Tag Archives: authentication

How to add authentication to a single-page web application with Amazon Cognito OAuth2 implementation

Post Syndicated from George Conti original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-add-authentication-single-page-web-application-with-amazon-cognito-oauth2-implementation/

In this post, I’ll be showing you how to configure Amazon Cognito as an OpenID provider (OP) with a single-page web application.

This use case describes using Amazon Cognito to integrate with an existing authorization system following the OpenID Connect (OIDC) specification. OIDC is an identity layer on top of the OAuth 2.0 protocol to enable clients to verify the identity of users. Amazon Cognito lets you add user sign-up, sign-in, and access control to your web and mobile apps quickly and easily. Some key reasons customers select Amazon Cognito include:

  • Simplicity of implementation: The console is very intuitive; it takes a short time to understand how to configure and use Amazon Cognito. Amazon Cognito also has key out-of-the-box functionality, including social sign-in, multi-factor authentication (MFA), forgotten password support, and infrastructure as code (AWS CloudFormation) support.
  • Ability to customize workflows: Amazon Cognito offers the option of a hosted UI where users can sign-in directly to Amazon Cognito or sign-in via social identity providers such as Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook. The Amazon Cognito hosted UI and workflows help save your team significant time and effort.
  • OIDC support: Amazon Cognito can securely pass user profile information to an existing authorization system following the ODIC authorization code flow. The authorization system uses the user profile information to secure access to the app.

Amazon Cognito overview

Amazon Cognito follows the OIDC specification to authenticate users of web and mobile apps. Users can sign in directly through the Amazon Cognito hosted UI or through a federated identity provider, such as Amazon, Facebook, Apple, or Google. The hosted UI workflows include sign-in and sign-up, password reset, and MFA. Since not all customer workflows are the same, you can customize Amazon Cognito workflows at key points with AWS Lambda functions, allowing you to run code without provisioning or managing servers. After a user authenticates, Amazon Cognito returns standard OIDC tokens. You can use the user profile information in the ID token to grant your users access to your own resources or you can use the tokens to grant access to APIs hosted by Amazon API Gateway. You can also exchange the tokens for temporary AWS credentials to access other AWS services.

Figure 1: Amazon Cognito sign-in flow

Figure 1: Amazon Cognito sign-in flow

OAuth 2.0 and OIDC

OAuth 2.0 is an open standard that allows a user to delegate access to their information to other websites or applications without handing over credentials. OIDC is an identity layer on top of OAuth 2.0 that uses OAuth 2.0 flows. OAuth 2.0 defines a number of flows to manage the interaction between the application, user, and authorization server. The right flow to use depends on the type of application.

The client credentials flow is used in machine-to-machine communications. You can use the client credentials flow to request an access token to access your own resources, which means you can use this flow when your app is requesting the token on its own behalf, not on behalf of a user. The authorization code grant flow is used to return an authorization code that is then exchanged for user pool tokens. Because the tokens are never exposed directly to the user, they are less likely to be shared broadly or accessed by an unauthorized party. However, a custom application is required on the back end to exchange the authorization code for user pool tokens. For security reasons, we recommend the Authorization Code Flow with Proof Key Code Exchange (PKCE) for public clients, such as single-page apps or native mobile apps.

The following table shows recommended flows per application type.

ApplicationCFlowDescription
MachineClient credentialsUse this flow when your application is requesting the token on its own behalf, not on behalf of the user
Web app on a serverAuthorization code grantA regular web app on a web server
Single-page appAuthorization code grant PKCEAn app running in the browser, such as JavaScript
Mobile appAuthorization code grant PKCEiOS or Android app

Securing the authorization code flow

Amazon Cognito can help you achieve compliance with regulatory frameworks and certifications, but it’s your responsibility to use the service in a way that remains compliant and secure. You need to determine the sensitivity of the user profile data in Amazon Cognito; adhere to your company’s security requirements, applicable laws and regulations; and configure your application and corresponding Amazon Cognito settings appropriately for your use case.

Note: You can learn more about regulatory frameworks and certifications at AWS Services in Scope by Compliance Program. You can download compliance reports from AWS Artifact.

We recommend that you use the authorization code flow with PKCE for single-page apps. Applications that use PKCE generate a random code verifier that’s created for every authorization request. Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients has more information on use of a code verifier. In the following sections, I will show you how to set up the Amazon Cognito authorization endpoint for your app to support a code verifier.

The authorization code flow

In OpenID terms, the app is the relying party (RP) and Amazon Cognito is the OP. The flow for the authorization code flow with PKCE is as follows:

  1. The user enters the app home page URL in the browser and the browser fetches the app.
  2. The app generates the PKCE code challenge and redirects the request to the Amazon Cognito OAuth2 authorization endpoint (/oauth2/authorize).
  3. Amazon Cognito responds back to the user’s browser with the Amazon Cognito hosted sign-in page.
  4. The user signs in with their user name and password, signs up as a new user, or signs in with a federated sign-in. After a successful sign-in, Amazon Cognito returns the authorization code to the browser, which redirects the authorization code back to the app.
  5. The app sends a request to the Amazon Cognito OAuth2 token endpoint (/oauth2/token) with the authorization code, its client credentials, and the PKCE verifier.
  6. Amazon Cognito authenticates the app with the supplied credentials, validates the authorization code, validates the request with the code verifier, and returns the OpenID tokens, access token, ID token, and refresh token.
  7. The app validates the OpenID ID token and then uses the user profile information (claims) in the ID token to provide access to resources.(Optional) The app can use the access token to retrieve the user profile information from the Amazon Cognito user information endpoint (/userInfo).
  8. Amazon Cognito returns the user profile information (claims) about the authenticated user to the app. The app then uses the claims to provide access to resources.

The following diagram shows the authorization code flow with PKCE.

Figure 2: Authorization code flow

Figure 2: Authorization code flow

Implementing an app with Amazon Cognito authentication

Now that you’ve learned about Amazon Cognito OAuth implementation, let’s create a working example app that uses Amazon Cognito OAuth implementation. You’ll create an Amazon Cognito user pool along with an app client, the app, an Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) bucket, and an Amazon CloudFront distribution for the app, and you’ll configure the app client.

Step 1. Create a user pool

Start by creating your user pool with the default configuration.

Create a user pool:

  1. Go to the Amazon Cognito console and select Manage User Pools. This takes you to the User Pools Directory.
  2. Select Create a user pool in the upper corner.
  3. Enter a Pool name, select Review defaults, and select Create pool.
  4. Copy the Pool ID, which will be used later to create your single-page app. It will be something like region_xxxxx. You will use it to replace the variable YOUR_USERPOOL_ID in a later step.(Optional) You can add additional features to the user pool, but this demonstration uses the default configuration. For more information see, the Amazon Cognito documentation.

The following figure shows you entering the user pool name.

Figure 3: Enter a name for the user pool

Figure 3: Enter a name for the user pool

The following figure shows the resulting user pool configuration.

Figure 4: Completed user pool configuration

Figure 4: Completed user pool configuration

Step 2. Create a domain name

The Amazon Cognito hosted UI lets you use your own domain name or you can add a prefix to the Amazon Cognito domain. This example uses an Amazon Cognito domain with a prefix.

Create a domain name:

  1. Sign in to the Amazon Cognito console, select Manage User Pools, and select your user pool.
  2. Under App integration, select Domain name.
  3. In the Amazon Cognito domain section, add your Domain prefix (for example, myblog).
  4. Select Check availability. If your domain isn’t available, change the domain prefix and try again.
  5. When your domain is confirmed as available, copy the Domain prefix to use when you create your single-page app. You will use it to replace the variable YOUR_COGNITO_DOMAIN_PREFIX in a later step.
  6. Choose Save changes.

The following figure shows creating an Amazon Cognito hosted domain.

Figure 5: Creating an Amazon Cognito hosted UI domain

Figure 5: Creating an Amazon Cognito hosted UI domain

Step 3. Create an app client

Now create the app client user pool. An app client is where you register your app with the user pool. Generally, you create an app client for each app platform. For example, you might create an app client for a single-page app and another app client for a mobile app. Each app client has its own ID, authentication flows, and permissions to access user attributes.

Create an app client:

  1. Sign in to the Amazon Cognito console, select Manage User Pools, and select your user pool.
  2. Under General settings, select App clients.
  3. Choose Add an app client.
  4. Enter a name for the app client in the App client name field.
  5. Uncheck Generate client secret and accept the remaining default configurations.

    Note: The client secret is used to authenticate the app client to the user pool. Generate client secret is unchecked because you don’t want to send the client secret on the URL using client-side JavaScript. The client secret is used by applications that have a server-side component that can secure the client secret.

