Apologies if this sounds a bit stupid, but I'm just experimenting with a javascript client using oidc-client.js connecting to identityserver 4.
The server creates a token and then sends it to the client where oidc stores it in session storage(as i understand it).
Supposing you referenced an external javascript library on a cdn somewhere which got compromised somehow. What's to stop that compromised js accessing the token in the session data and giving an attacker access to whatever you're trying to secure with the token.
Thanks
Nothing at all. Don't use CDN-hosted libs for anything you actually care about the security of. Even with HTTP-only cookies a targeted attack is possible. While you're at it don't let NPM anywhere near anything you care about the security of as the potential exposure to malware is terrifying.
All in my opinion.
Related
I am building a frontend application using react and I am wondering whether it is risky to expose API endpoint URLs (ex: https://myapi.com/v1/getitems) on GitHub, assuming that the endpoint has several security measures that are not exposed such as CORS and JWT Token Bearer Authentication. I would assume not, since, if someone were to take the endpoint and send requests, they would need a token and be allowed to do so by CORS.
Is there any security risk in doing so?
Yes. Don't add the base url of your api on github in plain view. Even though you might have CORS and Authorization, that doesn't stop a malicious actor to keep spamming your back-end.
What you do is create a .env file in your root folder. You can use a library like #beam-australia/react-env and there are others as well.
You add in the .env file the values that are important for your environment and that are usually secrets, and you want them to not be visible in your code. You do it like so:
API_URL="https://myapi.com/v1"
And then you access this variable in your code with env("API-URL") ( in the #beam-australia/react-env case, but others libraries work the same). Keep in mind that you need to add .env in .gitignore so that the .env file is not pushed to github.
Regarding requests, you can make one like so:
fetch(`${env("API_URL}/getitems`)
This way your code will be stripped of the API's base url and if someone sees your code it will see only the endpoint, not the full url.
Publishing the code of the API is risky on its own. Somebody can find a vulnerability in it and instantly hack it. If you add the address of the API to the code you help this kind of attacks. They can get the address with some investigation; OSINT and social engineering too, but better to reduce the attack surface.
As of the secrets, they must never be near to the code, because you or another developer can accidentally publish it. It happened too many times with many developers, so better to take this seriously. If you want to keep the address in secret, then you must extract it from the code and put it in the configuration of the production environment which is imported from a totally different location than your code. Using environment variables like Alex suggested is a good idea for this. Nowadays it is common to use docker, which has a way to manage secrets, so you don't need to reinvent the wheel: https://docs.docker.com/engine/swarm/secrets/ Another aspect that the configuration belongs to the actual instance. In OOP terms you want to describe the injected properties of an object in its class or in a global variable, which is an antipattern.
As of client side REST clients like javascript applications running in the browser or Android/iOS apps, you must not publish your secrets along with the REST client, otherwise it is not a secret anymore. In that case you need a server side part for the REST client and for example sign and encrypt JWT there with a secret key. It is your decision whether this server side part of the REST client sends the HTTP request to the REST API and in that case you can hide the URI of the REST API or it just manages the JWT and the client side part of the REST client sends it. If the server side part of the REST client sends the HTTP request to the REST API, then you can even use traditional sessions with session cookies between the client side and the server side parts of the REST client, but you cannot use them between the server side part of the REST client and the REST API where the communication must be stateless. Though it does not make much sense to have a separate REST API if you don't have multiple different REST clients in this scenario e.g. browser clients for JS and JSless browsers, Android and iOS clients, fully automated clients running on servers, etc. So don't confuse the REST client - REST API relationship with the browser - HTTP server relationship, because they are not necessarily the same. Most of the REST clients run on servers, not in the browser.
I'm trying to write a VSCode extension where users could log into Google AppEngine with a google account, and I need to get their SACSID cookie to make appengine requests.
So I'm opening a browser window at
https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=ah&passive=true&continue=https://appengine.google.com/_ah/conflogin%3Fcontinue%3Dhttp://localhost:3000/
(generated by google.appengine.api.users.create_login_url)
The user logs in and is redirected to my local webserver at
localhost:3000/_ah/conflogin/?state={state}
Now I try to forward the request to my AppEngine app (since it knows how to decode the state parameter), so I do a request to
https://my-app.appspot.com/_ah/conflogin/?state={state}
basically just replacing localhost with the actual app.
but it doesn't work, presumably because the domain is different. I assume this is on purpose, for security.
Is there any way I can make this work ?
Not ideal, but the only solution I've found is to have an endpoint on my GAE instance that does the redirection. Then I can set that as the continue url, when I'm starting the authentication process
https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=ah&passive=true&continue=https://appengine.google.com/_ah/conflogin%3Fcontinue%3Dhttps://my-app.appspot.com/redirect?to=http://localhost:3000
I think you should center the attention on the protocols you are using, since it’s known that the cookie name is based on the http protocol (HTTP : ACSID, HTTPS:SACSID), and that’s the security perspective till this point for me.
