Is there a way to automatically authenticate the google javascript api client, without user interaction?
Something like this:
User loads webpage -> webpage automatically signs in into a predefined user account -> api calls get executed
Basically i want to prevent the popup where you have to select an account and sign in to it. As the account which will be signed in is always the same.
EDIT:
pinoyyid answer looks promising and is what im looking for. But this only works if the user has signed in with an account at least once, if im not mistaken.
Now i dont want to use an account supplied by the user, but a predefined account which i am the owner of and sign this account in.
Im not entirely sure if this is even possible, as i have to provide the password/some authentication code to google and somehow do this in a secure way.
Use Case: The website will create a Youtube Broadcast via the Youtube Data/Livestream API for the specified account.
Yes you can do that. Referring to https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/oauth2/javascript-implicit-flow
there are three pieces of information that will get you where you want to be:-
The OAuth URL can include a login_hint which is the email of your intended user
The OAuth URL can also include prompt=none which will do its work silently
This all needs to run in an iframe because this is based on origins and redirects.
==EDIT==
If the requirement is for a browser client to connect to a Google Account other than that of the browser user, then this is not possible. It's kinda obvious really that to do so would require a credential in the browser which by definition is not a secure environment.
The approach I would take would be to use a service such as Lambda or Google Cloud Functions (or whatever marketing name they have this week) to create a proxy for the corresponding Google API using a credential stored server-side.
This question is kinda complimentary to "Share credentials between native app and web site", as we aim to share secrets in the opposite direction.
TL;TR: how can we securely share the user's authentication/authorization state from a Web Browser app to a Native Desktop app, so the same user doesn't have to authenticate additionally in the Native app?
TS;WM: We are working on the following architecture: a Web Application (with some HTML front-end UI running inside a Web Browser of user's choice), a Native Desktop Application (implementing a custom protocol handler), a Web API and an OAuth2 service, as on the picture.
Initially, the user is authenticated/authorized in the Web Browser app against the OAuth2 service, using the Authorization Code Grant flow.
Then, the Web Browser content can do one-way talking to the Native app, when the user clicks on our custom protocol-based hyperlinks. Basically, it's done to establish a secure bidirectional back-end communication channel between the two, conducted via the Web API.
We believe that, before acting upon any requests received via a custom protocol link from the Web Browser app, the Native app should first authenticate the user (who is supposed to be the same person using this particular desktop session). We think the Native app should as well use the Authorization Code flow (with PKCE) to obtain an access token for the Web API. Then it should be able to securely verify the origin and integrity of the custom protocol data, using the same Web API.
However, it can be a hindering experience for the user to have to authenticate twice, first in the Web Browser and second in the Native app, both running side-by-side.
Thus, the question: is there a way to pass an OAuth2 access token (or any other authorization bearer) from the Web Browser app to the Native app securely, without compromising the client-side security of this architecture? I.e., so the Native app could call the Web API using the identity from the Web Browser, without having to authenticate the same user first?
Personally, I can't see how we can safely avoid that additional authentication flow. Communication via a custom app protocol is insecure by default, as typically it's just a command line argument the Native app is invoked with. Unlike a TLS channel, it can be intercepted, impersonated etc. We could possibly encrypt the custom protocol data. Still, whatever calls the Native app would have to make to decrypt it (either to a client OS API or some unprotected calls to the Web API), a bad actor/malware might be able to replicate those, too.
Am I missing something? Is there a secure platform-specific solution? The Native Desktop app is an Electron app and is designed to be cross-platform. Most of our users will run this on Windows using any supported browser (including even IE11), but ActiveX or hacking into a running web browser instance is out of question.
The best solution : Single Sign On (SSO) using Custom URL Scheme
When I was checking your question, I remembered the Zoom app that I am using in my office. How it works ?