  6. Choose Create app client as shown in the following figure.

    Figure 6: Create and configure an app client

    Figure 6: Create and configure an app client

  7. Copy the App client ID. You will use it to replace the variable YOUR_APPCLIENT_ID in a later step.

The following figure shows the App client ID which is automatically generated when the app client is created.

Figure 7: App client configuration

Figure 7: App client configuration

Step 4. Create an Amazon S3 website bucket

Amazon S3 is an object storage service that offers industry-leading scalability, data availability, security, and performance. We use Amazon S3 here to host a static website.

Create an Amazon S3 bucket with the following settings:

  1. Sign in to the AWS Management Console and open the Amazon S3 console.
  2. Choose Create bucket to start the Create bucket wizard.
  3. In Bucket name, enter a DNS-compliant name for your bucket. You will use this in a later step to replace the YOURS3BUCKETNAME variable.
  4. In Region, choose the AWS Region where you want the bucket to reside.

    Note: It’s recommended to create the Amazon S3 bucket in the same AWS Region as Amazon Cognito.

  5. Look up the region code from the region table (for example, US-East [N. Virginia] has a region code of us-east-1). You will use the region code to replace the variable YOUR_REGION in a later step.
  6. Choose Next.
  7. Select the Versioning checkbox.
  8. Choose Next.
  9. Choose Next.
  10. Choose Create bucket.
  11. Select the bucket you just created from the Amazon S3 bucket list.
  12. Select the Properties tab.
  13. Choose Static website hosting.
  14. Choose Use this bucket to host a website.
  15. For the index document, enter index.html and then choose Save.

Step 5. Create a CloudFront distribution

Amazon CloudFront is a fast content delivery network service that helps securely deliver data, videos, applications, and APIs to customers globally with low latency and high transfer speeds—all within a developer-friendly environment. In this step, we use CloudFront to set up an HTTPS-enabled domain for the static website hosted on Amazon S3.

Create a CloudFront distribution (web distribution) with the following modified default settings:

  1. Sign into the AWS Management Console and open the CloudFront console.
  2. Choose Create Distribution.
  3. On the first page of the Create Distribution Wizard, in the Web section, choose Get Started.
  4. Choose the Origin Domain Name from the dropdown list. It will be YOURS3BUCKETNAME.s3.amazonaws.com.
  5. For Restrict Bucket Access, select Yes.
  6. For Origin Access Identity, select Create a New Identity.
  7. For Grant Read Permission on Bucket, select Yes, Update Bucket Policy.
  8. For the Viewer Protocol Policy, select Redirect HTTP to HTTPS.
  9. For Cache Policy, select Managed-Caching Disabled.
  10. Set the Default Root Object to index.html.(Optional) Add a comment. Comments are a good place to describe the purpose of your distribution, for example, “Amazon Cognito SPA.”
  11. Select Create Distribution. The distribution will take a few minutes to create and update.
  12. Copy the Domain Name. This is the CloudFront distribution domain name, which you will use in a later step as the DOMAINNAME value in the YOUR_REDIRECT_URI variable.

Step 6. Create the app

Now that you’ve created the Amazon S3 bucket for static website hosting and the CloudFront distribution for the site, you’re ready to use the code that follows to create a sample app.

Use the following information from the previous steps:

  1. YOUR_COGNITO_DOMAIN_PREFIX is from Step 2.
  2. YOUR_REGION is the AWS region you used in Step 4 when you created your Amazon S3 bucket.
  3. YOUR_APPCLIENT_ID is the App client ID from Step 3.
  4. YOUR_USERPOOL_ID is the Pool ID from Step 1.
  5. YOUR_REDIRECT_URI, which is https://DOMAINNAME/index.html, where DOMAINNAME is your domain name from Step 5.

Create userprofile.js

Use the following text to create the userprofile.js file. Substitute the preceding pre-existing values for the variables in the text.

var myHeaders = new Headers();
myHeaders.set('Cache-Control', 'no-store');
var urlParams = new URLSearchParams(window.location.search);
var tokens;
var domain = "YOUR_COGNITO_DOMAIN_PREFIX";
var region = "YOUR_REGION";
var appClientId = "YOUR_APPCLIENT_ID";
var userPoolId = "YOUR_USERPOOL_ID";
var redirectURI = "YOUR_REDIRECT_URI";

//Convert Payload from Base64-URL to JSON
const decodePayload = payload => {
  const cleanedPayload = payload.replace(/-/g, '+').replace(/_/g, '/');
  const decodedPayload = atob(cleanedPayload)
  const uriEncodedPayload = Array.from(decodedPayload).reduce((acc, char) => {
    const uriEncodedChar = ('00' + char.charCodeAt(0).toString(16)).slice(-2)
    return `${acc}%${uriEncodedChar}`
  }, '')
  const jsonPayload = decodeURIComponent(uriEncodedPayload);

  return JSON.parse(jsonPayload)
}

//Parse JWT Payload
const parseJWTPayload = token => {
    const [header, payload, signature] = token.split('.');
    const jsonPayload = decodePayload(payload)

    return jsonPayload
};

//Parse JWT Header
const parseJWTHeader = token => {
    const [header, payload, signature] = token.split('.');
    const jsonHeader = decodePayload(header)

    return jsonHeader
};

//Generate a Random String
const getRandomString = () => {
    const randomItems = new Uint32Array(28);
    crypto.getRandomValues(randomItems);
    const binaryStringItems = randomItems.map(dec => `0${dec.toString(16).substr(-2)}`)
    return binaryStringItems.reduce((acc, item) => `${acc}${item}`, '');
}

//Encrypt a String with SHA256
const encryptStringWithSHA256 = async str => {
    const PROTOCOL = 'SHA-256'
    const textEncoder = new TextEncoder();
    const encodedData = textEncoder.encode(str);
    return crypto.subtle.digest(PROTOCOL, encodedData);
}

//Convert Hash to Base64-URL
const hashToBase64url = arrayBuffer => {
    const items = new Uint8Array(arrayBuffer)
    const stringifiedArrayHash = items.reduce((acc, i) => `${acc}${String.fromCharCode(i)}`, '')
    const decodedHash = btoa(stringifiedArrayHash)

    const base64URL = decodedHash.replace(/\+/g, '-').replace(/\//g, '_').replace(/=+$/, '');
    return base64URL
}

// Main Function
async function main() {
  var code = urlParams.get('code');

  //If code not present then request code else request tokens
  if (code == null){

    // Create random "state"
    var state = getRandomString();
    sessionStorage.setItem("pkce_state", state);

    // Create PKCE code verifier
    var code_verifier = getRandomString();
    sessionStorage.setItem("code_verifier", code_verifier);

    // Create code challenge
    var arrayHash = await encryptStringWithSHA256(code_verifier);
    var code_challenge = hashToBase64url(arrayHash);
    sessionStorage.setItem("code_challenge", code_challenge)

    // Redirtect user-agent to /authorize endpoint
    location.href = "https://"+domain+".auth."+region+".amazoncognito.com/oauth2/authorize?response_type=code&state="+state+"&client_id="+appClientId+"&redirect_uri="+redirectURI+"&scope=openid&code_challenge_method=S256&code_challenge="+code_challenge;
  } else {

    // Verify state matches
    state = urlParams.get('state');
    if(sessionStorage.getItem("pkce_state") != state) {
        alert("Invalid state");
    } else {

    // Fetch OAuth2 tokens from Cognito
    code_verifier = sessionStorage.getItem('code_verifier');
  await fetch("https://"+domain+".auth."+region+".amazoncognito.com/oauth2/token?grant_type=authorization_code&client_id="+appClientId+"&code_verifier="+code_verifier+"&redirect_uri="+redirectURI+"&code="+ code,{
  method: 'post',
  headers: {
    'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'
  }})
  .then((response) => {
    return response.json();
  })
  .then((data) => {

    // Verify id_token
    tokens=data;
    var idVerified = verifyToken (tokens.id_token);
    Promise.resolve(idVerified).then(function(value) {
      if (value.localeCompare("verified")){
        alert("Invalid ID Token - "+ value);
        return;
      }
      });
    // Display tokens
    document.getElementById("id_token").innerHTML = JSON.stringify(parseJWTPayload(tokens.id_token),null,'\t');
    document.getElementById("access_token").innerHTML = JSON.stringify(parseJWTPayload(tokens.access_token),null,'\t');
  });

    // Fetch from /user_info
    await fetch("https://"+domain+".auth."+region+".amazoncognito.com/oauth2/userInfo",{
      method: 'post',
      headers: {
        'authorization': 'Bearer ' + tokens.access_token
    }})
    .then((response) => {
      return response.json();
    })
    .then((data) => {
      // Display user information
      document.getElementById("userInfo").innerHTML = JSON.stringify(data, null,'\t');
    });
  }}}
  main();

