OpenId Connect Authorization Code flow in Angular JS - angularjs

I am looking for best approach to implement the Open Id Authorization Code flow in Angular JS. Have got examples on Implicit flow to get the temporary tokens: id_token and access_token, but i need to get the long-lived token : refresh token.
Looks like I need to go for authorization code flow, where i would get the "code" based on the user credentials, and thereby using that "code" would get the refresh_token.
Ours is Angular/ Web API project(not using MVC).
Is it recommended to use authorization code flow at client side?
if so, what is the best approach/ best library that we can achieve this use case?

keep in mind that the implicit flow is the recommended one for SPA application like angular, because it's better to send and access_token with a short lifetime rather than sending a a long lifetime token that can be used easily to generate access_tokens. but if you insist you can use the Hybrid flow, authorization code flow is more for server to server communication :

Related

How authorization code flow works in single page applications?

Hi I am exploring some of the authentication and authorization flows with respect to azure active directory. I was using previously oath implicit flow in single page application. After spending time in reading microsoft documentation, I have understood following with respect to implicit flow.
Implicit Flow:
Single page javacript application uses implicit flow to get obtain access token from azure active directory. It directly calls token endpoint to obtain the token so this makes implicit flow less secure.
Authorization Folw in .Net Web application
Whenever we use .Net core web mvc application with authorization code flow, first call will happen in browser to authorization endpoint to get code. In browser we could see the request made to authorization end point. In request url I will pass response type as code then client id and redirect ui. Here first handshake take place between browser and authorization end point. This handshake returns code to the redirect uri. Next part, application has to make POST request to token endpoint to get access token. Code received in first step I will send in token request. In this request I will include client secrete also, redierct uri also. But whenever I make first GET request to authorization endpoint I will not pass client secrete. This is because Its not good to expose secrete in browser. So in second post request I will include client secrete also. Once I get access token I will add it in api request header to make secured call to apis.
This is the authorization code flow flavor I have understood with respect to .Net core web application. now I have another flavor of authorization code with respect to single page application.
Authorization Code Flow in React Web App
I have SPA react application which uses MSAL library. I have cloned sample application from github https://github.com/Azure-Samples/ms-identity-javascript-react-tutorial/tree/main/3-Authorization-II/1-call-api/SPA.
Whenever I run this application, and sign in first call will happen as below
https://login.microsoftonline.com/common/discovery/instance?api-version=1.1&authorization_endpoint=https://login.microsoftonline.com/c5ffa990-7e0a-4bf6-6c04-79ab98e05931/oauth2/v2.0/authorize
I am trying to understand this request. I have query string appended to the url authorization_endpoint=https://login.microsoftonline.com/c5ffa990-7e0a-4bf6-6c04-79ab98e05931/oauth2/v2.0/authorize so this may be used to return the code from authorization server.
Immediately next call will happen https://login.microsoftonline.com/c5ffa990-7e0a-4bf6-6c04-79ab98e05931/oauth2/v2.0/token
to get access token and in request in FormData section I could see following parameters
client_d, redirect_uri,scope,code
In code I see some code value hopefully received from authorization endpoint. anyway this api returned me access_token.
Now coming to conclusion, In .Net core web application and React SPA application both places I am using authorization code flow.
In .Net core authorization code flow I am making use of client secrete whenever trying to obtain access token. All this happen in server side in secure manner. In react also I am using Authorization code flow but I am not using Client secrete anywhere.
In react app also I am making two requests one for authorization endpoint to get code and another to get token. All this I can see in browser itself but then How can I consider this is as secure?
In .Net web app and react app both apps making use of authorization code flow but it behaves independently depends on the type of application.
After going through several documents and videos over the internet I concluded myself as
When Authorization code flow used with server side web apps like .Net core MVC, It makes use of client_secrete to get access token and this call will happen in server side so client secrete not exposed through browser to the users
When Authorization flow used SPA applications without server side support, first it will make call to get authorization code then It will make post request to get access token WITHOUT client_secrete.The only way the authorization code grant with no client secret can be secure is by using the “state” parameter and restricting the redirect URL to trusted clients.
So I am concluding myself as when we use server side web app with authorization code flow we can make use of client secrete but in case of SPA we are not making use of client_secrete.
I have understood above concepts and explained what I understood and also I listed the confusions I got after implementing 2 flavors of authorization code flow in web app and spa app. can someone help me If my understanding is correct or not, If my understanding is wrong, where exactly I understood wrong? Can anyone help me with respect to this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Authcode flow is an OAuth 2.0 workflow, you can use it in any kind of client (Web/mobile/SPA).
Clients should be using MSAL library to communicate with AAD/B2C with PKCE which is used to secure authorization code grants via Proof Key for Code Exchange (code_challenge) with S256 encryption.
Authcode Grant Flow spec:
If you are using B2C, your entry endpoint is:
https://{tenant}.b2clogin.com/{tenant}.onmicrosoft.com/{policy}/oauth2/v2.0/authorize?
client_id=90c0fe63-bcf2-44d5-8fb7-b8bbc0b29dc6
&response_type=code
&redirect_uri=urn%3Aietf%3Awg%3Aoauth%3A2.0%3Aoob
&response_mode=query
&scope=90c0fe63-bcf2-44d5-8fb7-b8bbc0b29dc6%20offline_access
&state=arbitrary_data_you_can_receive_in_the_response
&code_challenge=YTFjNjI1OWYzMzA3MTI4ZDY2Njg5M2RkNmVjNDE5YmEyZGRhOGYyM2IzNjdmZWFhMTQ1ODg3NDcxY2Nl
&code_challenge_method=S256
that will display the SignIn-SignUp-Social Login Form. Just navigate to this URL with you App ClientId registered inside B2C.
You also can take a look to the custom policies starter pack to adapt your workflow to your needs (claims).
If you change response_type=code for response_type=id_token you will get a Token that can be used to authenticate against your restricted resources (API's) after all login process.
Or you can use a second call to the token endpoint to get it.
Token endpoint:
POST https://{tenant}.b2clogin.com/{tenant}.onmicrosoft.com/{policy}/oauth2/v2.0/token HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=authorization_code&client_id=90c0fe63-bcf2-44d5-8fb7-b8bbc0b29dc6&scope=90c0fe63-bcf2-44d5-8fb7-b8bbc0b29dc6 offline_access&code=AwABAAAAvPM1KaPlrEqdFSBzjqfTGBCmLdgfSTLEMPGYuNHSUYBrq...&redirect_uri=urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob&code_verifier=ThisIsntRandomButItNeedsToBe43CharactersLong
code=XXXXXXXXXXXXX parameter is the access_code returned from first GET request.
Solutions to this is to switch to implicit flow, where there is no need of exchanging code for access token. But keeping access token in web application still vulnerable as this can be exposed using XSS or similar kind of attacks.
Other best practice is https://curity.io/resources/learn/the-token-handler-pattern/