I have my Gmail account linked to a Zoom account (this is account linkage, which is outside the scope of implementation). When I open Zoom app, I can choose the option to login with Gmail. This opens my browser and take me to Gmail. If I am logged in to Gmail, I am redirected back to a page that asking me to launch Zoom app. How this app launch happen ? The application register a custom URL scheme when app get installed and the final redirect in browser targets this URL. And this URL passes a temporary secret, which Zoom application uses to obtain OAuth tokens. And token obtaining is done independent of the browser, a direct call with SSL to token endpoint of OAuth server.
Well this is Authorization code flow for native applications. And this is how Mobile applications use OAuth. Your main issue, not allowing user to re-login is solved. This is SSO in action.
There is a specification which define best practices around this mechanism. I welcome you to go through RFC8252 - OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps.
Challenge
You need to implement OS specific native code for each application distribution. Windows, Mac and Linux have different implementation support for custom URL scheme.
Advice
PKCE is mandatory (in IETF words SHOULD) for all OAuth grant types. There is this ongoing draft which talks about this. So include PKCE for your implementation too.
With PKCE, the redirect/callback response is protected from stealing. Even some other application intercept the callback, the token request cannot be recreated as the PKCE code_verifer is there.
Also, do not use a custom solution like passing secret through another channel. This will make things complicated when it comes to maintenance. Since this flow already exists in OAuth, you can benefit with libraries and guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------
Update : Protecting Token Request
While the custom URL scheme solves the problem of launching the native application, protecting token request can be challenging. There are several options to consider.
- Bind native application launch with a secret shared from browser
When browser based client launch the native client, it can invoke a custom API to generate a secret. This secret acts like a one time password (OTP). User has to enter this value in native app before it obtain tokens. This is a customization on top of Authorization code flow.
- Dynamic client registration & Dynamic client authentication
Embedding secrets into public clients is discouraged by OAuth specification. But as question owner points out, some malicious app may register itself to receive custom URL response and obtain tokens. In such occasion, PKCE can provide an added layer of security.
But still in an extreme case, if malicious app registers the URL plus use PKCE as the original application, then there can be potential threats.
One option is to allow dynamic client registration at the first time of application launch. Here, installer/distribution can include a secret that used along with DCR.
Also, it is possible to use dynamic client authentication through a dedicated service. Here, the application's token request contains a temporary token issued by a custom service. Custom service obtain a challenge from native application. This may be done through totp or a cryptographic binding based on an embedded secret. Also it is possible to utilize OTP (as mentioned in first note) issued through browser, which needs to be copy pasted manually by end user. Once validated, this service issue a token which correlate to the secret. In the token request, native client sends this token along with call back values. This way we reduce threat vectors even though we increase implementation complexity.
Summary
Use custom URL scheme to launch the native application
Browser app generate a temporary secret shared with a custom service
At native app launch, user should copy the secret to native app UI
Native app exchange this secret with custom service to obtain a token
This second token combined with call back authorization code (issued through custom url scheme) is used to authenticate to token endpoint
Above can be considered as a dynamic client authentication
Value exposed to user can be a hashed secret, hence original value is never exposed to end user or another client
DCR is also an option but embedded secrets are discouraged in OAuth world
As you mentioned, using a custom protocol handler is not a safe way to pass secrets, since another app may handle your protocol and intercept that secret.
If you are imposing a strict constraint that the communication channel between the native app and the web app is initiated from the web app, and that the native app has not previously established a secure channel (e.g. shared secret which could encrypt other secrets), then it is not possible to safely transmit a secret to the native app.
Imagine if this were possible, then PKCE would be redundant in an OAuth 2.0 Code Flow, since the server could have safely transmitted the access token in response to the authorization request, instead of requiring the code_verifier to be provided with the grant when obtaining the access token.
Just got the following idea. It's simple and while it doesn't allow to fully automate the setup of a secure channel between Web Browser app and the Native app, it may significantly improve the user experience.
We can use Time-based One-Time Password algorithm (TOTP). In a way, it's similar to how we pair a Bluetooth keyboard to a computer or a phone.
