Skip to main content

OAuth 2 server to server and Apache Oltu

Leaving apart some FUDs I think that RFC 6749 (aka The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework) has proven to be a really great  "tool" so far. One of the limitation of this spec though is that the 2 main flows Authorization Code Grant and Implicit Grant work reasonably well if there is some sort of human interaction and the user agent is available. What if one or both of these requirement are missing? One easy alternative would be to use the Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant flow. This would require the OAuth client to know the Resource Owner password. That is exactly why OAuth has been designed namely to avoid such situation. Another, more tempting, alternative would be to use a refresh token (that never expires). The best choice though IMHO is to use "tools" from another specification from the becoming-big OAuth specification family :)
The specification I am referring to is  the
JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants specification that "inhertis" from  Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants. This specifications makes and extensions usage of the concepts contained in the JWT and JWS protocols and it offers a great solution for solving an OAuth server to server scenario. In the real world there are already some big companies already providing support for this e.g. Google and SalesForce. If at this stage you feel a bit dizzy, fret not, you are not the only one :).
If you are still with me, I am going to show a really easy way to implement this protocol in Java using Apache Oltu. Apache Oltu lately (in version 1.0) introduced support for JWT and JWS. I will take as an example the Google implementation . Notes for the readers 1) I am not going to explain the JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants specification here, 2) I assume that you have already generated yout Google service-account credentials. In here I am  going to show an alternative way of Creating a JWT without using the Google API (sing Apache Oltu indeed). The Apache Oltu's way (differently than the Google API) will work with any OAuth Provider that supports OAuth server to server. Enough words for today, here is the code snippet:

 KeyStore keyStore = KeyStore.getInstance("PKCS12");  
       keyStore.load(new FileInputStream(P12_FILE), "notasecret".toCharArray());  
       java.security.PrivateKey privateKey = (java.security.PrivateKey) keyStore.getKey("privatekey", "notasecret".toCharArray());  
       PrivateKey pk = new PrivateKey(privateKey);  
       JWT jwt = new JWT.Builder()  
       .setClaimsSetIssuer("788732372078-pas6c4tqtudpoco2f4au18e00suedjtb@developer.gserviceaccount.com")  
       .setClaimsSetCustomField("scope", " https://www.googleapis.com/auth/plus.login")  
       .setClaimsSetAudience("https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/token")  
       .setClaimsSetIssuedAt(System.currentTimeMillis() / 1000)  
       .setClaimsSetExpirationTime(System.currentTimeMillis() / 1000 +3600)  
       .build();  
       String payload = new JWTClaimsSetWriter().write(jwt.getClaimsSet());  
       JWS jws = new JWS.Builder()  
       .setType("JWT")  
       .setAlgorithm(JwsConstants.RS256)      
       .setPayload(payload).sign(new SignatureMethodRSAImpl(JwsConstants.RS256), pk).build();  
       System.out.println("your assertion is "+new JWSWriter().write(jws));
now in order to get the access token using the above assertion just do:
 curl -d 'grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Ajwt-bearer&assertion=ASSERTION' https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/token  
have fun!

Comments

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
The snippet can't be used anymore. It relies on the trunk branch (aka development version) of Oltu library and in this version, the "sign" method has changed to become sign(SignatureMethod<SK, VK> method, SK signingKey).
Any edit to come ?

(And sorry for the bunch of deleted comments. It took me time to realize that "<" and ">" must be written as &lt; and &gt;).
Antonio Sanso said…
thanks Emmanuel for reporting. From the other end wouldn't make sense to keep the stable 1.0 version example?
Anonymous said…
The matter is that your snippet makes use of the SignatureMethodRSAImpl class which is not part of the 1.0 stable version. This class is available in the development version only.
Antonio Sanso said…
thanks a lot Emmanuel. Fair enough. I will update the post so :)

Popular posts from this blog

Slack SAML authentication bypass

tl;dr  I found a severe issue in the Slack's SAML implementation that allowed me to bypass the authentication. This has now been solved by Slack.
Introduction IMHO the rule #1 of any bug hunter (note I do not consider myself one of them since I do this really sporadically) is to have a good RSS feed list.  In the course of the last years I built a pretty decent one and I try to follow other security experts trying to "steal" some useful tricks. There are many experts in different fields of the security panorama and too many to quote them here (maybe another post). But one of the leading expert (that I follow) on SAML is by far Ioannis Kakavas. Indeed he was able in the last years to find serious vulnerability in the SAML implementation of Microsoft and Github. Usually I am more an "OAuth guy" but since both, SAML and OAuth, are nothing else that grandchildren of Kerberos learning SAML has been in my todo list for long time. The Github incident gave me the final…

Bug bounty left over (and rant) Part III (Google and Twitter)

tl;dr in this blog post I am going to talk about some bug bounty left over with a little rant.

Here you can find bug bounty left over part I and II
Here you can find bug bounty rant part I and II
Introduction In one of my previous post I was saying that: 

"The rule #1 of any bug hunter... is to have a good RSS feed list."
Well well well allow me in this post to state rule #2 (IMHO)

"The rule #2 of any bug hunter is to DO NOT be to fussy with 'food' specifically with left over"

aka even if the most experience bug hunter was there (and it definitely was my case here, given the fact we are talking about no one less than filedescriptor) do not assume that all the vulnerabilities have been found! So if you want some examples here we go.
Part I - GoogleI have the privilege to receive from time to time Google Vulnerability Research Grant. One of the last I received had many target options to choose from, but one in particular caught my attention, namely Google Issue T…

OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701)

Usual Mandatory Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) so I might likely end up writing a bunch of mistakes in this blog post...

tl;dr The OpenSSL 1.0.2 releases suffer from a Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups. This issue got assigned CVE-2016-0701 with a severity of High and OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to 1.0.2f. If an application is using DH configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" or not Lim-Lee (as the one in RFC 5114) and either Static DH ciphersuites are used or DHE ciphersuites with the default OpenSSL configuration (in particular SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not set) then is vulnerable to this attack.  It is believed that many popular applications (e.g. Apache mod_ssl) do set the  SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option and would therefore not be at risk (for DHE ciphersuites), they still might be for Static DH ciphersuites.
Introduction So if you are still here it means you wanna know more. And here is the thing. In my last blog post I was …