Is it ok to pass OAuth access tokens to the Client

i'm still pretty new to web-development I worked myself through Web Development with Node and Express by Ethan Brown and currently i'm trying to get a good understanding for the examples given by Full-Stack React Projects by Shama Hoque.
Currently i'm trying to refactor a lot of things that used to be server-side-rendered to be handled in the React SPA client. One of these things includes a simple GitHub widget, my previous flow worked like this:
The client user authenticates with my server using a GitHub OAuth app.
The server stores the access Token returned to the callback in a database on the server.
The server makes calls to the GitHub API using the user access Token stored in the database.
The server processes the results, renders it in HTML and sends it to the client.
However I realized that there is also possibility to implement it like this.
The client user authenticates with my server using a GitHub OAuth app.
The server passes the access Token returned to the callback back to the client
The client makes calls to the GitHub API using the user access token obtained from the server.
The client processes the results and renders it apropiately.
As far as I understand there is no inherent security risk doing this(a malacious user could interecept the access token when the oAuth provider redirects to the callback either way) and both flows have their up and downsides (e.g. 2nd flow produces less load on the server but also sacrifices control). Since I'm new to this and I came up with the 2nd flow myself I wanna double check if this is something thats ok to be doing or I've missed something, if so, what did I miss? Is there any other major down or upsides i'm not considering?
What you've implemented is the OAuth Authorization Flow. In this flow, the client (aka the browser) never gets the access token. Only your webserver gets it. And thus the client cannot make calls to the resource server (github). Your webserver makes the calls on the client's behalf.
You say:
a malacious user could interecept the access token when the oAuth provider redirects to the callback either way
However, if you implement the flow correctly, this is not true. This is because once you authenticate with the resource server, it only gives the browser an authentication code. This code is just a temporary ticket that can be exchanged for an access token. However, to exchange a code for the access token, you have to know a client secret. Only your web server knows the secret. So your browser sends the code to your server, and your server calls the resource server (github) with the code + secret to get the token.
The second flow you describe is the OAuth Implicit Flow.
This flow is very much what you described: After the user authenticates with the resource server, the browser ends up with the access token and just calls the resource server directly.
Both flows are very common. The Implicit flow is slightly less secure because there is more opportunity for Bad Guys to get access to the token in the browser's memory (or local storage, or cookie storage). The Authorization Flow is a bit more secure because the token stays on your server, and you do not have to depend upon users to keep it secure.