The Web Browser app (where the user is already authenticated) could display a time-based code to the user, and the Native app should ask the user to enter that code as a confirmation. It would then use the code to authenticate against the Web API. That should be enough to establish a back-end channel between the two. The life time of the channel should be limited to that of the session within the Web Browser app. This approach might even eliminate the need for a custom protocol communication in the first place.
Still open to other ideas.
You could try driving the synchronization the other way:
Once the user is authenticated into the web app, launch the native app from the web app via the custom URL scheme.
If the native app is not authenticated, connect securely to the backend over HTTPS, create a record for the native app, retrieve a one time token associated with that record and then launch the web app in the user's browser with the token as a URL parameter.
Since the user is authenticated in the browser, when the server sees the token it can bind the native app's record with the user account.
Have the native app poll (or use some other realtime channel like push notifications or a TCP connection) the server to see if the token has been bound to a user account: once that happens you can pass a persistent auth token that the native app can store.
Did you think about using LDAP or Active Directory?
Also OAuth2 could be combined, here are a related question:
- Oauth service for LDAP authentication
- Oauth 2 token for Active Directory accounts
SSO should be easier then too, furthermore access-rights could be managed centralized.
Concerning general security considerations you could work with two servers and redirect form the one for the web-application to the other one after successful access check. That 2nd server can be protected so far that a redirect is required from the 1st server and an access check could be made independent again but without need to login another time, might be important to mention here the proposed usage of Oracle Access Manager in one linked answer for perimeter authentication.
This scenario with two servers could be also hidden by using a proxy-server in the frontend and making the redirects hidden, like that data-transfer between servers would be easier and secure too.
The important point about my proposition is that access to the 2nd server is just not granted if anything is wrong and the data are still protected.
I read here some comments concerning 2FA and some other ideas like tokens, surely those things increase security and it would be good to implement them.
If you like the general idea, I'm willing to spend still some time on the details. Some questions might be helpful for me ;-)
EDIT:
Technically the design in detail might depend on the used external authentication provider like Oracle Access Manager or something else. So if the solution in general sounds reasonable for you it would be useful to elaborate some parameters for the choice of a external authentication provider, i.e. price, open-source, features, etc.
Nevertheless the general procedure then is that the provider issues a token and this token serves for authentication. The token is for unique one-time usage, the second link I posted above has some answers that explain token-usage very well related to security and OAuth.
EDIT2
The Difference between an own OAuth2 / OIDC server and a LDAP/AD server is that you need to program everything by yourself and can't use ready solutions. Nevertheless you're independent and if everything is programmed well perhaps even a bit more secure as your solution is not public available and therefore harder to hack - potential vulnerabilities just can't be known by others. Also you're more independent, never have to wait for updates and are free to change whatever you want at any time. Considering that several software-servers are involved and perhaps even hardware-servers the own solution might be limited scale-able, but that can't be know from outside and depends on your company / team. Your code base probably is slimmer than full-blown solutions as you've only to consider your own solution and requirements.
The weak point in your solution might be that you have to program interfaces to several things that exist ready for business-frameworks. Also it might be hard to consider every single point in a small team, large companies could have more overview and capacity to tackle every potential issue.
there is a service where one can authorize using their Google account.
I need to automate the workflow with that service, so my software has to log-in with a given Google account.
But as I've never done that before I don't know where to start. Most related answers suggest to display the authorization page to the user letting them to enter their login/password of their Google account, but that's not the case since my software must be fully automated, plus it is being ran in terminal mode so no browser neither any human to enter anything should be involved.
I wonder if such automation could be possible and where should I start.
The standard way to authenticate a user with google is through a three-legged oauth authentication flow (in a browser). You can do this in go using the oauth2 or with a more comprehensive package like goth
The general flow is:
redirect user to a landing page on google's site where they are prompted to grant you access.
google will make a callback to your site with a special code.
you make another request to exchange that code for an access token and a refresh token.
