From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:04:24 PM Subject: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly Hi guys, having worked with Engine REST API from web application (JavaScript) perspective, there are things that could be improved to make REST API more webapp-friendly. First of all, webapps are *not* traditional HTTP clients, i.e. they have *not* full control over HTTP processing. There are some standard conventions and behaviors built into web browsers that any REST API implementation should be aware of. -- (1) Don't force clients to use cookies for transmitting authentication information! (or don't use cookies at all) Good explanation can be found at [http://www.berenddeboer.net/rest/cookies.html]. Cookies have many disadvantages: * cookie parsing/formatting is not trivial --> extra complexity imposed on REST clients * in addition to Same-Origin Policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy], cookies can be get/set *only* for the given path --> JavaScript running at [http://example.com/webapp] *cannot* get/set cookies from requests at [http://example.com/restapi] * cookies are the primary source of Cross-Site Request Forgery [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery] attacks --> malicious websites/scripts can forge requests to REST API that will include the cookie, compromising user session Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use regular HTTP header for transmitting authentication information. For example, webapp could read such (sensitive information) header, store it securely via HTML5 Session Storage [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_storage] and implement related HTTP processing on its own, e.g. pass this header for all authenticated requests (instead of pushing this responsibility to browser).

-- (2) Straight-forward HTTP Basic Auth has some drawbacks! HTTP Basic Auth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication] over (non-secure) HTTP connection means sending user credentials (username/password/domain) in easy-to-decode cleartext, i.e. the value is *not* encrypted or hashed in any way. Using secure lower-level protocol (SSL) fixes the consequence, rather than the root cause of the confidentiality issue. Furthermore, browsers typically remember HTTP Basic Auth information (either via browser-specific popup, or via XmlHttpRequest) until the browser window is closed. This means the webapp has no control over HTTP Basic Auth header after it has been set! This is the reason why it's hard to implement "logout" functionality in webapps when using HTTP Basic Auth. Last but not least, HTTP Basic Auth is vulnerable to Replay attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack]. Someone between client and server can intercept requests and replay them, compromising user session. Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use more advanced authentication scheme. I've just read an excellent article at [http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-aut...] which describes easy yet secure authentication scheme inspired by Amazon Web Services REST API authentication [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html]. The idea is simple: collect auth information, hash (sign) it with a private key, and send everything to server. To guard against Replay attacks, just provide some timestamp to enforce request expiry after some time (say, 5-15 minutes). Easy and simple! -- (3) Support JSON for resource representations! I think this is pretty much obvious. XML has no real advantages over JSON. JSON, on the other hand, has good support in webapps (JavaScript) and maps directly to common data structures (i.e. string, number, boolean, and so on). From webapp perspective, it's much easier and natural to use JSON than to parse/format XML documents. Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use JSON, in addition to XML representation. -- Vojtech _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

>> * cookie parsing/formatting is not trivial >> --> extra complexity imposed on REST clients i wouldn't call it a cookie blocker, as in most cases (including ours) cookie contains restricted amount of records.

>> * cookies are the primary source of Cross-Site Request Forgery >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery] attacks >> --> malicious websites/scripts can forge requests to REST API that will >> include the cookie, compromising user session same true for the authorization header, session being passed via HTTP headers

> We currently return the JSESSIONID also using HTTP headers. We currently return the jsession id also as part of the response HTTP headers, but the client still needs to pass a cookie with the appropriate value in order for the REST session to work. Isn't that enough to cope with this issue? api, can consume JSESSIONID from the header indeed, but my problem with this approach is a persistence of the http headers in browsers.