Validate AntiForgeryToken in WebAPI controller

I've been following the technique outlined here:
http://blog.novanet.no/anti-forgery-tokens-using-mvc-web-api-and-angularjs/
The scenario:
I have an MVC4 application making AngularJS ajax calls a separate MVC4 WebApi application. These applications are completely separate and may eventually live on separate web servers.
What I'm seeing is that as the process goes, I can generate a token on the client (View), and then I can add a custom header attribute to be sent along with the ajax request. When the request hits the WebApi, I can see and parse out the token, but when I try to validate it, I get this message:
The provided anti-forgery token was meant for user "me", but the current user is "".
I'm thinking when I generate the token on the View, I'm building a token that relies on the currently authenticated user, and that's what get sent to the WebApi. So my question is this:
What is the standard way to lock down a WebApi when the WebApi is designed to be flexible to accept requests from a public website (anonymous access)? Do I need to build my own token mechanism that gets validated in the WebApi?
Thanks in advance!

Session Token Authentication Security

I need some advice regarding using session tokens to authenticate users. I am building an AngularJS app which uses an API to tie in with the backend. I am only building the front end, not the backend. The documentation states that all calls to the API have a session token attached in the body of the request (POST).
I would like to know about the security of storing this token in localStorage. That is where I am storing it now and retrieving and attaching it to each API request. After login, the server sends the session token in the body and I save it from there.
There is no documentation about an x-access-token header that should be sent with the request made to the server. It is not being checked server side. What are the implications of this? I feel that it is susceptible to attacks without this added layer of security.
My main concern is the security of this setup. I want to know what the best setup is to make sure this app is as secure as possible and recommend changes to the way the backend is setup to facilitate this.
Thanks!
As you tell, you are only working on the UI part and not the backend. It is up to the backend team to ensure headers are properly evaluated and security is enforced (btw request headers do not belong to request body). Just put the token into the x-access-token header as they tell.
Storing the token inside the localStorage gives you a little more control over the cookie: You will not accidentally send it to unnecessary URLs. However, older browsers do not support it - you may need to use a shim for that.
In a case of SPA, you may consider not storing the token at all: It could be fetched each time your application is accessed and then stored within a service in angularjs, but it depends how your fetch/login operation is implemented (is it always interactive, how long does it take, etc).
I would suggest use $cookies rather than localstorage. As localstorage does not support some legacy browser.
I am using cookies to store token in my project

RESTful Token Authentication Clarification

I've read almost every answer on SO and some blog postings, but I can't figure out one simple thing. In a simple token authentication scheme where the server generates a token and sends it back to the user after verifying credentials, how does the client store and then resend that token in each request? I have seen both cookie examples and header examples. I would like to use the HTTP Headers if possible, but I can't figure out the mechanics of how to send the token to the client, where it will sit, and then have it sent back in the header upon requesting a REST resource.
I am using Jersey/Guice with AngularJS on the front end. Here are the resources I started with:
http://porterhead.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/writing-rest-services-in-java-part-6.html
Session management : How to generate Authentication token for REST service ? (Jersey)
It depends on your needs. You can use HTTP basic or digest auth, if it is appropriate for you. If not, then if you don't need a permanent storage, you can store credentials in memory. If you need a permanent storage, then you can store them in localstorage, or any other client side storage, but aware, that they are considered not secure.
Anyways I think if your client or service is compromised somehow with xss, then you lost, and it does not matter what else you do about it. Otherwise you can send the credentials in plain text securely as long as you use HTTPS with proper settings. (But that's just an opinion, I am not a security expert, at least not in this topic.) So I think you should concentrate on not being xss vulnerable. For example you should use the proper headers and filter the input against js injection (and by firefox data URI injection). And use TextNode in your client instead of innerHTML wherever it is possible.
For example if you are using Javascript you can store the token in localstorage like window.localStorage["token_id"] on the client side.

Resources