Create the verifier.js file

Use the following text to create the verifier.js file.

var key_id;
var keys;
var key_index;

//verify token
async function verifyToken (token) {
//get Cognito keys
keys_url = 'https://cognito-idp.'+ region +'.amazonaws.com/' + userPoolId + '/.well-known/jwks.json';
await fetch(keys_url)
.then((response) => {
return response.json();
})
.then((data) => {
keys = data['keys'];
});

//Get the kid (key id)
var tokenHeader = parseJWTHeader(token);
key_id = tokenHeader.kid;

//search for the kid key id in the Cognito Keys
const key = keys.find(key =>key.kid===key_id)
if (key === undefined){
return "Public key not found in Cognito jwks.json";
}

//verify JWT Signature
var keyObj = KEYUTIL.getKey(key);
var isValid = KJUR.jws.JWS.verifyJWT(token, keyObj, {alg: ["RS256"]});
if (isValid){
} else {
return("Signature verification failed");
}

//verify token has not expired
var tokenPayload = parseJWTPayload(token);
if (Date.now() >= tokenPayload.exp * 1000) {
return("Token expired");
}

//verify app_client_id
var n = tokenPayload.aud.localeCompare(appClientId)
if (n != 0){
return("Token was not issued for this audience");
}
return("verified");
};

Create an index.html file

Use the following text to create the index.html file.

<!doctype html>

<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">

<title>MyApp</title>
<meta name="description" content="My Application">
<meta name="author" content="Your Name">
</head>

<body>
<h2>Cognito User</h2>

<p style="white-space:pre-line;" id="token_status"></p>

<p>Id Token</p>
<p style="white-space:pre-line;" id="id_token"></p>

<p>Access Token</p>
<p style="white-space:pre-line;" id="access_token"></p>

<p>User Profile</p>
<p style="white-space:pre-line;" id="userInfo"></p>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"
src="https://kjur.github.io/jsrsasign/jsrsasign-latest-all-min.js">
</script>
<script src="js/verifier.js"></script>
<script src="js/userprofile.js"></script>
</body>
</html>

Upload the files into the Amazon S3 Bucket you created earlier

Upload the files you just created to the Amazon S3 bucket that you created in Step 4. If you’re using Chrome or Firefox browsers, you can choose the folders and files to upload and then drag and drop them into the destination bucket. Dragging and dropping is the only way that you can upload folders.

  1. Sign in to the AWS Management Console and open the Amazon S3 console.
  2. In the Bucket name list, choose the name of the bucket that you created earlier in Step 4.
  3. In a window other than the console window, select the index.html file to upload. Then drag and drop the file into the console window that lists the destination bucket.
  4. In the Upload dialog box, choose Upload.
  5. Choose Create Folder.
  6. Enter the name js and choose Save.
  7. Choose the js folder.
  8. In a window other than the console window, select the userprofile.js and verifier.js files to upload. Then drag and drop the files into the console window js folder.

    Note: The Amazon S3 bucket root will contain the index.html file and a js folder. The js folder will contain the userprofile.js and verifier.js files.

Step 7. Configure the app client settings

Use the Amazon Cognito console to configure the app client settings, including identity providers, OAuth flows, and OAuth scopes.

Configure the app client settings:

  1. Go to the Amazon Cognito console.
  2. Choose Manage your User Pools.
  3. Select your user pool.
  4. Select App integration, and then select App client settings.
  5. Under Enabled Identity Providers, select Cognito User Pool.(Optional) You can add federated identity providers. Adding User Pool Sign-in Through a Third-Party has more information about how to add federation providers.
  6. Enter the Callback URL(s) where the user is to be redirected after successfully signing in. The callback URL is the URL of your web app that will receive the authorization code. In our example, this will be the Domain Name for the CloudFront distribution you created earlier. It will look something like https://DOMAINNAME/index.html where DOMAINNAME is xxxxxxx.cloudfront.net.

    Note: HTTPS is required for the Callback URLs. For this example, I used CloudFront as a HTTPS endpoint for the app in Amazon S3.

  7. Next, select Authorization code grant from the Allowed OAuth Flows and OpenID from Allowed OAuth Scopes. The OpenID scope will return the ID token and grant access to all user attributes that are readable by the client.
  8. Choose Save changes.

Step 8. Show the app home page

Now that the Amazon Cognito user pool is configured and the sample app is built, you can test using Amazon Cognito as an OP from the sample JavaScript app you created in Step 6.

View the app’s home page:

  1. Open a web browser and enter the app’s home page URL using the CloudFront distribution to serve your index.html page created in Step 6 (https://DOMAINNAME/index.html) and the app will redirect the browser to the Amazon Cognito /authorize endpoint.
  2. The /authorize endpoint redirects the browser to the Amazon Cognito hosted UI, where the user can sign in or sign up. The following figure shows the user sign-in page.

    Figure 8: User sign-in page

    Figure 8: User sign-in page

Step 9. Create a user

You can use the Amazon Cognito user pool to manage your users or you can use a federated identity provider. Users can sign in or sign up from the Amazon Cognito hosted UI or from a federated identity provider. If you configured a federated identity provider, users will see a list of federated providers that they can choose from. When a user chooses a federated identity provider, they are redirected to the federated identity provider sign-in page. After signing in, the browser is directed back to Amazon Cognito. For this post, Amazon Cognito is the only identity provider, so you will use the Amazon Cognito hosted UI to create an Amazon Cognito user.

Create a new user using Amazon Cognito hosted UI:

  1. Create a new user by selecting Sign up and entering a username, password, and email address. Then select the Sign up button. The following figure shows the sign up screen.

    Figure 9: Sign up with a new account

    Figure 9: Sign up with a new account

  2. The Amazon Cognito sign up workflow will verify the email address by sending a verification code to that address. The following figure shows the prompt to enter the verification code.

    Figure 10: Enter the verification code

    Figure 10: Enter the verification code

  3. Enter the code from the verification email in the Verification Code text box.
  4. Select Confirm Account.

Step 10. Viewing the Amazon Cognito tokens and profile information

After authentication, the app displays the tokens and user information. The following figure shows the OAuth2 access token and OIDC ID token that are returned from the /token endpoint and the user profile returned from the /userInfo endpoint. Now that the user has been authenticated, the application can use the user’s email address to look up the user’s account information in an application data store. Based on the user’s account information, the application can grant/restrict access to paid content or show account information like order history.

Figure 11: Token and user profile information

Figure 11: Token and user profile information

Note: Many browsers will cache redirects. If your browser is repeatedly redirecting to the index.html page, clear the browser cache.

Summary

In this post, we’ve shown you how easy it is to add user authentication to your web and mobile apps with Amazon Cognito.

We created a Cognito User Pool as our user directory, assigned a domain name to the Amazon Cognito hosted UI, and created an application client for our application. Then we created an Amazon S3 bucket to host our website. Next, we created a CloudFront distribution for our Amazon S3 bucket. Then we created our application and uploaded it to our Amazon S3 website bucket. From there, we configured the client app settings with our identity provider, OAuth flows, and scopes. Then we accessed our application and used the Amazon Cognito sign-in flow to create a username and password. Finally, we logged into our application to see the OAuth and OIDC tokens.

Amazon Cognito saves you time and effort when implementing authentication with an intuitive UI, OAuth2 and OIDC support, and customizable workflows. You can now focus on building features that are important to your core business.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, start a new thread on the Amazon Cognito forum or contact AWS Support.

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.

Author

George Conti

George is a Solution Architect for the AWS Financial Services team. He is passonate about technology and helping Financial Services Companies build solutions with AWS Services.

On Risk-Based Authentication

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/10/on-risk-based-authentication.html

Interesting usability study: “More Than Just Good Passwords? A Study on Usability and Security Perceptions of Risk-based Authentication“:

Abstract: Risk-based Authentication (RBA) is an adaptive security measure to strengthen password-based authentication. RBA monitors additional features during login, and when observed feature values differ significantly from previously seen ones, users have to provide additional authentication factors such as a verification code. RBA has the potential to offer more usable authentication, but the usability and the security perceptions of RBA are not studied well.

We present the results of a between-group lab study (n=65) to evaluate usability and security perceptions of two RBA variants, one 2FA variant, and password-only authentication. Our study shows with significant results that RBA is considered to be more usable than the studied 2FA variants, while it is perceived as more secure than password-only authentication in general and comparably se-cure to 2FA in a variety of application types. We also observed RBA usability problems and provide recommendations for mitigation.Our contribution provides a first deeper understanding of the users’perception of RBA and helps to improve RBA implementations for a broader user acceptance.

Paper’s website. I’ve blogged about risk-based authentication before.

