I have a tricky case while playing with OAuth2.
Starts by asking authentification to the user. He grants access, store the credentials in a store (DB, GAE Datastore, etc.).
Go to your Authorized Access in your Google's profile and revoke the
app
Go back to the app, launch an action which leads to API call (tested
with Drive API)
App is retrieving credentials from store. Test credentials validity
(not null and invalid property is False)
Call the API
Retrieve a 401, Unauthorized exception.
How can I detect that the credentials are invalid BEFORE effectively calling the API?
Maybe it is the way to works with credentials?
Thanks for your help.
What credentials are you storing? Access token? Refresh token?
Consider using the tokeninfo endpoint, https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v1/tokeninfo?access_token=
Before using the access_token, call [tokeninfo] in GoogleAPI first (always, if it's a fresh access_token even). I wasted some hours to solve this issue.
My workflow for a Windows application:
oAuth2 -> access_token* (* - not validated)
GoogleAPI.tokeninfo with [access_token*] -> "ok" or "invalid"
if "ok" - using for requested permissions
Related
I am using Laravel as my backend together with Sanctum which generates personal access token for mobile users. For my mobile application I am using flutter.
To authenticate users they login with their username/password and get a personal access token in return. This works but requires a user to login every time they open the application again so I did what most tutorials suggest which is saving the token on the mobile device using shared preferences/secure storage.
Now comes the question how do you invalidate a user when you remove their token from the backend? On initial login it appears everything is still fine because like in most tutorial I check for the existence of a token. After that whenever I want to make a request which uses the token I obviously run into problems because it not longer exists on the backend.
Most tutorials/guide suggest saving the token and using that a reference to see if the user is logged in or not but this seems flawed because it gives the false impression you actually have a valid token.
My guess is this can be solved by always performing a heartbeat/ping action to check if the current token is valid and if not send them to the login screen instead of simply checking for the existence of the token.
Thoughts on this?
I can suggest a hack or trick here in every launch of the app you can send a request to an API to check if the user's token is valid or not and if it is valid then you can continue the app otherwise force the user to login and generate new token this way your app will be secure via server / API.
For this, you can store the user's secret token in the database and check it via HTTP API call and send a response from the API accordingly and check the response in app and do the next operation according to the response you get.
I don't know if this is a great way of doing this job but it is a kind of hack/trick to achieve what is needed.
Thanks
I am using the access token to play my private videos in my android app and for that, I am created an access token.
But It says,
The OAuth Playground will automatically revoke refresh tokens after 24h. You can avoid this by specifying your own application OAuth credentials using the Configuration panel
I tried to add my own client secrets and ID and after creating a new token, it still displays the same NOTE.
How can I create a permanent access token that will not expire?
I tried to change available parameters like Access Type Online, Offline, and still shows same NOTE.
Google apis generally do not let you get a permanent access token
Access tokens have limited lifetimes. If your application needs access to a Google API beyond the lifetime of a single access token, it can obtain a refresh token. A refresh token allows your application to obtain new access tokens.
Generate an offline refresh token to use and get a short lived access token
This is part of the Oauth2 standard
I'm having some problems with the Alexa account linking authorization.
These are the steps I followed:
I got the credentials (client id, client secret...) from the Google Cloud Console
Setup on the Alexa Developer Console, using 'Auth Code Grant' as authorization grant type
Activated the skill on my Alexa application and successfully logged in with my Google account
Now I got the access token in the request, in handler_input.request_envelope.context.system.user.access_token
The problem is that the access token expires after one hour and Alexa does not manage the refreshment of the token.
What should I do to avoid having to ask my users to login every time after one hour? Should I use Implicit grant as authorization type? Should I get a refresh token somehow?
Additional info: it's a custom skill that connects to an AWS Lambda using Python3
While #pinoyyid's answer was correct, it didn't provide a solution so I'm posting one for future reference.
The problem was indeed that Amazon servers did not receive a refresh token from Google, thus making it impossible to refresh the access token after its expiration time of one hour.
Following this link and other Amazon forum posts, I got to a working solution.
Amazon Alexa developer console 'Account Linking' configuration:
Authorization grant type: Auth Code Grant
Authorization URI: https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?access_type=offline (even though the one from the google credentials was not v2, it shouldn't make a difference)
The access type is very important because, as documentation goes:
Set the [access_type] value to offline if your application needs to refresh access tokens when the user is not present at the browser. [...] This value instructs the Google authorization server to return a refresh token and an access token the first time that your application exchanges an authorization code for tokens.
