We decided to switch from Basic-Auth to JWT because of the session-ids that were stored in the memory and which leads sometimes to over-memory consumption in shoot-down of our Spring-Boot server that serves an Android mobile app like Twitter.
But we have some questions about JWT for our mobile use-case:
How long should an access token lives ?
How long should the refresh token lives ?
How to logout a User by invalidating his access-token and refresh token ? (For the logout we already delete the tokens on the mobile app side, but what if the tokens have being stolen by somebody and are still valid ?)
I will try to answer your queries
How long should an access token live?
You can easily configure expiry time so it depends on your requirement.
In general, try to keep it short.
How long should the refresh token live?
Above goes for refresh token with a condition that refresh token generally lives longer than access token for obvious reasons.
How to logout a User by invalidating his access-token and refresh token?
This part can be a little tricky.
You cannot manually expire a token after it has been created. So, you cannot log out with JWT on the server-side, as you do with sessions.
Can implement a few options like
When a user performs logout action or compromised. Have a blacklist which stores invalid tokens until their initial expiry date. You will need to lookup DB for every request but storage should be less as you will be storing tokens that were between logout & expiry time. You can make the blacklist efficient by keeping it in memory instead of DB.
Store Client IP Address in the claims objects JWT. When validating the token you can check with this client's IP address if it is the same source or not. You can refine it based on need like use User-Agent along with Client IP.
Worst of all reset user credentials or JWT token components to generate a new one which automatically invalidates all existing ones.
Adding a few links for more in-depth detail
Invalidate JWT Token
Destroy JWT Token
I mean it looks more like you should just be using sessions.
JWTs are not a simple replacement. They have a specific function and for some reason they have become embedded as some sort of automatic go to for any auth system.
From what you have described (the lifting of a basic auth to a more secure and modern auth system) you should be using sessions.
Good ol' Cookie sessions.
I'd go in to why more but to sum up:
A) You can control the session without odd stick on "banlist" tables and extra architecture for the JWTs for users that are banned/logged out for a system that doesn't actually need these if you just used traditional cookie based sessions.
B) They are tried and tested and the browser will keep them safe! Session cookies can be made "secure" and "http-only". There are many odd places people put JWTs including the local/session storage of a browser just waiting for a naughty js injected advert to suck them up. JWTs,just like SessionIDs, should
be in an Http-Only, Secure and Same-Site strict Cookie.
So you may as well just use a session ID and get on with life without strange front end state management when the browser is quite happy and doing that securely for you when using a Session Cookie.
C) Traditional sessions are easy to implement. Harder to understand how/why they work with all the SameSite/HttpOnly/CORS/Secure parts going on...but to implement when once understood is 99x easier and require less code when there is the Spring Framework already doing that 99% for you.
I mean sure it isn't hard to write your own JWTAuthTokenAuthFilter and implement a JWTAuthenticationProvider and a JWTCreationService and a `JWTAutoRefreshFilter...and whatever else you dream of...but why bother if you just need a session. Spring does it in like 20 lines of well tested code.
To sum up:
I mean of course properly implemented JWTs are secure...it is just maybe they are not always the best fit tool for a job.
Have a read of:
Stop Using JWTs for Sessions
Of course JWTs have a use. They are for letting a 3rd party know "yes, this is someone I know" before the client hits their API end points. Or for say having one of your servers talk to another of yours...or having client's servers talk to yours or even your servers talk to another companies:
JWT Auth - Best Practices
Does custom application specific, security related HTTP headers violate separation of concerns, is it considered a bad practice? I realize using custom header to control the service would tightly couple the client with the service implementation. Or in this case, to control the security framework behavior. The context where I planned using the custom header is the following:
We are using token based authentication, where token has a fixed lifetime, and new token is issued each time authenticated client calls the web API. SPA client may call the server with AJAX in two contexts
User action (navigation and submit)
Automatic refresh (current view re-fetches data at fixed intervals)
Now, if user leaves the page open, the session never expires, as new token is generated for each automatic fetch. Somehow, we need to differentiate user action from automatic refresh in the server side, and issue new token only for user actions.
I realize Websocket based refresh would be one solution, but we have decided to stick with timed AJAX call due specific matters. Another solution would be to provide token refresh as a separate endpoint, but this would violate the DRY principle from client's perspective, and would be more cumbersome to setup with Spring Security.
Only remaining option is to embed the user/automated information in the request itself, and using a header seems a viable option here. A presence of certain header would prevent the token refresh. Easy to implement with a few lines of code.
I'm only concerned, if this couples the client too much with the service implementation. Technically, it doesn't couple client with the service, but the preceding security filter, thus leaking security concerns in the user interface. Ideally security stuff should be transparent to user interface, so new client could be coded without knowing anything about security (especially when cookies are used).
In the other hand, this solution isn't destructive or mutative. It's an optional feature. By client utilizing it, security is enhanced, but in either case never reduced (from the perspective of server, as it is). Now the question is, what principles using a optional header to enhance security is violating, and is it a valid solution in this context?