Is It Really Two-Factor Authentication?

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/is-it-really-two-factor-authentication/

Terminology-wise, there is a clear distinction between two-factor authentication (multi-factor authentication) and two-step verification (authentication), as this article explains. 2FA/MFA is authentication using more than one factors, i.e. “something you know” (password), “something you have” (token, card) and “something you are” (biometrics). Two-step verification is basically using two passwords – one permanent and another one that is short-lived and one-time.

At least that’s the theory. In practice it’s more complicated to say which authentication methods belongs to which category (“something you X”). Let me illustrate that with a few emamples:

  • An OTP hardware token is considered “something you have”. But it uses a shared symmetric secret with the server so that both can generate the same code at the same time (if using TOTP), or the same sequence. This means the secret is effectively “something you know”, because someone may steal it from the server, even though the hardware token is protected. Unless, of course, the server stores the shared secret in an HSM and does the OTP comparison on the HSM itself (some support that). And there’s still a theoretical possibility for the keys to leak prior to being stored on hardware. So is a hardware token “something you have” or “something you know”? For practical purposes it can be considered “something you have”
  • Smartphone OTP is often not considered as secure as a hardware token, but it should be, due to the secure storage of modern phones. The secret is shared once during enrollment (usually with on-screen scanning), so it should be “something you have” as much as a hardware token
  • SMS is not considered secure and often given as an example for 2-step verification, because it’s just another password. While that’s true, this is because of a particular SS7 vulnerability (allowing the interception of mobile communication). If mobile communication standards were secure, the SIM card would be tied to the number and only the SIM card holder would be able to receive the message, making it “something you have”. But with the known vulnerabilities, it is “something you know”, and that something is actually the phone number.
  • Fingerprint scanners represent “something you are”. And in most devices they are built in a way that the scanner authenticates to the phone (being cryptographically bound to the CPU) while transmitting the fingerprint data, so you can’t just intercept the bytes transferred and then replay them. That’s the theory; it’s not publicly documented how it’s implemented. But if it were not so, then “something you are” is “something you have” – a sequence of bytes representing your fingerprint scan, and that can leak. This is precisely why biometric identification should only be done locally, on the phone, without any server interaction – you can’t make sure the server is receiving sensor-scanned data or captured and replayed data. That said, biometric factors are tied to the proper implementation of the authenticating smartphone application – if your, say, banking application needs a fingerprint scan to run, a malicious actor should not be able to bypass that by stealing shared credentials (userIDs, secrets) and do API calls to your service. So to the server there’s no “something you are”. It’s always “something that the client-side application has verified that you are, if implemented properly”
  • A digital signature (via a smartcard or yubikey or even a smartphone with secure hardware storage for private keys) is “something you have” – it works by signing one-time challenges, sent by the server and verifying that the signature has been created by the private key associated with the previously enrolled public key. Knowing the public key gives you nothing, because of how public-key cryptography works. There’s no shared secret and no intermediary whose data flow can be intercepted. A private key is still “something you know”, but by putting it in hardware it becomes “something you have”, i.e. a true second factor. Of course, until someone finds out that the random generation of primes used for generating the private key has been broken and you can derive the private key form the public key (as happened recently with one vendor).

There isn’t an obvious boundary between theoretical and practical. “Something you are” and “something you have” can eventually be turned into “something you know” (or “something someone stores”). Some theoretical attacks can become very practical overnight.

I’d suggest we stick to calling everything “two-factor authentication”, because it’s more important to have mass understanding of the usefulness of the technique than to nitpick on the terminology. 2FA does not solve phishing, unfortunately, but it solves leaked credentials, which is good enough and everyone should have some form of it. Even SMS is better than nothing (obviously, for high-profile systems, digital signatures is the way to go).

The post Is It Really Two-Factor Authentication? appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

New Bluetooth Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/09/new-bluetooth-vulnerability.html

There’s a new unpatched Bluetooth vulnerability:

The issue is with a protocol called Cross-Transport Key Derivation (or CTKD, for short). When, say, an iPhone is getting ready to pair up with Bluetooth-powered device, CTKD’s role is to set up two separate authentication keys for that phone: one for a “Bluetooth Low Energy” device, and one for a device using what’s known as the “Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate” standard. Different devices require different amounts of data — and battery power — from a phone. Being able to toggle between the standards needed for Bluetooth devices that take a ton of data (like a Chromecast), and those that require a bit less (like a smartwatch) is more efficient. Incidentally, it might also be less secure.

According to the researchers, if a phone supports both of those standards but doesn’t require some sort of authentication or permission on the user’s end, a hackery sort who’s within Bluetooth range can use its CTKD connection to derive its own competing key. With that connection, according to the researchers, this sort of erzatz authentication can also allow bad actors to weaken the encryption that these keys use in the first place — which can open its owner up to more attacks further down the road, or perform “man in the middle” style attacks that snoop on unprotected data being sent by the phone’s apps and services.

Another article:

Patches are not immediately available at the time of writing. The only way to protect against BLURtooth attacks is to control the environment in which Bluetooth devices are paired, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, or pairings with rogue devices carried out via social engineering (tricking the human operator).

However, patches are expected to be available at one point. When they’ll be, they’ll most likely be integrated as firmware or operating system updates for Bluetooth capable devices.

The timeline for these updates is, for the moment, unclear, as device vendors and OS makers usually work on different timelines, and some may not prioritize security patches as others. The number of vulnerable devices is also unclear and hard to quantify.

Many Bluetooth devices can’t be patched.

Final note: this seems to be another example of simultaneous discovery:

According to the Bluetooth SIG, the BLURtooth attack was discovered independently by two groups of academics from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and Purdue University.

Bluetooth Vulnerability: BIAS

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/bluetooth_vulne_1.html

This is new research on a Bluetooth vulnerability (called BIAS) that allows someone to impersonate a trusted device:

Abstract: Bluetooth (BR/EDR) is a pervasive technology for wireless communication used by billions of devices. The Bluetooth standard includes a legacy authentication procedure and a secure authentication procedure, allowing devices to authenticate to each other using a long term key. Those procedures are used during pairing and secure connection establishment to prevent impersonation attacks. In this paper, we show that the Bluetooth specification contains vulnerabilities enabling to perform impersonation attacks during secure connection establishment. Such vulnerabilities include the lack of mandatory mutual authentication, overly permissive role switching, and an authentication procedure downgrade. We describe each vulnerability in detail, and we exploit them to design, implement, and evaluate master and slave impersonation attacks on both the legacy authentication procedure and the secure authentication procedure. We refer to our attacks as Bluetooth Impersonation AttackS (BIAS).

Our attacks are standard compliant, and are therefore effective against any standard compliant Bluetooth device regardless the Bluetooth version, the security mode (e.g., Secure Connections), the device manufacturer, and the implementation details. Our attacks are stealthy because the Bluetooth standard does not require to notify end users about the outcome of an authentication procedure, or the lack of mutual authentication. To confirm that the BIAS attacks are practical, we successfully conduct them against 31 Bluetooth devices (28 unique Bluetooth chips) from major hardware and software vendors, implementing all the major Bluetooth versions, including Apple, Qualcomm, Intel, Cypress, Broadcom, Samsung, and CSR.

News articles.

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

Post Syndicated from Junade Ali original https://blog.cloudflare.com/time-based-one-time-passwords-for-phone-support/

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

As part of Cloudflare’s support offering, we provide phone support to Enterprise customers who are experiencing critical business issues.

For account security, specific account settings and sensitive details are not discussed via phone. From today, we are providing Enterprise customers with the ability to configure phone authentication to allow for greater support to be offered over the phone without need to perform validation through support tickets.

After providing your email address to a Cloudflare Support representative, you can now provide a token generated from the Cloudflare dashboard or via a 2FA app like Google Authenticator. So, a customer is able to prove over the phone that they are who they say they are.

Configuring Phone Authentication

If you are an existing Enterprise customer interested in phone support, please contact your Customer Success Manager for eligibility information and set-up. If you are interested in our Enterprise offering, please get in contact via our Enterprise plan page.

If you already have phone support eligibility, you can generate single-use tokens from the Cloudflare dashboard or configure an authenticator app to do the same remotely.

On the support page, you will see a card called “Emergency Phone Support Hotline – Authentication”. From here you can generate a Single-Use Token for authenticating a single call or configure an Authenticator App to generate tokens from a 2FA app.

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

For more detailed instructions, please see the “Emergency Phone” section of the Contacting Cloudflare Support article on the Cloudflare Knowledge Base.

How it Works

A standardised approach for generating TOTPs (Time-Based One-Time Passwords) is described in RFC 6238 – this is the approach that is often used for setting up Two Factor Authentication on websites.

