform. You could use email or, even better, if X is already using OpenId/OAuth they might give you the sub claim which is the user id on their side. At this point you need some sort of agreement with them otherwise this might be flaky/unreliable for both sides.
In a more "advanced note" you could also add to your tokens some sort of claim that tells you who is the source provider of this user. Here the source provider would be X. This is useful because you might want, for example, configure allowed identity providers in your app, or maybe enable features only for certain providers. Like, ppl logging in with Google might only see certain parts of the app.
Context
I'm building a hybrid native/web app. Part of it will be API driven, and part of it will be webviews showing an existing website.
Once logged in with my OIDC SDK (Amplify/AppAuth), I can access the user's id_token and access_token.
However, because the webviews used in the SDK are not controllable, I cannot reuse the cookies generated by my identity server.
Question
For the reason above, I'm trying to login a user from their id_token or their access_token. (both are JWTs)
I believe this isn't supported by IdentityServer4, but I am looking to implement something myself.
What I have found so far:
1) id_token_hint
OpenID Connect Core 1.0, Section 3.1.2.1, id_token_hint parameter:
OPTIONAL. ID Token previously issued by the Authorization Server being passed as a hint about the End-User's current or past authenticated session with the Client. If the End-User identified by the ID Token is logged in or is logged in by the request, then the Authorization Server returns a positive response; otherwise, it SHOULD return an error, such as login_required. When possible, an id_token_hint SHOULD be present when prompt=none is used and an invalid_request error MAY be returned if it is not; however, the server SHOULD respond successfully when possible, even if it is not present. The Authorization Server need not be listed as an audience of the ID Token when it is used as an id_token_hint value.
If the ID Token received by the RP from the OP is encrypted, to use it as an id_token_hint, the Client MUST decrypt the signed ID Token contained within the encrypted ID Token. The Client MAY re-encrypt the signed ID token to the Authentication Server using a key that enables the server to decrypt the ID Token, and use the re-encrypted ID token as the id_token_hint value.
According to this optional spec of OpenID, I should be able to use the id_token on the /authorize endpoint to login the user. I know this isn't implemented in IdentityServer4, but I'm looking at AddCustomAuthorizeRequestValidator to do that. However I'm not sure how to "get a user from their id_token" in the code. Do you have any pointers?
2) using AddJwtBearerClientAuthentication
This method sounds like I could authenticate from my access_token, but I can't find much documentation on how to use it.
THE PROBLEM
Let me know if I am misunderstanding requirements, but it feels like you have 2 different apps and are trying to make them feel like a single integrated set of screens.
The default behaviour will be as follows since web views are private browser sessions and cannot use system browser cookies. You want to prevent the second step since it is a poor user experience:
User signs in to the mobile app
Whenever a secured web view is invoked, there is a new private browser session with no auth cookie, therefore requiring a new login
COMMON APPROACH: SUPPLY A TOKEN TO THE WEB VIEW
It can be common to forward the mobile token to the web view, if the two apps are part of the same user experience. If required, extend the mobile app's scopes to include those for the web app.
You should not need to issue any new tokens or change the security model of either app. But the mobile and web apps need to work together on a solution.
POSSIBLE WEB VIEW SOLUTION FOR A SERVER SIDE WEB APP
This might be the simplest option:
Provide new .Net Core web back end entry point URLs that require tokens instead of cookies
The mobile app could then call those endpoints from web views, and supply its own token in the Authorization Header of the web view request
The web back end could then forward mobile web view requests to your Web APIs
The code to add the Authorization Header to a web view request may be a little tricky but there are ways to do it:
Android
iOS
POSSIBLE WEB VIEW SOLUTION FOR AN SPA
An option that works for Cookieless SPAs is for the web view to ask the mobile host app for an access token via a Javascript bridge. Some code of mine does this for a cookieless SPA:
Web UI Code to Call the Mobile Host
Android Code
iOS Code
You can clone / run the mobile github repos from your local PC to see the solution. I will be writing up some notes on this in my blog's Mobile Web Integration Post.