Use access token to use google apis, and use refresh token to get a new access token anytime it expires.
It is more detailed than this, and there is a lot to get right to keep it secure, but that is the general idea.
Now, like you've said, your app is a command line thing, so it is hard to do that flow. Unfortunately, you may need to do that once, just to get a refresh token. Once you have that, you could give it to your application: myapp -google-token=FOOBAR123, and your app can exchange the referesh token for a valid access token.
Maybe this will help: https://github.com/burnash/gspread/wiki/How-to-get-OAuth-access-token-in-console%3F
I’m new with the marketplace and I’m developing an application to replace google's login with my app, which uses strong authentication.
To use it you don’t need to install anything, it’s only a matter of configuration of your google app. When you try to access mail.google.com/a/yourdomain.com it will redirect to our application where the validation process occurs, and after validating it will return to google web site.
Same happens with logout and password change, you will be redirected to my app.
When a user needs to change the account password, we use google admin api to change it, of course, it requieres a previous authorization from a domain user with administration privileges.
Question is, how to publish an application like this on the market place?, I don’t see how to do it according to the new regulations from november 19th, for example, the application type and the fact that it should be an installable listing.
Someone who can give me a hint or example.
Thanks in advance.
Fernando.
--- EDITED --- to answer to Koma
The thing is, we already have the application, what we're doing now is to do some changes to make it ready to use it with google apps.
There’s an option in the security section called “set up single sign-on (SSO)” where you configure 3 URL’s for:
Sign-in page URL (URL for signing in to your system and Google Apps)
Sign-out page URL (URL to redirect users to when they sign out)
Change password URL (URL to let users change their password in your system; when defined here, this URL is shown even when Single Sign-on is not enabled)
When you a user needs to change your account’s password you will be redirected to our application (because google have delegated that responsibility to Us). There, through OAUTH and Google Admin API, we will change the password for your google user.
We want to be listed in google’s marketplace as a solution for strong authentication delegating that functionality to our application, but we don’t see how because the user that will use our solution doesn’t need to install anything, and according to what I understand we are forced to upload something to be listed
Does that make sense to you?
From what I read, you want to replace authentication with your own. That's not feasible with a market place app.
You need to implement a SAML identity provider
https://developers.google.com/google-apps/sso/saml_reference_implementation
I'm reading this article http://rc3.org/2011/12/02/using-hmac-to-authenticate-web-service-requests/ and I understand how HMAC works I think.
The issue is that HMAC seems to authenticate the third party (relay party) only. What if the third party wants to pass a user of my system and his/her password to extract the user's specific data? I don't want to use OAuth 1.0 nor 2.0 because various issues with them. It seems to me, I need to authenticate the user too, not just authorize?
For instance, Evernote mobile app, it asks me for username/password and I'm sure it's calling some sort of Web API in the background. It's not using OAuth 2.0 right? Because I don't see myself redirect to the provider site to "authorize". In this case, how did my username/password got passed to the back end service?
[Edit]
After thinking about it a bit, I'm assuming SSL is the solution? Once you have SSL, you can pass username/password to my web api in plain text and then I do whatever to authenticate the third party PLUS authenticate the user and respond with user's data?
In that case, the downside is I have to trust the third party? So they don't store my user's username+password, is that correct?
First, just because you don't see redirects, it does not mean OAuth is not used. I'm not saying Evernote uses OAuth. I do not know their architecture but Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant which is part of OAuth 2.0 is suitable for first-party applications and it does no redirects.
Secondly, if you want to ensure your users do not share their credentials with the third-party app that consumes your web API, OAuth 2.0 is a great option and not sure why you do not want to use OAuth. You can also try WS-Federation with the help of WIF, though it is SOAP-ish. The last option will be coming up with your own redirects based mechanism by which your users submitting their credentials in a web page of yours is ensured but this is highly risky and not recommended. Why to reinvent the wheel? Other than these, you must only trust the third party.