When configuring a TOTP authenticator app, you are usually asked to scan a QR code or input a long alphanumeric string. This is a randomly generated secret that is shared between your local authenticator app and the web service where you are configuring TOTP. After TOTP is configured, this is stored between both the web server and your local device.

TOTP password generation relies on two key inputs; the shared secret and the number of seconds since the Unix epoch (Unix time). The timestamp is integer divided by a validity period (often 30 seconds) and this value is put into a cryptographic hash function alongside the secret to generate an output. The hexadecimal output is then truncated to provide the decimal digits which are shown to the user. The Avalanche Effect means that whenever the inputs that go into the hash function change slightly (e.g. the timestamp increments), a completely different hash output is generated.

This approach is fairly widely used and is available in a number of libraries depending on your preferred programming language. However, as our phone validation functionality offers both authenticator app support and generation of a single-use token from the dashboard (where no shared secret exists) – some deviation was required.

We generate a single use token by creating a hash of an internal user ID combined with a Cloudflare-internal secret, which in turn is used to generate RFC 6238 compliant time-based one-time passwords. Similarly, this service can generate random passwords for any user without needing to store additional secrets. This is then surfaced to the user every 30 seconds via a JavaScript request without exposing the secret used to generate the token.

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

One question you may be asking yourself after all of this is why don’t we simply use the 2FA mechanism which users use to login for phone validation too? Firstly, we don’t want to accustom users to providing their 2FA tokens to anyone else (they should purely be used for logging in). Secondly, as you may have noticed – we recently began supporting WebAuthn keys for logging in, as these are physical tokens used for website authentication they aren’t suited to usage on a mobile device.

To improve user experience during a phone call, we also validate tokens in the previous time step in the event it has expired by the time the user has read it out (indeed, RFC 6238 provides that “at most one time step is allowed as the network delay”). This means a token can be valid for up to one minute.

The APIs powering this service are then wrapped with API gateways that offer audit logging both for customer actions and actions completed by staff members. This provides a clear audit trail for customer authentication.

Future Work

Authentication is a critical component to securing customer support interactions. Authentication tooling must develop alongside support contact channels; from web forms behind logins to using JWT tokens for validating live chat sessions and now TOTP phone authentication. This is complimented by technical support engineers who will manage risk by routing certain issues into traditional support tickets and being able to refer some cases to named customer success managers for approval.

We are constantly advancing our support experience; for example, we plan to further improve our Enterprise Phone Support by giving users the ability to request a callback from a support agent within our dashboard. As always, right here on our blog we’ll keep you up-to-date with improvements in our service.

Emotet Malware Causes Physical Damage

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/04/emotat_malware_.html

Microsoft is reporting that an Emotet malware infection shut down a network by causing computers to overheat and then crash.

The Emotet payload was delivered and executed on the systems of Fabrikam — a fake name Microsoft gave the victim in their case study — five days after the employee’s user credentials were exfiltrated to the attacker’s command and control (C&C) server.

Before this, the threat actors used the stolen credentials to deliver phishing emails to other Fabrikam employees, as well as to their external contacts, with more and more systems getting infected and downloading additional malware payloads.

The malware further spread through the network without raising any red flags by stealing admin account credentials authenticating itself on new systems, later used as stepping stones to compromise other devices.

Within 8 days since that first booby-trapped attachment was opened, Fabrikam’s entire network was brought to its knees despite the IT department’s efforts, with PCs overheating, freezing, and rebooting because of blue screens, and Internet connections slowing down to a crawl because of Emotet devouring all the bandwidth.

The infection mechanism was one employee opening a malicious attachment to a phishing email. I can’t find any information on what kind of attachment.

Use AWS Lambda authorizers with a third-party identity provider to secure Amazon API Gateway REST APIs

Post Syndicated from Bryant Bost original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/use-aws-lambda-authorizers-with-a-third-party-identity-provider-to-secure-amazon-api-gateway-rest-apis/

Note: This post focuses on Amazon API Gateway REST APIs used with OAuth 2.0 and custom AWS Lambda authorizers. API Gateway also offers HTTP APIs, which provide native OAuth 2.0 features. For more information about which is right for your organization, see Choosing Between HTTP APIs and REST APIs.

Amazon API Gateway is a fully managed AWS service that simplifies the process of creating and managing REST APIs at any scale. If you are new to API Gateway, check out Amazon API Gateway Getting Started to get familiar with core concepts and terminology. In this post, I will demonstrate how an organization using a third-party identity provider can use AWS Lambda authorizers to implement a standard token-based authorization scheme for REST APIs that are deployed using API Gateway.

In the context of this post, a third-party identity provider refers to an entity that exists outside of AWS and that creates, manages, and maintains identity information for your organization. This identity provider issues cryptographically signed tokens to users containing information about the user identity and their permissions. In order to use these non-AWS tokens to control access to resources within API Gateway, you will need to define custom authorization code using a Lambda function to “map” token characteristics to API Gateway resources and permissions.

Defining custom authorization code is not the only way to implement authorization in API Gateway and ensure resources can only be accessed by the correct users. In addition to Lambda authorizers, API Gateway offers several “native” options that use existing AWS services to control resource access and do not require any custom code. To learn more about the established practices and authorization mechanisms, see Controlling and Managing Access to a REST API in API Gateway.

Lambda authorizers are a good choice for organizations that use third-party identity providers directly (without federation) to control access to resources in API Gateway, or organizations requiring authorization logic beyond the capabilities offered by “native” authorization mechanisms.

Benefits of using third-party tokens with API Gateway

Using a Lambda authorizer with third-party tokens in API Gateway can provide the following benefits:

  • Integration of third-party identity provider with API Gateway: If your organization has already adopted a third-party identity provider, building a Lambda authorizer allows users to access API Gateway resources by using their third-party credentials without having to configure additional services, such as Amazon Cognito. This can be particularly useful if your organization is using the third-party identity provider for single sign-on (SSO).
  • Minimal impact to client applications: If your organization has an application that is already configured to sign in to a third-party identity provider and issue requests using tokens, then minimal changes will be required to use this solution with API Gateway and a Lambda authorizer. By using credentials from your existing identity provider, you can integrate API Gateway resources into your application in the same manner that non-AWS resources are integrated.
  • Flexibility of authorization logic: Lambda authorizers allow for the additional customization of authorization logic, beyond validation and inspection of tokens.

Solution overview

The following diagram shows the authentication/authorization flow for using third-party tokens in API Gateway:

Figure 1: Example Solution Architecture

Figure 1: Example Solution Architecture

  1. After a successful login, the third-party identity provider issues an access token to a client.
  2. The client issues an HTTP request to API Gateway and includes the access token in the HTTP Authorization header.
  3. The API Gateway resource forwards the token to the Lambda authorizer.
  4. The Lambda authorizer authenticates the token with the third-party identity provider.
  5. The Lambda authorizer executes the authorization logic and creates an identity management policy.
  6. API Gateway evaluates the identity management policy against the API Gateway resource that the user requested and either allows or denies the request. If allowed, API Gateway forwards the user request to the API Gateway resource.

Prerequisites

To build the architecture described in the solution overview, you will need the following:

  • An identity provider: Lambda authorizers can work with any type of identity provider and token format. The post uses a generic OAuth 2.0 identity provider and JSON Web Tokens (JWT).
  • An API Gateway REST API: You will eventually configure this REST API to rely on the Lambda authorizer for access control.
  • A means of retrieving tokens from your identity provider and calling API Gateway resources: This can be a web application, a mobile application, or any application that relies on tokens for accessing API resources.

For the REST API in this example, I use API Gateway with a mock integration. To create this API yourself, you can follow the walkthrough in Create a REST API with a Mock Integration in Amazon API Gateway.

You can use any type of client to retrieve tokens from your identity provider and issue requests to API Gateway, or you can consult the documentation for your identity provider to see if you can retrieve tokens directly and issue requests using a third-party tool such as Postman.

Before you proceed to building the Lambda authorizer, you should be able to retrieve tokens from your identity provider and issue HTTP requests to your API Gateway resource with the token included in the HTTP Authorization header. This post assumes that the identity provider issues OAuth JWT tokens, and the example below shows a raw HTTP request addressed to the mock API Gateway resource with an OAuth JWT access token in the HTTP Authorization header. This request should be sent by the client application that you are using to retrieve your tokens and issue HTTP requests to the mock API Gateway resource.


