While writing the the second part of my Authentication and security for REST API in the context of Web Apps series of posts, I realized that discussing the different alternatives to store credentials token was more extensive than I previously thought.
This post focuses on storing and transmitting credentials in band. This means the API is designed in such a way that the underlying Web App is aware and directly manages the credential token (e.g., Web Storage). The other half of the discussion focuses on out-of-band credential storage.
Most REST API libraries, frameworks, and essays in general, recommend using the Authentication Bearer HTTP mechanism. Which is pretty much perfect from a REST point of view, since it is stateless and handled manually by the app. No browser/user-agent handle them automatically the way they handle cookies, yet.
In any case, even if the tokens need to be manually managed by the app, it wouldn’t be practical to require the developer to do it independently for each and every request. The credentials and authentication management part MUST be segregated from the business logic part of the application’s code. Both to avoid code duplication, which is error-prone and hard to maintain, and to reduce the exposition surface of the tokens. Having a smaller amount of code dealing with credentials and tokens will mean requiring an attacker to analyze more code before being able to exploit any potential XSS vulnerabilities to steal the token. Once this segregation is in place, the tokens would basically become an out-of-band resource from the point of view of the business logic part of the app.
Either way, an attacker could trivially either duplicate the authentication code or leverage the authentication library of the attacked app. Therefore, none of these solutions will prevent XSS vulnerabilities in any ways and they MUST be addressed in other ways.
Since the token is available in-band to the Web App itself, an attacker would not need to trigger XST or other convoluted attack to be able to steal the token.
REST and HATEOAS’s goal is to make machine crawling of an API easy. They aim to be exploitable by software with no a priori knowledge of the API or the service behind it. Therefore, an attacker does not need to steal or copy any token. Simply by leveraging the API discoverability feature itself, they will be able to extract every single piece of information from the API, automatically.
It is important to note, that Web storage APIs, although broadly implemented and available, still have some issues or unavailability depending on the browser configuration (e.g. private browsing).
For these reasons, some Web App and API will still require cookie-based token management. This can be mitigating by restraining the access to this feature in the API and forcing tokens to include how they should be used (as a Bearer manually managed token or via cookies).
There are several ways to store tokens in-band. Each with their pros and cons.
The biggest advantage to this solution is technology availability. Any browser able to handle an SPA will be able to store a variable somewhere and send it back to the server.
On the cons side, this solution offers no permanent storage (no long term tokens can be effectively used). It will also cut the user from well known and expected behaviors, like session forking (opening a link in a new tab or window, while keeping the user’s session active).
In cases where the App is designed in such a way that this this behavior would create issues anyway, this might be an acceptable solution for short term tokens. However, No design choice or workflow example fitting this description would still be provided by a stateless Web App and API.
This solution SHOULD NOT be used unless the browser environment is such that session forking is impossible.
Session storage is to local storage, what session cookies are to permanent/time-based expiration cookies.
Session storage is basically a local storage bound to a session. This is not a permanent storage. Therefore, this is not appropriate for long term tokens.
However, session storage specification requires supporting session forking. There are still some use cases the user wouldn’t get their session storage back (test for the feature is available at http://jsfiddle.net/moucdygg/2/).
Future implementation will possibly include more use cases in what is considered session forking. Thus, making session storage more and more reliable as a acceptable short-term token storage. Moreover, using a “remember me” token in a permanent storage (even a short term one), could mitigate these issues quite effectively.
Plus, since the storage is automatically cleared when the session is closed, this will reduce potentially higher value (explicitly authenticated) short term tokens’ exposure, even if just by a few minutes.
By creating a new browser tab or window from scratch, a user would rely on a clear session storage. An App relying on session storage for short term tokens would provide a better experience to users trying to manage multiple accounts at once.
When possible, session storage SHOULD be used as a short term token store.
The credential management specification is designed to allow browsers and user-agents to easily and securely store and manage user credentials. Credentials are provided to the Web App either explicitly (with the user authorization) or silently (without the user knowledge). They are not intended to be harder to use than standard Web storage, but offer better user control.
Short term tokens MAY be stored in Credential Management storage, but it offers no discernible advantage at the moment.
However, credentials are segregated by origin, but not by session. Thus, if allowing the user to open multiple sessions at once (e.g., by creating multiple tabs or window not sharing session storage) is a desirable feature, Credential Management storage will most probably not be able to store short-term tokens in this context.
On the other hand, Credential Management storage is designed and extremely well-suited to host long-term tokens. It SHOULD be used to store these. Unfortunately, at the time of writing this, Credential Management API is far from being widely supported. Other solutions will therefore be required until it becomes widely available.
Whether to use it or not for user credentials is outside the scope of the current discussion.
Local storage is, currently, the only widely supported manually managed permanent storage available to Web Apps. Local storage is safely segregated using the same-origin policy and offer cross-session durability.
However, given their durability, and the fact that there is no way to expire data in it, explicitly authenticated (high value) tokens SHOULD NOT be stored in local storage. If the support for session forking of the session storage is deemed inappropriate short term tokens MAY be stored in local storage. However, in general, short term token are more appropriately stored in session storage and SHOULD NOT be stored in local storage.
Long term tokens are more appropriately stored in secured credentials specific storage (such as Credential Management storage). However, until the implementation of such credential-specific secure storage is widely available, local storage MAY be used to store long term tokens.
In the next part, we will focus on designing a [RESTful API to manage these tokens][part-3].