I'm so confused about how to get authentication between an external, consumer website and a Laravel API right. What I'd like is to have a web app for which users are able to present information from the app to other people, using an external website that consumes the app's API. Here's an example of the basic setup in a bit more detail:
A Laravel 5.3 app that has a protected API endpoint api/status. Only authenticated users should be able to hit api/status, and the status returned is a particular status for the authenticated user.
An external website that consumes the Laravel API on behalf of a user, let's call her Alice. The necessary information is stored in the backend of Alice's website so that it can authenticate with the API on behalf of Alice. (The actual implementation I'm working on will be a WordPress site, and the API consumption will be done by a WordPress plugin that I am implementing; so any info stored will likely be stored in the WordPress database.)
The website has a /status page that displays Alice's status to anyone who browses to the page. (Ie, when the /status page is browsed to, an API call to the app is made on behalf of Alice. The returned status is specific to Alice, and is displayed to the person browsing the page.) People browsing to /status on Alice's website do NOT need to do any sort of authenticating to view the status on the page.
That is very simplified compared to my actual goal, but I hope it serves to keep the extraneous details to a minimum so we can focus on my actual question, which is what method of authentication should I use to achieve this?
One thing I DON'T want:
The person browsing Alice's website should NOT be able to use their browser's inspector to watch the API call and from that create further API calls on Alice's behalf on their own.
I have Passport installed on my Laravel App, but if I'm understanding things correctly I don't want to use the basic Access Token issuing workflow, as that would require the people browsing to Alice's website to authenticate using the Alices's credentials. For the same reason, I don't think I want an Implicit Grant Token.
Using a Password Grant Token would require storing Alice's password for the Laravel app on her website. Is it ok to store passwords like this in a WordPress database? It makes me nervous...
The other option available through Passport is to have Alice create a Personal Access Token and store that in her website backend as the token to use to authenticate. But the Laravel documentation seems to imply that Personal Access Tokens are meant for testing and development purposes, which makes me wary of going this route for a production plugin. Plus, doesn't using a PAT make it possible to do the thing I DON'T want above, since the PAT is simply passed in the request header? Or is that problem mitigated by the fact that the API interaction would be done over SSL?
Do I even need to go through Passport to achieve what I want here? Is there a better way?
I've been reading myself in circles trying to understand what the best practice for this kind of setup is. I'm sorry if this question isn't focused enough, but if anyone has any good advice, or can clarify things for me I would much appreciate it!
Reading this question, #Pinpoint's answer and the further discussion on comments, I'm well aware that natively we can't add an identity provider to our apps developed with ASP.NET 5. One possible replacement for the legacy OAuthAuthorizationServerMiddleware is then provided by the AspNet.Security.OpenIdConnect.Server as I've found in many places.
Now, there is one point that I'm still unsure about all this because I'm really not an expert in security, so my knowledge about OAuth is not very deep. My doubt is the following: is it possible to use an external identity provider when using OAuth to protect one RESTful API?
Notice that I'm not talking about adding social login to one website, I'm talking about using one external identity provider in one RESTful API.
My point is, this makes me a little confused yet, because I always thought this should be a concern of my app.
So my question here is: when using OAuth and ASP.NET 5, is it possible to use an external identity provider, other than implementing one? If it is possible, how this works in short? I mean, my app still needs to be able to manage the identities of users, in the sense that it needs to manage claims and so on.
In that case, if it is really possible, how the flow would be? The external identity provider should issue the tokens? But how my app would be able to verify those tokens and manage users identities?
EDIT: One of the reasons I feel unsure about that is that when we use the UseOAuthAuthentication extension method, we set up one callback path which is described as
The request path within the application's base path where the user-agent will be returned. The middleware will process this request when it arrives.
Now, if we are developing a site, then this really does make sense. The person goes there, click a button to login with a provider like Facebook. The user is redirected to Facebook's page and then after he logs in, he is redirected to some page of the site.
On the other hand, with a RESTful API this is meaningless. There is no notion of being redirected.
This makes it seems that the usage of external providers is only for sites and not for RESTful API's. This is the main point of my question.
My doubt is the following: is it possible to use an external identity provider when using OAuth to protect one RESTful API?