# Example HTTP Request using a Bearer token\
GET /dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue HTTP/1.1\
Host: rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com\
Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgtb1Z5eEpPSF82UDk3...}

Building a Lambda authorizer

When you configure a Lambda authorizer to serve as the authorization source for an API Gateway resource, the Lambda authorizer is invoked by API Gateway before the resource is called. Check out the Lambda Authorizer Authorization Workflow for more details on how API Gateway invokes and exchanges information with Lambda authorizers. The core functionality of the Lambda authorizer is to generate a well-formed identity management policy that dictates the allowed actions of the user, such as which APIs the user can access. The Lambda authorizer will use information in the third-party token to create the identity management policy based on “permissions mapping” documents that you define — I will discuss these permissions mapping documents in greater detail below.

After the Lambda authorizer generates an identity management policy, the policy is returned to API Gateway and API Gateway uses it to evaluate whether the user is allowed to invoke the requested API. You can optionally configure a setting in API Gateway to automatically cache the identity management policy so that subsequent API invocations with the same token do not invoke the Lambda authorizer, but instead use the identity management policy that was generated on the last invocation.

In this post, you will build your Lambda authorizer to receive an OAuth access token and validate its authenticity with the token issuer, then implement custom authorization logic to use the OAuth scopes present in the token to create an identity management policy that dictates which APIs the user is allowed to access. You will also configure API Gateway to cache the identity management policy that is returned by the Lambda authorizer. These patterns provide the following benefits:

  • Leverage third-party identity management services: Validating the token with the third party allows for consolidated management of services such as token verification, token expiration, and token revocation.
  • Cache to improve performance: Caching the token and identity management policy in API Gateway removes the need to call the Lambda authorizer for each invocation. Caching a policy can improve performance; however, this increased performance comes with addition security considerations. These considerations are discussed below.
  • Limit access with OAuth scopes: Using the scopes present in the access token, along with custom authorization logic, to generate an identity management policy and limit resource access is a familiar OAuth practice and serves as a good example of customizable authentication logic. Refer to Defining Scopes for more information on OAuth scopes and how they are typically used to control resource access.

The Lambda authorizer is invoked with the following object as the event parameter when API Gateway is configured to use a Lambda authorizer with the token event payload; refer to Input to an Amazon API Gateway Lambda Authorizer for more information on the types of payloads that are compatible with Lambda authorizers. Since you are using a token-based authorization scheme, you will use the token event payload. This payload contains the methodArn, which is the Amazon Resource Name (ARN) of the API Gateway resource that the request was addressed to. The payload also contains the authorizationToken, which is the third-party token that the user included with the request.


# Lambda Token Event Payload  
{   
 type: 'TOKEN',  
 methodArn: 'arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:2198525...',  
 authorizationToken: 'Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgt...'  
}

Upon receiving this event, your Lambda authorizer will issue an HTTP POST request to your identity provider to validate the token, and use the scopes present in the third-party token with a permissions mapping document to generate and return an identity management policy that contains the allowed actions of the user within API Gateway. Lambda authorizers can be written in any Lambda-supported language. You can explore some starter code templates on GitHub. The example function in this post uses Node.js 10.x.

The Lambda authorizer code in this post uses a static permissions mapping document. This document is represented by apiPermissions. For a complex or highly dynamic permissions document, this document can be decoupled from the Lambda authorizer and exported to Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) or Amazon DynamoDB for simplified management. The static document contains the ARN of the deployed API, the API Gateway stage, the API resource, the HTTP method, and the allowed token scope. The Lambda authorizer then generates an identity management policy by evaluating the scopes present in the third-party token against those present in the document.

The fragment below shows an example permissions mapping. This mapping restricts access by requiring that users issuing HTTP GET requests to the ARN arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2 and the my-resource resource in the DEV API Gateway stage are only allowed if they provide a valid token that contains the email scope.


# Example permissions document  
{  
 "arn": "arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2",  
 "resource": "my-resource",  
 "stage": "DEV",  
 "httpVerb": "GET",  
 "scope": "email"  
}

The logic to create the identity management policy can be found in the generateIAMPolicy() method of the Lambda function. This method serves as a good general example of the extent of customization possible in Lambda authorizers. While the method in the example relies solely on token scopes, you can also use additional information such as request context, user information, source IP address, user agents, and so on, to generate the returned identity management policy.

Upon invocation, the Lambda authorizer below performs the following procedure:

  1. Receive the token event payload, and isolate the token string (trim “Bearer ” from the token string, if present).
  2. Verify the token with the third-party identity provider.

    Note: This Lambda function does not include this functionality. The method, verifyAccessToken(), will need to be customized based on the identity provider that you are using. This code assumes that the verifyAccessToken() method returns a Promise that resolves to the decoded token in JSON format.

  3. Retrieve the scopes from the decoded token. This code assumes these scopes can be accessed as an array at claims.scp in the decoded token.
  4. Iterate over the scopes present in the token and create identity and access management (IAM) policy statements based on entries in the permissions mapping document that contain the scope in question.
  5. Create a complete, well-formed IAM policy using the generated IAM policy statements. Refer to IAM JSON Policy Elements Reference for more information on programmatically building IAM policies.
  6. Return complete IAM policy to API Gateway.
    
    /*
     * Sample Lambda Authorizer to validate tokens originating from
     * 3rd Party Identity Provider and generate an IAM Policy
     */
    
    const apiPermissions = [
      {
        "arn": "arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2", // NOTE: Replace with your API Gateway API ARN
        "resource": "my-resource", // NOTE: Replace with your API Gateway Resource
        "stage": "dev", // NOTE: Replace with your API Gateway Stage
        "httpVerb": "GET",
        "scope": "email"
      }
    ];
    
    var generatePolicyStatement = function (apiName, apiStage, apiVerb, apiResource, action) {
      'use strict';
      // Generate an IAM policy statement
      var statement = {};
      statement.Action = 'execute-api:Invoke';
      statement.Effect = action;
      var methodArn = apiName + "/" + apiStage + "/" + apiVerb + "/" + apiResource + "/";
      statement.Resource = methodArn;
      return statement;
    };
    
    var generatePolicy = function (principalId, policyStatements) {
      'use strict';
      // Generate a fully formed IAM policy
      var authResponse = {};
      authResponse.principalId = principalId;
      var policyDocument = {};
      policyDocument.Version = '2012-10-17';
      policyDocument.Statement = policyStatements;
      authResponse.policyDocument = policyDocument;
      return authResponse;
    };
    
    var verifyAccessToken = function (accessToken) {
      'use strict';
      /*
      * Verify the access token with your Identity Provider here (check if your 
      * Identity Provider provides an SDK).
      *
      * This example assumes this method returns a Promise that resolves to 
      * the decoded token, you may need to modify your code according to how
      * your token is verified and what your Identity Provider returns.
      */
    };
    
    var generateIAMPolicy = function (scopeClaims) {
      'use strict';
      // Declare empty policy statements array
      var policyStatements = [];
      // Iterate over API Permissions
      for ( var i = 0; i  -1 ) {
          // User token has appropriate scope, add API permission to policy statements
          policyStatements.push(generatePolicyStatement(apiPermissions[i].arn, apiPermissions[i].stage, apiPermissions[i].httpVerb,
                                                        apiPermissions[i].resource, "Allow"));
        }
      }
      // Check if no policy statements are generated, if so, create default deny all policy statement
      if (policyStatements.length === 0) {
        var policyStatement = generatePolicyStatement("*", "*", "*", "*", "Deny");
        policyStatements.push(policyStatement);
      }
      return generatePolicy('user', policyStatements);
    };
    
    exports.handler = async function(event, context) {
      // Declare Policy
      var iamPolicy = null;
      // Capture raw token and trim 'Bearer ' string, if present
      var token = event.authorizationToken.replace("Bearer ", "");
      // Validate token
      await verifyAccessToken(token).then(data => {
        // Retrieve token scopes
        var scopeClaims = data.claims.scp;
        // Generate IAM Policy
        iamPolicy = generateIAMPolicy(scopeClaims);
      })
      .catch(err => {
        console.log(err);
        // Generate default deny all policy statement if there is an error
        var policyStatements = [];
        var policyStatement = generatePolicyStatement("*", "*", "*", "*", "Deny");
        policyStatements.push(policyStatement);
        iamPolicy = generatePolicy('user', policyStatements);
      });
      return iamPolicy;
    };  
    

The following is an example of the identity management policy that is returned from your function.


# Example IAM Policy
{
  "principalId": "user",
  "policyDocument": {
    "Version": "2012-10-17",
    "Statement": [
      {
        "Action": "execute-api:Invoke",
        "Effect": "Allow",
        "Resource": "arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2/get/DEV/my-resource/"
      }
    ]
  }
}

It is important to note that the Lambda authorizer above is not considering the method or resource that the user is requesting. This is because you want to generate a complete identity management policy that contains all the API permissions for the user, instead of a policy that only contains allow/deny for the requested resource. By generating a complete policy, this policy can be cached by API Gateway and used if the user invokes a different API while the policy is still in the cache. Caching the policy can reduce API latency from the user perspective, as well as the total amount of Lambda invocations; however, it can also increase vulnerability to Replay Attacks and acceptance of expired/revoked tokens.