Having the error you are facing now would be helpful to understand the problem better. Also, how are you performing the call to the API and the code you are using would be helpful too.
Contemplating building an Angular 2 front-end to my website. My question is not necessarily related to Angular but I want to provide full context.
Application logic that displays content to user would shift to the client. So on the server side, I would need to expose data via a RESTful JSON feed. What worries me, is that someone can completely bypass my front-end and execute requests to the service with various parameters, effectively scraping my database. I realize some of this is possible by scraping HTML but exposing a service with nicely formatted data is just a no-brainer.
Is there a way to protect the RESTful service from this? In other words, is there a way to ensure such service would only respond to my Angular 2 application call? Authentication certainly isn't a solution here - I don't want to force visitors to authenticate and the scraper could very well authenticate and get access, anyway.
I would recommend JWT Authorization. One such implementation is OAuth. Basically you get a json web token ( JWT ) that has been signed by an authority you trust that tells about the user and what resources they can access on your api.
If the request doesn't include an Authorization token - your API rejects it.
If the token has been tampered with by someone trying to grant themselves privledges after the token is signed by the authorization authority - your API rejects it.
It is a pretty cool piece of kit.
This site has information about OAuth implementations in different languages, hopefully your favorite is listed.
Some light bed time reading.
There is no obvious way to do it that I know of, but a lot of people seem to be looking at Amazon S3 as a model. If you put credentials in your client code, then anyone getting the client code can see them. I might suggest that you could write the server to pass a time limited token back to the browser with the client code. The client code would be required to pass it back to the server for access. This would prevent anyone from writing their own client code, as only client code sent by the server would work, though only for some period of time. The user might occasionally get timeouts, but that depends on how strict you want to make the token timeouts. Of course, even this kind of thing could be hacked by someone making a client request to get a copy of the token to use with their own client API, but at that point you should be proud that someone is trying so hard to use your API! I have not tried to write such a thing, so I don't have any practical experience with the issue. I myself have wondered about it, but also don't have enough experience with this architecture to see what, if anything, others have been doing. What do angularJS forums suggest?
Additional References: Best Practices for securing a REST API / web service
I believe the answer is "No".
You could do some security by obscurity type stuff. Your rest API could expose garbled data and you could have some function that was "hidden" in your code un-garble it. Though obviously this isn't fool proof, but if you expose data on a public site it's out there regardless of server or client rendering.
I've read quite a few SO threads about authentication and authorization with REST and Angular, but I'm still not feeling like I have a great solution for what I'm hoping to do. For some background, I'm planning to building an app in AngularJS where I want to support:
Limited guest access
Role-based access to the application once authenticated
Authentication via APIs
All of the calls to the REST API will be required to occur over SSL. I'd like to do build the app without breaking RESTful principles, namely not keeping session state stored on the server. Of course, whatever is done vis-a-vis authorization on the client-side has to be reinforced on the server side. Since we need to pass the entire state with each request, I know I need to pass some sort of token so that the backend server receiving the REST request can both authenticate and authorize the call.
With that said, my main question is around authentication - what are the best practices here? It seems there are lots of different approaches discussed, here's just a few that I've found:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/12/principles-for-standardized-rest-authentication.html
http://frederiknakstad.com/2013/01/21/authentication-in-single-page-applications-with-angular-js/
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html
There was a similar question asked (AngularJS best practice application authentication), but unless I'm misunderstanding the answer, it seems to imply that a server session should be used, which is breaking RESTful principles.
My main concern with the Amazon AWS and the George Reese article is it seems to assume that the consumer is a program, rather than an end user. A shared secret can be issued to a programmer in advance, who can then use it to encode calls here. This isn't the case here - I need to call the REST API from the app on behalf of the user.
Would this approach be enough? Let's say I have a session resource:
POST /api/session
Create a new session for a user
To create a session, you need to POST a JSON object containing the "username" and "password".
{
"email" : "austen#example.com",
"password" : "password"
}
Curl Example
curl -v -X POST --data '{"username":"austen#example.com","password":"password"}' "https://app.example.com/api/session" --header "Content-Type:application/json"
Response
HTTP/1.1 201 Created {
"session": {
"id":"520138ccfa4634be08000000",
"expires":"2014-03-20T17:56:28+0000"
}
}
Status Codes
201 - Created, new session established
400 - Bad Request, the JSON object is not valid or required information is missing
401 - Unauthorized, Check email/password combo
403 - Access Denied, disabled account or license invalid
I'm leaving out the HATEOAS details for clarity. On the backend, there would be a new, limited duration session key created and associated with the user. On subsequent requests, I could pass this as part of the HTTP headers:
Authorization: MyScheme 520138ccfa4634be08000000
Then the backend servers would be responsible for digesting this out of the request, finding the associated user and enforcing authorization rules for the request. It should probably update the expiration for the session as well.