Access Token URI: https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/token
Client ID & Secret: downloaded on Google Cloud Platform
Client Authentication Scheme: HTTP Basic
Domain List: google.com and googleapis.com
Default access Token Expiration Time: left empty
Now, after doing this and saving the configuration, be aware that you might not notice the change, as, from here:
When Alexa uses the refresh token to retrieve a new access token for an existing user, Alexa uses the access token URI that was configured at the time the user linked their account. Therefore, if you change the access token URI later, users who linked their accounts before continue to use the old URI for retrieving updated tokens. The users must unlink and re-link accounts to switch to the new access token URI.
So, in order to complete the procedure:
Deactivate your skill
Go to the Google third party applications that have access to your data and remove your Google Project associated
Reactivate your skill and login again (if done correctly it should ask you the permissions for the scope you specified in the Alexa developer console again
Done! after one hour you should re-try and it should have a renewed access token
Additional Info
I found that many suggested to retrieve the refresh token, I don't believe this is possible because, even if Google sends it, it's Amazon that stores it and uses it to refresh the access token.
EDIT:
This works fine for developing and testing but I discovered here that for publication purposes you must own the landing page that you redirect your users to. For me it was just necessary to create a simple HTML page hosted in a public S3 bucket that would redirect the request to the Authorization URI I wrote before, while the Access Token URI must remain the Google one.
Have you read https://developer.amazon.com/docs/account-linking/configure-authorization-code-grant.html ?
My guess is that the Refresh Token is missing because you have already auithorised the app. The RT is only issued once. Try going into https://myaccount.google.com/permissions?utm_source=google-account&utm_medium=web to revoke the permission and try again.
Very new to okta flow, please bear with my ignorance.
I am doing a poc to access sharepoint from my external site and sharepoint is authenticated through OKTA. I want to start getting list view data from share point and expose it on my site.
1) What is the difference of authenticating using username / password flow (vs) using token to authenticate into OKTA?
Step 1: Auth in through username / password get the session token
Step 2 : After this I tried to create a session as per docs:
http://developer.okta.com/docs/api/resources/sessions.html#create-session-with-session-token
You're probably missing a valid Okta API token (cf. Getting a Token ) when calling the /api/v1/sessions endpoint. In any event, you should use the /api/v1/authn endpoint for authentication purposes and that one usually doesn't need an api token (unless you want to authenticate it from a trusted application).
The /api/v1/sessions API with the username/password payload is deprecated so you should shy away from using it in favor of the /api/v1/authn API.
I hope this helps!
I am using spring boot for backend and Android device for frontend of my system.
Right now I am facing the challenge to use Spring-OAuth2 to secure my resource server.
I have some questions, which I want to discuss with you:
My knowledge + this tutorial are saying that I should use the OAuth2.0 "password" grant type for my mobile app to obtain an access token. The official spring tutorial for security gives an example how to obtain the access token using password grant type:
$ curl client:secret#localhost:8080/oauth/token -d grant_type=password -d username=user -d password=pwd
And here comes my first question: Is there any possibility to obtain access token using the password grant type without sending the "client secret" ?
Since the client secret could be "reverse engineered" by decompiling the client app. The obtaining access token without secret should be somehow possible, because Facebook SDK for Android also does not need the client_secret in the mobile app.
I think here I have a little trouble understanding why the clientID + clientSecret needs to be included in the request above, because, since there are already username + password included, it should be possible to generate the access token, so does this brings a next level of security ? and does it implies the following (example): I am logged in as Filip in my Android client and I am sending the access token A with each request to the server. Then I log in as Filip into web client and I try to access the resource server from web client using the access token A, which is not possible because access token A was issued only for Android client ?
The next question is how can I refresh the obtained access token ?
I was trying to do so using the command below, but I got "Full authentication is required to access this resource." After I got the new refreshed token, can I use the refresh token to refresh my new access token again ?
curl -v --data "grant_type=refresh_token&client_id=acme&client_secret=acmesecret&refresh_token=REFRESH_TOKEN" http://localhost:9999/uaa/oauth/token
Thank you
The OAuth 2.0 spec allows for so-called public clients i.e. clients that don't authenticate themselves. So it is possible to use the Resource Owner Password Credentials grant with a public client, i.e. one that does not need to send a client secret. It does mean that the Authorization Server cannot assume anything about the client since a client_id is not a secret and there's no way to prevent a malicious client using this grant type or clients from impersonating each other. So using it in this way comes at the cost of reduced security although one may argue that in your case there's no way to use confidential clients anyhow, so there's no difference.
In general the Resource Owner Password Credentials grant is an anti-pattern for OAuth and only meant for migration purposes because it defeats most of the goals of OAuth in itself.
Access tokens are issued on a per-client basis.
You refresh token request seems OK but the Authorization Server may require basic authentication instead of providing the client_id/client_secret as post parameters, considering that you did the same for the original access token request.