Shorter cache lifetimes introduce more latency to API calls (that is, the Lambda authorizer must be called more frequently), while longer cache lifetimes introduce the possibility of a token expiring or being revoked by the identity provider, but still being used to return a valid identity management policy. For example, the following scenario is possible when caching tokens in API Gateway:

  • Identity provider stamps access token with an expiration date of 12:30.
  • User calls API Gateway with access token at 12:29.
  • Lambda authorizer generates identity management policy and API Gateway caches the token/policy pair for 5 minutes.
  • User calls API Gateway with same access token at 12:32.
  • API Gateway evaluates access against policy that exists in the cache, despite original token being expired.

Since tokens are not re-validated by the Lambda authorizer or API Gateway once they are placed in the API Gateway cache, long cache lifetimes may also increase susceptibility to Replay Attacks. Longer cache lifetimes and large identity management policies can increase the performance of your application, but must be evaluated against the trade-off of increased exposure to certain security vulnerabilities.

Deploying the Lambda authorizer

To deploy your Lambda authorizer, you first need to create and deploy a Lambda deployment package containing your function code and dependencies (if applicable). Lambda authorizer functions behave the same as other Lambda functions in terms of deployment and packaging. For more information on packaging and deploying a Lambda function, see AWS Lambda Deployment Packages in Node.js. For this example, you should name your Lambda function myLambdaAuth and use a Node.js 10.x runtime environment.

After the function is created, add the Lambda authorizer to API Gateway.

  1. Navigate to API Gateway and in the navigation pane, under APIs, select the API you configured earlier
  2. Under your API name, choose Authorizers, then choose Create New Authorizer.
  3. Under Create Authorizer, do the following:
    1. For Name, enter a name for your Lambda authorizer. In this example, the authorizer is named Lambda-Authorizer-Demo.
    2. For Type, select Lambda
    3. For Lambda Function, select the AWS Region you created your function in, then enter the name of the Lambda function you just created.
    4. Leave Lambda Invoke Role empty.
    5. For Lambda Event Payload choose Token.
    6. For Token Source, enter Authorization.
    7. For Token Validation, enter:
      
      ^(Bearer )[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.([a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+)$
      			

      This represents a regular expression for validating that tokens match JWT format (more below).

    8. For Authorization Caching, select Enabled and enter a time to live (TTL) of 1 second.
  4. Select Save.

 

Figure 2: Create a new Lambda authorizer

Figure 2: Create a new Lambda authorizer

This configuration passes the token event payload mentioned above to your Lambda authorizer, and is necessary since you are using tokens (Token Event Payload) for authentication, rather than request parameters (Request Event Payload). For more information, see Use API Gateway Lambda Authorizers.

In this solution, the token source is the Authorization header of the HTTP request. If you know the expected format of your token, you can include a regular expression in the Token Validation field, which automatically rejects any request that does not match the regular expression. Token validations are not mandatory. This example assumes the token is a JWT.


# Regex matching JWT Bearer Tokens  
^(Bearer )[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.([a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+)$

Here, you can also configure how long the token/policy pair will be cached in API Gateway. This example enables caching with a TTL of 1 second.

In this solution, you leave the Lambda Invoke Role field empty. This field is used to provide an IAM role that allows API Gateway to execute the Lambda authorizer. If left blank, API Gateway configures a default resource-based policy that allows it to invoke the Lambda authorizer.

The final step is to point your API Gateway resource to your Lambda authorizer. Select the configured API Resource and HTTP method.

  1. Navigate to API Gateway and in the navigation pane, under APIs, select the API you configured earlier.
  2. Select the GET method.

    Figure 3: GET Method Execution

    Figure 3: GET Method Execution

  3. Select Method Request.
  4. Under Settings, edit Authorization and select the authorizer you just configured (in this example, Lambda-Authorizer-Demo).

    Figure 4: Select your API authorizer

    Figure 4: Select your API authorizer

Deploy the API to an API Gateway stage that matches the stage configured in the Lambda authorizer permissions document (apiPermissions variable).

  1. Navigate to API Gateway and in the navigation pane, under APIs, select the API you configured earlier.
  2. Select the / resource of your API.
  3. Select Actions, and under API Actions, select Deploy API.
  4. For Deployment stage, select [New Stage] and for the Stage name, enter dev. Leave Stage description and Deployment description blank.
  5. Select Deploy.

    Figure 5: Deploy your API stage

    Figure 5: Deploy your API stage

Testing the results

With the Lambda authorizer configured as your authorization source, you are now able to access the resource only if you provide a valid token that contains the email scope.

The following example shows how to issue an HTTP request with curl to your API Gateway resource using a valid token that contains the email scope passed in the HTTP Authorization header. Here, you are able to authenticate and receive an appropriate response from API Gateway.


# HTTP Request (including valid token with "email" scope)  
$ curl -X GET \  
> 'https://rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue' \  
> -H 'Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgtb1Z5eE...'  
  
{  
 "statusCode" : 200,  
 "message" : "Hello from API Gateway!"  
}

The following JSON object represents the decoded JWT payload used in the previous example. The JSON object captures the token scopes in scp, and you can see that the token contained the email scope.

Figure 6: JSON object that contains the email scope

Figure 6: JSON object that contains the email scope

If you provide a token that is expired, is invalid, or that does not contain the email scope, then you are not able to access the resource. The following example shows a request to your API Gateway resource with a valid token that does not contain the email scope. In this example, the Lambda authorizer rejects the request.


# HTTP Request (including token without "email" scope)  
$ curl -X GET \  
> 'https://rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue' \  
> -H 'Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgtb1Z5eE...'  
  
{  
 "Message" : "User is not authorized to access this resource with an explicit deny"  
}

The following JSON object represents the decoded JWT payload used in the above example; it does not include the email scope.

Figure 7: JSON object that does not contain the email scope

Figure 7: JSON object that does not contain the email scope

If you provide no token, or you provide a token not matching the provided regular expression, then you are immediately rejected by API Gateway without invoking the Lambda authorizer. API Gateway only forwards tokens to the Lambda authorizer that have the HTTP Authorization header and pass the token validation regular expression, if a regular expression was provided. If the request does not pass token validation or does not have an HTTP Authorization header, API Gateway rejects it with a default HTTP 401 response. The following example shows how to issue a request to your API Gateway resource using an invalid token that does match the regular expression you configured on your authorizer. In this example, API Gateway rejects your request automatically without invoking the authorizer.


# HTTP Request (including a token that is not a JWT)  
$ curl -X GET \  
> 'https://rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue' \  
> -H 'Authorization: Bearer ThisIsNotAJWT'  
  
{  
 "Message" : "Unauthorized"  
}

These examples demonstrate how your Lambda authorizer allows and denies requests based on the token format and the token content.

Conclusion

In this post, you saw how Lambda authorizers can be used with API Gateway to implement a token-based authentication scheme using third-party tokens.

Lambda authorizers can provide a number of benefits:

  • Leverage third-party identity management services directly, without identity federation.
  • Implement custom authorization logic.
  • Cache identity management policies to improve performance of authorization logic (while keeping in mind security implications).
  • Minimally impact existing client applications.

For organizations seeking an alternative to Amazon Cognito User Pools and Amazon Cognito identity pools, Lambda authorizers can provide complete, secure, and flexible authentication and authorization services to resources deployed with Amazon API Gateway. For more information about Lambda authorizers, see API Gateway Lambda Authorizers.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.

Author

Bryant Bost

Bryant Bost is an Application Consultant for AWS Professional Services based out of Washington, DC. As a consultant, he supports customers with architecting, developing, and operating new applications, as well as migrating existing applications to AWS. In addition to web application development, Bryant specializes in serverless and container architectures, and has authored several posts on these topics.

Internet Voting in Puerto Rico

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/03/internet_voting.html

Puerto Rico is considered allowing for Internet voting. I have joined a group of security experts in a letter opposing the bill.

Cybersecurity experts agree that under current technology, no practically proven method exists to securely, verifiably, or privately return voted materials over the internet. That means that votes could be manipulated or deleted on the voter’s computer without the voter’s knowledge, local elections officials cannot verify that the voter’s ballot reflects the voter’s intent, and the voter’s selections could be traceable back to the individual voter. Such a system could violate protections guaranteeing a secret ballot, as outlined in Section 2, Article II of the Puerto Rico Constitution.

The ACLU agrees.

Hacking McDonald’s for Free Food

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/02/hacking_mcdonal.html

This hack was possible because the McDonald’s app didn’t authenticate the server, and just did whatever the server told it to do:

McDonald’s receipts in Germany end with a link to a survey page. Once you take the survey, you receive a coupon code for a free small beverage, redeemable within a month. One day, David happened to be checking out how the website’s coding was structured when he noticed that the information triggering the server to issue a new voucher was always the same. That meant he could build a programme replicating the code, as if someone was taking the survey again and again.

[…]

At the McDonald’s in East Berlin, David began the demonstration by setting up an internet hotspot with his smartphone. Lenny connected with a second phone and a laptop, then turned the laptop into a proxy server connected to both phones. He opened the McDonald’s app and entered a voucher code generated by David’s programme. The next step was ordering the food for a total of €17. The bill on the app was transmitted to the laptop, which set all prices to zero through a programme created by Lenny, and sent the information back to the app. After tapping “Complete and pay 0.00 euros”, we simply received our pick-up number. It had worked.

The flaw was fixed late last year.

Smartphone Election in Washington State

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/01/smartphone_elec.html

This year:

King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology.

Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device.

Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. That will be the way people are caught if they log in to the system under false pretenses and try to vote as someone else.

The King County elections office plans to print out the ballots submitted electronically by voters whose signatures match and count the papers alongside the votes submitted through traditional routes.

While advocates say this creates an auditable paper trail, many security experts say that because the ballots cross the Internet before they are printed, any subsequent audits on them would be moot. If a cyberattack occurred, an audit could essentially require double-checking ballots that may already have been altered, says Buell.

Of course it’s not an auditable paper trail. There’s a reason why security experts use the phrase “voter-verifiable paper ballots.” A centralized printout of a received Internet message is not voter verifiable.

Another news article.

SIM Hijacking

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/01/sim_hijacking.html

SIM hijacking — or SIM swapping — is an attack where a fraudster contacts your cell phone provider and convinces them to switch your account to a phone that they control. Since your smartphone often serves as a security measure or backup verification system, this allows the fraudster to take over other accounts of yours. Sometimes this involves people inside the phone companies.

Phone companies have added security measures since this attack became popular and public, but a new study (news article) shows that the measures aren’t helping:

We examined the authentication procedures used by five pre-paid wireless carriers when a customer attempted to change their SIM card. These procedures are an important line of defense against attackers who seek to hijack victims’ phone numbers by posing as the victim and calling the carrier to request that service be transferred to a SIM card the attacker possesses. We found that all five carriers used insecure authentication challenges that could be easily subverted by attackers.We also found that attackers generally only needed to target the most vulnerable authentication challenges, because the rest could be bypassed.

It’s a classic security vs. usability trade-off. The phone companies want to provide easy customer service for their legitimate customers, and that system is what’s being exploited by the SIM hijackers. Companies could make the fraud harder, but it would necessarily also make it harder for legitimate customers to modify their accounts.

Fooling Voice Assistants with Lasers

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/11/fooling_voice_a.html

Interesting:

Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are vulnerable to attacks that use lasers to inject inaudible­ — and sometimes invisible­ — commands into the devices and surreptitiously cause them to unlock doors, visit websites, and locate, unlock, and start vehicles, researchers report in a research paper published on Monday. Dubbed Light Commands, the attack works against Facebook Portal and a variety of phones.

Shining a low-powered laser into these voice-activated systems allows attackers to inject commands of their choice from as far away as 360 feet (110m). Because voice-controlled systems often don’t require users to authenticate themselves, the attack can frequently be carried out without the need of a password or PIN. Even when the systems require authentication for certain actions, it may be feasible to brute force the PIN, since many devices don’t limit the number of guesses a user can make. Among other things, light-based commands can be sent from one building to another and penetrate glass when a vulnerable device is kept near a closed window.

MongoDB Offers Field Level Encryption

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/06/mongodb_offers_.html

MongoDB now has the ability to encrypt data by field:

MongoDB calls the new feature Field Level Encryption. It works kind of like end-to-end encrypted messaging, which scrambles data as it moves across the internet, revealing it only to the sender and the recipient. In such a “client-side” encryption scheme, databases utilizing Field Level Encryption will not only require a system login, but will additionally require specific keys to process and decrypt specific chunks of data locally on a user’s device as needed. That means MongoDB itself and cloud providers won’t be able to access customer data, and a database’s administrators or remote managers don’t need to have access to everything either.

For regular users, not much will be visibly different. If their credentials are stolen and they aren’t using multifactor authentication, an attacker will still be able to access everything the victim could. But the new feature is meant to eliminate single points of failure. With Field Level Encryption in place, a hacker who steals an administrative username and password, or finds a software vulnerability that gives them system access, still won’t be able to use these holes to access readable data.

CAs Reissue Over One Million Weak Certificates

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/03/cas_reissue_ove.html

Turns out that the software a bunch of CAs used to generate public-key certificates was flawed: they created random serial numbers with only 63 bits instead of the required 64. That may not seem like a big deal to the layman, but that one bit change means that the serial numbers only have half the required entropy. This really isn’t a security problem; the serial numbers are to protect against attacks that involve weak hash functions, and we don’t allow those weak hash functions anymore. Still, it’s a good thing that the CAs are reissuing the certificates. The point of a standard is that it’s to be followed.

Using a Fake Hand to Defeat Hand-Vein Biometrics

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/01/using_a_fake_ha.html

Nice work:

One attraction of a vein based system over, say, a more traditional fingerprint system is that it may be typically harder for an attacker to learn how a user’s veins are positioned under their skin, rather than lifting a fingerprint from a held object or high quality photograph, for example.

But with that said, Krissler and Albrecht first took photos of their vein patterns. They used a converted SLR camera with the infrared filter removed; this allowed them to see the pattern of the veins under the skin.

“It’s enough to take photos from a distance of five meters, and it might work to go to a press conference and take photos of them,” Krissler explained. In all, the pair took over 2,500 pictures to over 30 days to perfect the process and find an image that worked.

They then used that image to make a wax model of their hands which included the vein detail.

Slashdot thread.

Real-Time Attacks Against Two-Factor Authentication

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/real-time_attac.html

Attackers are targeting two-factor authentication systems:

Attackers working on behalf of the Iranian government collected detailed information on targets and used that knowledge to write spear-phishing emails that were tailored to the targets’ level of operational security, researchers with security firm Certfa Lab said in a blog post. The emails contained a hidden image that alerted the attackers in real time when targets viewed the messages. When targets entered passwords into a fake Gmail or Yahoo security page, the attackers would almost simultaneously enter the credentials into a real login page. In the event targets’ accounts were protected by 2fa, the attackers redirected targets to a new page that requested a one-time password.

This isn’t new. I wrote about this exact attack in 2005 and 2009.

Using Machine Learning to Create Fake Fingerprints

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/using_machine_l.html

Researchers are able to create fake fingerprints that result in a 20% false-positive rate.

The problem is that these sensors obtain only partial images of users’ fingerprints — at the points where they make contact with the scanner. The paper noted that since partial prints are not as distinctive as complete prints, the chances of one partial print getting matched with another is high.

The artificially generated prints, dubbed DeepMasterPrints by the researchers, capitalize on the aforementioned vulnerability to accurately imitate one in five fingerprints in a database. The database was originally supposed to have only an error rate of one in a thousand.

Another vulnerability exploited by the researchers was the high prevalence of some natural fingerprint features such as loops and whorls, compared to others. With this understanding, the team generated some prints that contain several of these common features. They found that these artificial prints were more likely to match with other prints than would be normally possible.

If this result is robust — and I assume it will be improved upon over the coming years — it will make the current generation of fingerprint readers obsolete as secure biometrics. It also opens a new chapter in the arms race between biometric authentication systems and fake biometrics that can fool them.

More interestingly, I wonder if similar techniques can be brought to bear against other biometrics are well.

Research paper.

Slashdot thread

Troy Hunt on Passwords

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/troy_hunt_on_pa.html

Troy Hunt has a good essay about why passwords are here to stay, despite all their security problems:

This is why passwords aren’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future and why [insert thing here] isn’t going to kill them. No amount of focusing on how bad passwords are or how many accounts have been breached or what it costs when people can’t access their accounts is going to change that. Nor will the technical prowess of [insert thing here] change the discussion because it simply can’t compete with passwords on that one metric organisations are so focused on: usability. Sure, there’ll be edge cases and certainly there remain scenarios where higher-friction can be justified due to either the nature of the asset being protected or the demographic of the audience, but you’re not about to see your everyday e-commerce, social media or even banking sites changing en mass.

He rightly points out that biometric authentication systems — like Apple’s Face ID and fingerprint authentication — augment passwords rather than replace them. And I want to add that good two-factor systems, like Duo, also augment passwords rather than replace them.

Hacker News thread.