Yes, it's definitely possible. This is exactly what you do when you use Azure Active Directory to protect your API endpoints:
app.UseOAuthBearerAuthentication(options => {
options.AutomaticAuthenticate = true;
options.Authority = "https://login.windows.net/tushartest.onmicrosoft.com";
options.Audience = "https://TusharTest.onmicrosoft.com/TodoListService-ManualJwt";
});
The next legitimate question is: if you can use the tokens issued by AAD to protect your API, why couldn't you do the same thing with Facebook or Google tokens?
Unlike Facebook or Google, AAD issues completely standardized tokens named JWT tokens that the OAuth2 bearer middleware can "read" and "verify" to determine whether the token is still valid and was really issued for your API (i.e if the audience attached with the token corresponds to your API. You can control this value using the resource parameter when making your authorization request).
You can't do something similar with FB or Google tokens, since they are totally opaque. Actually, it's not really surprising since these tokens have only one objective: allowing you to query FB or Google APIs, not your own ones (these social providers don't allow to set the audience of the access token).
Since you can't read the token yourself, the only option is to ask FB or Google whether it is still valid to make sure your API doesn't accept invalid tokens. That's something you can (easily) do with Facebook as they offer a "token inspection endpoint" you can query for that: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/manually-build-a-login-flow (see the Inspecting access tokens chapter). This way, you can ensure the token is not expired and determine the user corresponding to the token.
Sadly, this approach has two downsides:
You have to make an extra HTTP call to the Facebook endpoint to validate the access token, which implies caching received tokens to avoid flooding Facebook with too many requests.
As the access token is not issued for your own API, you MUST absolutely ensure that the access token was issued to a client application you fully trust, or it will allow any third party developer to use his own FB/Google tokens with your API without having to request user's consent. This is - obviously - a major security concern.
You can find more information in the last part of this SO answer (it's for Katana and about Dropbox, but you should get the idea): OWIN/OAuth2 3rd party login: Authentication from Client App, Authorization from Web API
So my question here is: when using OAuth and ASP.NET 5, is it possible to use an external identity provider, other than implementing one? If it is possible, how this works in short? I mean, my app still needs to be able to manage the identities of users, in the sense that it needs to manage claims and so on.
In that case, if it is really possible, how the flow would be? The external identity provider should issue the tokens? But how my app would be able to verify those tokens and manage users identities?
To work around the limitations mentioned in the previous part, the best option is - as you've already figured out - to create your own authorization/authentication server. This way, your API doesn't (directly) accept FB or Google tokens but the tokens issued by your own server, that can possibly redirect your users to FB or Google for authentication.
This is exactly what this sample does: https://github.com/aspnet-contrib/AspNet.Security.OpenIdConnect.Server/tree/vNext/samples/Mvc
The user is invited by the client application (Mvc.Client) to authenticate with your authorization server (Mvc.Server) so he can get an access token to later query the API (also in Mvc.Server). For that, the user is redirected to your authorization server, which itself offers you to authenticate with Google or Twitter.
When this external authentication step is done, the user is redirected back to your authorization server (Mvc.Server), where he's asked to give his consent for the client app (Mvc.Client) to access his personal data.
When the consent is given, the user is redirected back to the client application with the access token you can use to query the API endpoint.
I am developing an asp.net web api app, and using OWIN and identity to implement oauth for my aplication security. For each registered user, I also save a client id and hash as described here. But I dont want other developers be able to use my api and create their own app using the client id (and other credentials) they have.
Is it possible ?
First thing first, you have to encrypt your network traffic between mobile device and API. Because attackers can obtain sensitive data (which is API Token in this case) via proxy . Also you need to do SSL Pinning because of you need to be sure about public key is yours, otherwise attackers manage to get sensitive data again with same method. ( Please check out : https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Certificate_and_Public_Key_Pinning )
You shouldn't authenticate users with username/password. I suggest to you use api key, therefor you can send user actions to server side like following patterns.
https://example.com/api/APIKEYOVERHERE/action
Als you can watch this talk about Secure Your API - Tips for REST + JSON Developers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeSdFhsKGG0