I'm currently working on a single page application that talks to a REST api hosted on a different server and protected with SSL.
I am wondering if I should set an SSL certificate on the server that serves the single page application or if simply setting it on the back end server is enough, by considering the following:
The single page application is an endpoint for reset password links with a confidential token in the query string. These links are sent by email to my users. When a user clicks on the link, his browser requests the single page application. The GET request is therefore NOT encrypted and nor is the query string.
The app then asks the user to enter a new password and this new password is sent via ajax to the back end, which is protected with SSL.
So my take on it is that it's worth setting up SSL for my single page application to assure security for the first consideration because the GET request is therefore NOT encrypted and nor is the query string and the token is sensitive information. However, it wouldn't be required if only the second consideration was taken into account since the connection between the single page app and the back end is done via SSL (because the single page app uses Ajax to communicate to an endpoint protected via SSL).
Am I right? Or completely sidetracked? Thanks!
Your intuition is correct. The only effective difference between your first and second scenario is that in (1) you are sending sensitive information (the token) to the front end server, and (2) you are sending sensitive information (password) to the back end server. So because you are sending sensitive information to both, they will both need to be secured by SSL.
If the front end server were not secured by SSL, here is a possible attack avenue:
Attacker MITMs the frontend server when the user sends the reset token in the query string, the attacker gains access to the reset token.
Before the real client can send a password reset request, the attacker sends the password reset request to the backend server.
The attacker sends the new password to the backend server. The password is reset to a password the attacker knows.
In no step does the attacker have to compromise the SSL of the backend server to pull off this attack on the frontend server. Of course the backend server will be receiving the password from the user, so it will need SSL too. In short, to protect against man-in-the-middle attacks you will need SSL for both of your servers.
Related
I trying to implement a token based authentication approach:
Every successful login creates new token.
If user selects "keep me logged in" or the user is using a mobile device, the token is persisted in a Redis database without an expiration date. Otherwise, the token will expire in 20 minutes.
Once user is authenticated, the token is checked from each subsequent request in my Redis database.
I'm wondering how I can identify devices. In case of mobile devices, I can use a device identifier. But how can I identify a browser?
Example: The user logs in using Chrome and selects "keep me logged in". A token is generated and persisted with the browser name in Redis. If the user logs in from Firefox, saves the token and "Firefox" in the database. I save the token in Redis whereas token is created on successful authentication. Is it fine to persist only the token and the browser where the token is being used? Or do I need to persist the IP as well?
Additional question: How to avoid attackers to steal the token from a cookie?
How token-based authentication works
In a few words, an authentication scheme based on tokens follow these steps:
The client sends their credentials (username and password) to the server.
The server authenticates the credentials and generates a token.
The server stores the previously generated token in some storage along with the user identifier and an expiration date.
The server sends the generated token to the client.
In every request, the client sends the token to the server.
The server, in each request, extracts the token from the incoming request. With the token, the server looks up the user details to perform authentication and authorization.
If the token is valid, the server accepts the request.
If the token is invalid, the server refuses the request.
The server can provide an endpoint to refresh tokens.
How to send credentials to the server
In a REST applications, each request from client to server must contain all the necessary information to be understood by the server. With it, you are not depending on any session context stored on the server and you do not break the stateless constraint of the REST architecture defined by Roy T. Fielding in his dissertation:
5.1.3 Stateless
[...] 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. [...]
When accessing protected resources that require authentication, each request must contain all necessary data to be properly authenticated/authorized. It means the authentication will be performed for each request.
Have a look at this quote from the RFC 7235 regarding considerations for new authentication schemes:
5.1.2. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes
There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that
put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work:
HTTP authentication is presumed to be stateless: all of the
information necessary to authenticate a request MUST be provided
in the request, rather than be dependent on the server remembering
prior requests. [...]
And authentication data (credentials) should belong to the standard HTTP Authorization header. From the RFC 7235:
4.2. Authorization
The Authorization header field allows a user agent to authenticate
itself with an origin server -- usually, but not necessarily, after
receiving a 401 (Unauthorized) response. Its value consists of
credentials containing the authentication information of the user
agent for the realm of the resource being requested.
Authorization = credentials
[...]
Please note that the name of this HTTP header is unfortunate because it carries authentication data instead of authorization. Anyways, this is the standard header for sending credentials.
When performing a token based authentication, tokens are your credentials. In this approach, your hard credentials (username and password) are exchanged for a token that is sent in each request.
What a token looks like
An authentication token is a piece of data generated by the server which identifies a user. Basically, tokens can be opaque (which reveals no details other than the value itself, like a random string) or can be self-contained (like JSON Web Token):
Random string: A token can be issued by generating a random string and persisting it to a database with an expiration date and with a user identifier associated to it.
JSON Web Token (JWT): Defined by the RFC 7519, it's a standard method for representing claims securely between two parties. JWT is a self-contained token and enables you to store a user identifier, an expiration date and whatever you want (but don't store passwords) in a payload, which is a JSON encoded as Base64. The payload can be read by the client and the integrity of the token can be easily checked by verifying its signature on the server. You won't need to persist JWT tokens if you don't need to track them. Althought, by persisting the tokens, you will have the possibility of invalidating and revoking the access of them. To keep the track of JWT tokens, instead of persisting the whole token, you could persist the token identifier (the jti claim) and some metadata (the user you issued the token for, the expiration date, etc) if you need. To find some great resources to work with JWT, have a look at http://jwt.io.
Tip: Always consider removing old tokens in order to prevent your database from growing indefinitely.
How to accept a token
You should never accept expired tokens or tokens which were not issued by your application. If you are using JWT, you must check the token signature.
Please note, once you issue a token and give it to your client, you have no control over what the client will do with the token. No control. Seriously.
It's a common practice to check the User-Agent header field to tell which browser is being used to access your API. However, it's worth mention that HTTP headers can be easily spoofed and you should never trust your client. Browsers don't have unique identifier, but you can get a good level of fingerprinting if you want.
I don't know about your security requirements, but you always can try the following in your server to enhance the security of your API:
Check which browser the user was using when the token was issued. If the browser is different in the following requests, just refuse the token.
Get the client remote address (that is, the client IP address) when the token was issued and use a third party API to lookup the client location. If the following requests comes an address from other country, for example, refuse the token. To lookup the location by IP address, you can try free APIs such as MaxMind GeoLite2 or IPInfoDB. Mind that hitting a third party API for each request your API receives is not a good idea and can cause a severe damage to the performance. But you can minimize the impact with a cache, by storing the client remote address and its location. There are a few cache engines available nowadays. To mention a few: Guava, Infinispan, Ehcache and Spring.
When sending sensitive data over the wire, your best friend is HTTPS and it protects your application against the man-in-the-middle attack.
By the way, have I mentioned you should never trust your client?
Once server is receives the request from the client, it contains the User-Agent. This attribute will help us to identify the client.
Please refer this link: How do I detect what browser is used to access my site?
So, I have a web application that makes a lot of requests to the server for data. A project requirement is to have very fast server response times. The server is hosted on a cloud based platform.
The app uses sessions to keep track of user authentication once they've logged in. Since it's hosted on a cloud provider, I'm using a cache to back up session storage (in my case it's Auzre cache, but if you're unfamiliar with that think Redis)
The current flow is like this:
The user accesses a resource
Trying to get the session based on the session ID via the cache. This is a cache request.
User is authenticated via session state (if logged in).
Request for data is sent, usually via cache.
Data is returned to the user.
The problem with this approach is that it's hitting the cache twice. Removing the session altogether caused a significant speed improvement (about 50%).
I was considering hitting the cache once, asking for both the key I need for the user, and the SessionID to save the extra round trip. However, I've never seen this approach before, and it requires 'rolling my own session' as I'd have to generate the session IDs and such. I feel like there might be a simpler, easier way.
So, what would be the most efficient way to serve the user a resource and authenticate them?
Note: I'm using ASP.NET MVC/ WebAPI with C# but I don't find that very relevant to the question, so I left the language and platform out of the question because of it.
You would want to combine the authenticate and resource request steps into one single request. Not only is this faster, it is also safer than your implementation. Consider the following scenario:
User authenticate to the server. Result is success.
Authentication is changed. (e.g. user changes password, admin decides to lock the user account, etc.)
User makes a request using the sessionID in step 1.
To ensure that the user is not granted access to the resource, you'd want to authenticate the user precisely at step 3. But that doesn't make sense, you've already authenticated this user previously in step 1...
HTTP, in is core, is designed exactly to do this. There are various ways to pass authentication information along with the request, such as:
Write the authentication information in the content (stupid, but works)
Include authentication in the url, e.g. example.com/pic/123?sessionID=abc (better, but makes your url ugly and long)
Store session info in cookie (better, but what if the client does not support cookie? what about cookie expiration?)
Authenticate HTTP header (my best personal recommendation)
HTTP itself has an authenticate header meant to be compatible with "basic authentication" (it is well defined, look it up if you're interested). But you can implement your own custom header.
Any cache lookup is bound to be slow (compared to computation), so you should omit the cache for the authentication part all together. Your server should be stateless; i.e. do not keep track of login sessions. How do you know if the sessionID is valid? Put a timestamp on it. And to avoid others faking the sessionID, sign it as well.
So, your HTTP request would look something like this (pseudo code):
var request = new HttpRequest();
request.url = "example.com/pic/123";
request.Headers["CustomAuth"] = "id=abc&t=123456789&s=01de45890a";
Implement your own signing method, sort of like a hash function (you can use HMAC), and keep the key securely on the server. If the signature matches, you know you've signed this previously at the login, and it has to be from your server. A timestamp helps you detect session expiration and also protect against replay attacks.
Now in your server, do something like this:
public void Get(){
var authHeader = Request.Headers["CustomAuth"];
if(!validate(authHeader)){
Response.StatusCode = 404;
Response.End();
}else{
//something else
}
}
If you need to do login + session authenticate + resource request in one request, then there're simply just 2 ways for authentication. Users can either provide a username/password combination, or a session key. Think about this scenario, which comes from an API I worked on:
user register with username/password combo
server responds registration success / failure (e.g. username already taken)
if it was a success, user now logins with username/password combo
server returns a session token
Wouldn't it be simpler (and faster) if we do it this way:
user register with username/password combo
if it is success, respond "reg success" and "sessionToken=xxxxxx". if it is failure, respond "reg failure".
I hope this give you some idea.
Also, you can remove the authentication at the server end by modifying / restricting settings on the server to cater to requests coming only from the ip(s) where your web app is hosted. Your web application will let the request pass to server only if its authenticated and hence all the requests reaching the data server will be served automatically without checking for any authentication. In this case you will just need one cache hit to check if the user is authenticated and straight away hit the server.
When a browser client successfully submits the username/email and password to the server and the next request the client retrives data from the server how is the client identified being successfully authenticated already?
I found this info:
"After the user enters credentials, the browser automatically sends them on subsequent requests to the same domain, for the duration of the session."
From where does the browser take the credentials for each subsequent request?
Do I have to actively save the credentials somewhere? How is the magic happening?
Once the user's credentials have been authenticated by the server, the server returns an authorization token (commonly called auth token which is a long string made up of characters and numbers) which identify that the user has been authenticated and is valid. Every time, the user sends in his request, the request data will also contain this auth token (either as a cookie or added in to the request itself) which lets the server know that the client is valid. Because of this, the request is authenticated each time but not by using the actual username/password credentials.
Based on requirements, the auth token may be set to expire after a certain period (if there is not activity such as in banking applications).
Background:
We are building system that required login information for all pages. the application is designed to be Restful application using codeigniter as Phil Sturgeon library.
Scenario:
- username & password is required when a user called any page [Client]
- Authentication is needed where any Api call is fired
I a bit confused how to migrate or do the above scenario, And what are approach to authenticate the application.
A simple way to authenticate users in a RESTful API is using HTTP Basic or Digest Auth. In this setting the user credentials are sent via the Authorization header in a form of username:password as Base64 encoded hash to the server.
As the principles of REST state that the communication between client and server should be stateless, the client has to sent the authorization on every request. In practice this means that you often store the credentials in a session on the client side (as you don't want to the user to enter his credentials on every request). Please note that you should only do this via an secured connection using HTTPS!
To authenticate the application you could use a token based system, such as an API-Key. This means any request would be signed using additional request parameters. If the number of applications is finite and known, you could alternatively simply identify them by their IP.
You could also take a look at OAuth.
Request the login and password for every page is more suitable and more secure(that what I do in my projects), using 'virtual' and stored session in the database may be a second solution but not a good because it will be an additional charge for the DB.
I've been reading up on REST and there are a lot of questions on SO about it, as well as on a lot of other sites and blogs. Though I've never seen this specific question asked...for some reason, I can't wrap my mind around this concept...
If I'm building a RESTful API, and I want to secure it, one of the methods I've seen is to use a security token. When I've used other APIs, there's been a token and a shared secret...makes sense. What I don't understand is, requests to a rest service operation are being made through javascript (XHR/Ajax), what is to prevent someone from sniffing that out with something simple like FireBug (or "view source" in the browser) and copying the API key, and then impersonating that person using the key and secret?
We're exposing an API that partners can only use on domains that they have registered with us. Its content is partly public (but preferably only to be shown on the domains we know), but is mostly private to our users. So:
To determine what is shown, our user must be logged in with us, but this is handled separately.
To determine where the data is shown, a public API key is used to limit access to domains we know, and above all to ensure the private user data is not vulnerable to CSRF.
This API key is indeed visible to anyone, we do not authenticate our partner in any other way, and we don't need REFERER. Still, it is secure:
When our get-csrf-token.js?apiKey=abc123 is requested:
Look up the key abc123 in the database and get a list of valid domains for that key.
Look for the CSRF validation cookie. If it does not exist, generate a secure random value and put it in a HTTP-only session cookie. If the cookie did exist, get the existing random value.
Create a CSRF token from the API key and the random value from the cookie, and sign it. (Rather than keeping a list of tokens on the server, we're signing the values. Both values will be readable in the signed token, that's fine.)
Set the response to not be cached, add the cookie, and return a script like:
var apiConfig = apiConfig || {};
if(document.domain === 'example.com'
|| document.domain === 'www.example.com') {
apiConfig.csrfToken = 'API key, random value, signature';
// Invoke a callback if the partner wants us to
if(typeof apiConfig.fnInit !== 'undefined') {
apiConfig.fnInit();
}
} else {
alert('This site is not authorised for this API key.');
}
Notes:
The above does not prevent a server side script from faking a request, but only ensures that the domain matches if requested by a browser.
The same origin policy for JavaScript ensures that a browser cannot use XHR (Ajax) to load and then inspect the JavaScript source. Instead, a regular browser can only load it using <script src="https://our-api.com/get-csrf-token.js?apiKey=abc123"> (or a dynamic equivalent), and will then run the code. Of course, your server should not support Cross-Origin Resource Sharing nor JSONP for the generated JavaScript.
A browser script can change the value of document.domain before loading the above script. But the same origin policy only allows for shortening the domain by removing prefixes, like rewriting subdomain.example.com to just example.com, or myblog.wordpress.com to wordpress.com, or in some browsers even bbc.co.uk to co.uk.
If the JavaScript file is fetched using some server side script then the server will also get the cookie. However, a third party server cannot make a user’s browser associate that cookie to our domain. Hence, a CSRF token and validation cookie that have been fetched using a server side script, can only be used by subsequent server side calls, not in a browser. However, such server side calls will never include the user cookie, and hence can only fetch public data. This is the same data a server side script could scrape from the partner's website directly.
When a user logs in, set some user cookie in whatever way you like. (The user might already have logged in before the JavaScript was requested.)
All subsequent API requests to the server (including GET and JSONP requests) must include the CSRF token, the CSRF validation cookie, and (if logged on) the user cookie. The server can now determine if the request is to be trusted:
The presence of a valid CSRF token ensures the JavaScript was loaded from the expected domain, if loaded by a browser.
The presence of the CSRF token without the validation cookie indicates forgery.
The presence of both the CSRF token and the CSRF validation cookie does not ensure anything: this could either be a forged server side request, or a valid request from a browser. (It could not be a request from a browser made from an unsupported domain.)
The presence of the user cookie ensures the user is logged on, but does not ensure the user is a member of the given partner, nor that the user is viewing the correct website.
The presence of the user cookie without the CSRF validation cookie indicates forgery.
The presence of the user cookie ensures the current request is made through a browser. (Assuming a user would not enter their credentials on an unknown website, and assuming we don’t care about users using their own credentials to make some server side request.) If we also have the CSRF validation cookie, then that CSRF validation cookie was also received using a browser. Next, if we also have a CSRF token with a valid signature, and the random number in the CSRF validation cookie matches the one in that CSRF token, then the JavaScript for that token was also received during that very same earlier request during which the CSRF cookie was set, hence also using a browser. This then also implies the above JavaScript code was executed before the token was set, and that at that time the domain was valid for the given API key.
So: the server can now safely use the API key from the signed token.
If at any point the server does not trust the request, then a 403 Forbidden is returned. The widget can respond to that by showing a warning to the user.
It's not required to sign the CSRF validation cookie, as we're comparing it to the signed CSRF token. Not signing the cookie makes each HTTP request shorter, and the server validation a bit faster.
The generated CSRF token is valid indefinitely, but only in combination with the validation cookie, so effectively until the browser is closed.
We could limit the lifetime of the token's signature. We could delete the CSRF validation cookie when the user logs out, to meet the OWASP recommendation. And to not share the per-user random number between multiple partners, one could add the API key to the cookie name. But even then one cannot easily refresh the CSRF validation cookie when a new token is requested, as users might be browsing the same site in multiple windows, sharing a single cookie (which, when refreshing, would be updated in all windows, after which the JavaScript token in the other windows would no longer match that single cookie).
For those who use OAuth, see also OAuth and Client-Side Widgets, from which I got the JavaScript idea. For server side use of the API, in which we cannot rely on the JavaScript code to limit the domain, we're using secret keys instead of the public API keys.
api secret is not passed explicitly, secret is used to generate a sign of current request, at the server side, the server generate the sign following the same process, if the two sign matches, then the request is authenticated successfully -- so only the sign is passed through the request, not the secret.
This question has an accepted answer but just to clarify, shared secret authentication works like this:
Client has public key, this can be shared with anyone, doesn't
matter, so you can embed it in javascript. This is used to identify the user on the server.
Server has secret key and this secret MUST be protected. Therefore,
shared key authentication requires that you can protect your secret
key. So a public javascript client that connects directly to another
service is not possible because you need a server middleman to
protect the secret.
Server signs request using some algorithm that includes the secret
key (the secret key is sort of like a salt) and preferably a timestamp then sends the request to the service. The timestamp is to prevent "replay" attacks. A signature of a request is only valid for around n seconds. You can check that on the server by getting the timestamp header that should contain the value of the timestamp that was included in the signature. If that timestamp is expired, the request fails.
The service gets the request which contains not only the signature
but also all the fields that were signed in plain text.
The service then signs the request in the same way using the shared
secret key and compares the signatures.
I will try to answer the the question in it's original context. So question is "Is the secret (API) key safe to be placed with in JavaScript.
In my opinion it is very unsafe as it defeats the purpose of authentication between the systems. Since the key will be exposed to the user, user may retrieve information he/she is not authorized to. Because in a typical rest communication authentication is only based on the API Key.
A solution in my opinion is that the JavaScript call essentially pass the request to an internal server component who is responsible from making a rest call. The internal server component let's say a Servlet will read the API key from a secured source such as permission based file system, insert into the HTTP header and make the external rest call.
I hope this helps.
I supose you mean session key not API key. That problem is inherited from the http protocol and known as Session hijacking. The normal "workaround" is, as on any web site, to change to https.
To run the REST service secure you must enable https, and probably client authentification. But after all, this is beyond the REST idea. REST never talks about security.
What you want to do on the server side is generate an expiring session id that is sent back to the client on login or signup.
The client can then use that session id as a shared secret to sign subsequent requests.
The session id is only passed once and this MUST be over SSL.
See example here
Use a nonce and timestamp when signing the request to prevent session hijacking.