If all this is happening over SSL, am I leaving the door open to any kind of attacks that I should be protecting against? You could try to guess session keys and place them in the header, so I suppose I could additionally append a user GUID to the session key to further prevent brute force attacks.
It's been a few years since I've actively programmed and I'm just getting back into the swing here. Apologies if I'm being obtuse or unnecessarily reinventing the wheel, just hoping to run my ideas by the community here based on my reading thus far and see if they pass the litmus test.
When someone asks about REST authentication, I defer to the Amazon Web Services and basically suggest "do that". Why? Because, from a "wisdom of the crowds" point of view, AWS solves the problem, is heavily used, heavily analyzed, and vetted by people that know and care far more than most about what makes a secure request than most. And security is a good place to "not reinvent the wheel". In terms of "shoulders to stand on", you can do worse than AWS.
Now, AWS does not use a token technique, rather it uses a secure hash based on shared secrets and the payload. It is arguably a more complicated implementation (with all of its normalization processes, etc.).
But it works.
The downside is that it requires your application to retain the persons shared secret (i.e. the password), and it also requires the server to have access to that a plain text version of the password. That typically means that the password is stored encrypted, and it then decrypted as appropriate. And that invite yet more complexity of key management and other things on the server side vs secure hashing technique.
The biggest issue, of course, with any token passing technique is Man in the Middle attacks, and replay attacks. SSL mitigates these mostly, naturally.
Of course, you should also consider the OAuth family, which have their own issues, notably with interoperability, but if that's not a primary goal, then the techniques are certainly valid.
For you application, the token lease is not a big deal. Your application will still need to operate within the time frame of the lease, or be able to renew it. In order to do that it will need to either retain the user credential or re-prompt them for it. Just treat the token as a first class resource, like anything else. If practical, try and associate some other information with the request and bundle it in to the token (browser signature, IP address), just to enforce some locality.
You are still open to (potential) replay problems, where the same request can be sent twice. With a typical hash implementation, a timestamp is part of the signature which can bracket the life span of the request. That's solved differently in this case. For example, each request can be sent with a serial ID or a GUID and you can record that the request has already been played to prevent it from happening again. Different techniques for that.
Here is an incredible article about authentication and login services built with angular.
https://medium.com/opinionated-angularjs/7bbf0346acec
This SO question do a good job of summing up my understanding of REST
Do sessions really violate RESTfulness?
If you store a token in a session you are still creating state on the server side (this is an issue since that session is typically only stored on the one server, this can be mitigated with sticky sessions or other solutions).
I'd like to know what your reasoning is for creating a RESTful service though because perhaps this isn't really a large concern.
If you send a token in the body along with every request (since everything is encrypted with SSL this is okay) then you can have any number of servers (load balanced) servicing the request without any previously knowledge of state.
Long story short I think aiming for RESTful implementations is a good goal but being purely stateless certainly creates an extra layer of complexity when it comes to authentication and verifying authorization.
Thus far I've started building my back-ends with REST in mind, making URIs that make sense and using the correct HTTP verbs, but still use a token in a session for the simplicity of authentication (when not using multiple servers).
I read through the links you posted, the AngularJS one seems to focus just on the client and doesn't seem to explicitly address the server in that article, he does link to another one (I'm not a Node user so forgive me if my interpretation is wrong here) but it appears the server is relying on the client to tell it what level of authorization it has which is clearly not a good idea.
I'm writing a RESTful Database Server called Phoenix. Being an easy interface into an entire application's data, security is quite an important issue, and I'm interested in what authentication solutions any of you could suggest.
It needs to be:
Secure - it's got to be very hard to break. Signing requests could be a good way of doing this, but considering it's REST there aren't many parameters that are sent so I don't know what good singing would do.
Minimal - I'd rather it didn't take four requests to compare six tokens in HMAC-signed requests - the USP of the server is it's simplicity, so authentication from clients has got to be easy.
Implementable - it has to fit the system, which is a database server. So, for instance, oAuth wouldn't work here.
I'd love to hear your suggestions - thank you!
Jamie
Not much information here about what your security or implementation needs are. The quick answers are Basic or Digest over SSL, or signed requests. Are there reasons not to use these?
Signing requests typically adds a timestamp and/or a nonce, so any request can be authenticated. See the Amazon AWS authentication documentation for a description and libraries.
I have a similar server. I choose to use OAuth signing for its simplicity,
http://oauth.net/core/1.0#signing_process
We don't enforce the nonce, just limit the timestamp to a short window (30 seconds) to thwart replay.
The OAuth library is available on many platforms so you don't have to write much code to implement it. Don't know why you think OAuth is not implementable.
For each client allowed to access the data, it's assigned a consumer_key and a consumer_secret. All the requests are signed with consumer_secret so only client knowing the secret can get access.
We also considered other options. HTTTP Basic Auth over SSL is too expensive. HTTP Digest Auth is too slow because it needs to wait for a challenge.