In my option the security should be maximized transparently, but I don't see how to not leak security concerns in the client in this situation.
It sounds like you're using your own home-built custom Token Authentication solution here. This is not a good idea.
I'll take a moment to explain WHY you don't want to do what you're proposing, and then what the better option is.
First off -- the problem that you're trying to solve here is that you don't want a user to remain logged into your site forever if they leave a tab open. The reason you need to fix this is because right now, you're assigning a new Access Token on EVERY REQUEST from the user.
The correct solution to handling the above problem is to have two types of token.
An Access Token that has a very short lifetime (let's say: 1 hour), and a Refresh Token that has a longer lifetime (let's say: 24 hours).
The way this should work is that:
When the user first authenticates to your service, the Access and Refresh tokens are generated with their respective timeouts.
These tokens are both set in HTTP cookies that the client-side JS cannot access.
From this point on, every time your user's browser makes a request to your service, you'll parse out the Access token from the cookie, check to see if it's valid, then allow the request.
If the Access token is no longer valid (if it has expired), you'll then parse out the Refresh token from the cookie, and see if that is valid.
If the Refresh token is valid, you'll generate a NEW Access token with another 1 hour lifetime, and override the old Access token cookie with the new on.
If the Refresh token is invalid, you'll simply return a 301 redirect to the login page of your app, forcing the user to manually re-authenticate again.
This flow has a number of benefits:
There is a maximum session length, which is technical (duration of Refresh token + duration of Access token) -- aka: 25 hours in this example.
Access tokens are short lived, which means that if a token is somehow compromised, attackers can't use it for very long to impersonate the user.
What's nice about the above flow is that it is a web authorization standard: OAuth2.
The OAuth2 Password Grant flow does EXACTLY what you're describing. It generates both types of tokens, handles 'refreshing' tokens, handles the entire thing from start to finish in a safe, standards-compliant way.
What I'd highly recommend you do is implement an OAuth2 library on both your server and client, which will take care of these needs for you.
Now -- regarding the tokens, most OAuth2 implementations now-a-days will generate tokens as JSON Web Tokens. These are cryptographically signed tokens that provide a number of security benefits.
Anyhow: I hope this was helpful! I author several popular authentication libraries in Python, Node, and Go -- so this comes from my direct experience working with these protocols over the last several years.
I'm looking into JWT as an alternative to traditional sessions with cookies but I fail to see how they differ fundamentally from signed cookies that for example Express is offering through middleware like cookie-parser.
In both of them, the last part is the signature of the payload which guarantees the payload hasn't been tampered with.
Signed cookie:
user=tobi.CP7AWaXDfAKIRfH49dQzKJx7sKzzSoPq7/AcBBRVwlI3
Equivalent JWT:
eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJ1c2VyIjoiVG9iaSJ9.kCTlR_Igb4H5cqBEDedShM2ivSQijPQkWqN4pZAXb2g
Besides the facts that:
(1) JWT doesn't come with origin restrictions and that
(2) the cookie content is immediately human-readable, whereas the JWT content (header + payload) are base64 encoded
is there anything that gives JWT a clear advantage over signed cookies?
Beware of mixing the concerns: cookies are primarily a mechanism for storing data on the client, they aren't inherently an authentication mechanism - but we use them that way :)
The primary benefit of JWTs are the declared structure (JSON, with common fields) and the declared mechanism for signing them. This is all just specification, there is nothing special about it. But it is nice to have a common way of persisting identity assertions.
You still need to store your JWT in a secure fashion, and cookies with HttpOnly; Secure are the best option. This prevents the cookie from being read by the JavaScript environment, which prevents XSS attacks.
I've written some blog posts about JWTs, they contain more information that will help to answer your question:
Build Secure User Interfaces Using JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)
Token Based Authentication for Single Page Apps (SPAs)
Disclaimer: I do work at Stormpath. We sponsor open-source JWT libraries for Node.js and Java, which can be found here:
https://github.com/jwtk
If you are using AngularJS, we also implement JWT best practices out of the box with our Stormpath Angular SDK
Cookies are typically used to protect web applications. The browser will add them automatically to every request. This makes the requests vulnerable to CSRF attacks.
JWT tokens are typically used to protect Web APIs. The token is attached to the AJAX request in JavaScript. Since the token is not attached to the request automatically, the request is not vulnerable to CSRF attacks. JWT tokens can also be used cross-origin in case the API you're talking to is on another domain.
JWT tokens are also used in native clients to talk to web APIs.
I have been reading about JWT.
But from what I read it is not an authentication mechanism but more like a crucial component in a Authentication mechanism.
I have currently implemented a solution which works, but it was just to try out JWT and see how it works. But what I am after now is how one should make use of it. From my experience of it its basically just an encryption mechanism that gives you a unique encrypted key. You are also able to put information inside of this token.
I am wanting to implement it in terms on a ASP.NET web api 2 to be consumed by a mobile application.
So step 1:
app => Server : Login (user, pasword)
Server => app : Login OK, heres your JWT
app => server : Get my profile (sends JWT with request)
Server then decrypts JWT and determines the requests Identity.
Now this is just my understanding of it, Look I could be on the totally wrong path.
Is the Ideal of JWT so that you dont have to authenticate on every request? I just authenticate the users credentials once (on the initial login) and there on after the server can simply use JWT and no have to lookup the users pw and user in the DB?
I just want to use the JWT to Identity who the user is. I will then authorize then after i have authenticated them. As I know there is a big confused with the new MVC and Authentication and Authorization.
So what my question comes down to.
How can I safely and effectively Implement a Authentication Mechanism Using JWT?
I don't want to just cough something up that seems to work and not have any Idea of the security implications. I am sure that there exists a source some where that has possibly designed a secure mechanism that would suit my requirements.
My requirements are:
Must only have to check db for users credentials once off per session? Due to the use of bcrypt using a lot of resources to compare passwords.
Must be able to identify the user from their request. (I.e who they are, userId will be sufficient) and preferably without accessing the DB as well
Should be as low overhead as possible, with regards to resources on the server side processing the request.
If an intruder had to copy a devices previous request, then he should not be able to access the real users data. (obviously)
Thanks
Your understanding of JWTs is good. But here are a couple corrections and some recommendations.
Authentication and Authorization
JWTs have nothing to do with authentication. Hitting your DB and hashing passwords only happens when you authenticate on creation of the JWT. This is orthogonal to JWTs and you can do that in any way you like. I personally like Membership Reboot, which also has a good example of using JWTs.
Theoretically, you could have the user enter a password once a year and have the JWT be valid that entire year. This most likely not the best solution, if the JWT gets stolen at any point the users resources would be compromised.
Encryption
Tokens can, but don't have to be encrypted. Encrypting your tokens will increase the complexity of your system and amount of computation your server needs to read the JWTs. This might be important if you require that no one is able to read the token when it is at rest.
Tokens are always cryptographically signed by the issuer to ensure their integrity. Meaning they cannot be tampered with by the user or a third party.
Claims
Your JWTs can contain any information you want. The users name, birthdate, email, etc. You do this with claims based authorization. You then just tell your provider to make a JWT with these claims from the Claims Principle. The following code is from that Membership Reboot example and it shows you how this is done.
public override Task GrantResourceOwnerCredentials(OAuthGrantResourceOwnerCredentialsContext context)
{
var svc = context.OwinContext.Environment.GetUserAccountService<UserAccount>();
UserAccount user;
if (svc.Authenticate("users", context.UserName, context.Password, out user))
{
var claims = user.GetAllClaims();
var id = new System.Security.Claims.ClaimsIdentity(claims, "MembershipReboot");
context.Validated(id);
}
return base.GrantResourceOwnerCredentials(context);
}
This allows you to control with precision whom is accessing your resources, all without hitting your processor intensive authentication service.
Implementation
A very easy way to implement a Token provider is to use Microsoft's OAuth Authorization Server in your WebAPI project. It give you the bare bones of what you need to make a OAuth server for your API.
You could also look into Thinktecture's Identity Server which would give you much easier control over users. For instance, you can easily implement refresh tokens with identity server where the user is authenticated once and then for a certain amount of time (maybe a month) they can continue getting short lived JWTs from the Identity Server. The refresh tokens are good because they can be revoked, whereas JWTs cannot. The downside of this solution is that you need to set up another server or two to host the Identity service.
To deal with your last point, that an intruder should not be able to copy the last request to get access to a resource, you must use SSL at a bare minimum. This will protect the token in transport.
If you are protecting something extremely sensitive, you should keep the token lifetime to a very short window of time. If you are protecting something less sensitive, you could make the lifetime longer. The longer the token if valid, the larger the window of time a attacker will have to impersonate the authenticated user if the user's machine is compromised.
I've written detailed blog post about configuring the OWIN Authorization server to issue signed JSON Web Tokens instead of default token. So the resource servers (Audience) can register with the Authorization server, and then they can use the JWT tokens issued by Token issuer party without the need to unify machineKey values between all parties. You can read the post JSON Web Token in ASP.NET Web API 2 using Owin
For the formal concept . The Authentication is the process of verifying who a user is, while authorization is the process of verifying what they have access to.
Let’s see the real life example
Imagine that your neighbor has asked you to feed his pets while he is away. In this example, you have the authorization to access the kitchen and open the cupboard storing the pet food. However, you can’t go into your neighbor’s bedroom as he did not explicitly permit you to do so. Even though you had the right to enter the house (authentication), your neighbor only allowed you access to certain areas (authorization).
For more detailed and for users who like more STEP BY STEP implementation on practical use of JSON Web Token in WEB API. This is must read post Secure WebAPI Using JSON WEB TOKEN
Updated to use: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt -Version 5.1.4
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.