>> HTTP Basic Auth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication] >> over (non-secure) HTTP connection means sending user credentials >> (username/password/domain) in easy-to-decode cleartext, i.e. the value is >> *not* encrypted or hashed in any way. Using secure lower-level protocol >> (SSL) fixes the consequence, rather than the root cause of the >> confidentiality issue. same is true for any sensitive date being passed via plain text (including cookies)

>> Furthermore, browsers typically remember HTTP Basic Auth information (either >> via browser-specific popup, or via XmlHttpRequest) until the browser window >> is closed. This means the webapp has no control over HTTP Basic Auth header >> after it has been set! This is the reason why it's hard to implement >> "logout" functionality in webapps when using HTTP Basic Auth. right, that is my concern of using headers as well, better solution may be sending JSESSION id via URI matrix parameter, e.g /api/vms;sessionid=xxx

>> I've just read an excellent article at >> [http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-aut...] >> which describes easy yet secure authentication scheme inspired by Amazon Web >> Services REST API authentication >> [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html]. >> The idea is simple: collect auth information, hash (sign) it with a private >> key, and send everything to server. To guard against Replay attacks, just >> provide some timestamp to enforce request expiry after some time (say, 5-15 >> minutes). Easy and simple! 1. this concept has very same drawbacks as any other content encryption

2. decoding time stamp from request/s will produce fair load for the server as well and won't protect the server against DDOS, also it shouldn't as it's not api/webapp prerogative.

in general what Vojtech is trying to achieve is passing session via some other container than cookie as webapp/browsers can't omit auth. header in runtime,

what is only justifying my resistance of passing session id via http header, i think using matrix parameter (as mentioned above) may give you a decent solution.

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:04:24 PM > Subject: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly > > Hi guys, > > having worked with Engine REST API from web application (JavaScript) > perspective, there are things that could be improved to make REST API more > webapp-friendly. > > First of all, webapps are *not* traditional HTTP clients, i.e. they have > *not* full control over HTTP processing. There are some standard conventions > and behaviors built into web browsers that any REST API implementation > should be aware of. > > -- > > (1) Don't force clients to use cookies for transmitting authentication > information! (or don't use cookies at all) > > Good explanation can be found at > [http://www.berenddeboer.net/rest/cookies.html]. Cookies have many > disadvantages: > > * cookie parsing/formatting is not trivial > --> extra complexity imposed on REST clients

> > * in addition to Same-Origin Policy > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy], cookies can be get/set > *only* for the given path > --> JavaScript running at [http://example.com/webapp] *cannot* get/set > cookies from requests at [http://example.com/restapi] > > * cookies are the primary source of Cross-Site Request Forgery > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery] attacks > --> malicious websites/scripts can forge requests to REST API that will > include the cookie, compromising user session

> > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use regular HTTP header > for transmitting authentication information. > > For example, webapp could read such (sensitive information) header, store it > securely via HTML5 Session Storage > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_storage] and implement related HTTP > processing on its own, e.g. pass this header for all authenticated requests > (instead of pushing this responsibility to browser). > Option #1: We currently return the JSESSIONID also using HTTP headers. We currently return the jsession id also as part of the response HTTP headers, but the client still needs to pass a cookie with the appropriate value in order for the REST session to work. Isn't that enough to cope with this issue?

If not, then we might be able to do option #2: Today, we keep the engine session ID on the HTTP session attributes. So, we can support either passing the cookie with the JSESSIONID (taking the engine session ID from the http session), or passing the engine session ID as HTTP header (assuming we would also return the engine session ID upon first REST request). This approach is problematic, as it might work well now, when the only attribute we use is the engine session ID, but in the future that might not be the case. If it is important enough (i.e., you can't really work with option #1) , then we can make a decision to save the attributes on the engine session, rather than on the HTTP session. So, we would start by supporting them both together, adding new attributes only to the engine session, and in the future deprecating the use of cookies, and only supporting HTTP headers. cc-ed Juan and Michael, as they might have some input on that. > -- > > (2) Straight-forward HTTP Basic Auth has some drawbacks! > > HTTP Basic Auth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication] > over (non-secure) HTTP connection means sending user credentials > (username/password/domain) in easy-to-decode cleartext, i.e. the value is > *not* encrypted or hashed in any way. Using secure lower-level protocol > (SSL) fixes the consequence, rather than the root cause of the > confidentiality issue.

> > Furthermore, browsers typically remember HTTP Basic Auth information (either > via browser-specific popup, or via XmlHttpRequest) until the browser window > is closed. This means the webapp has no control over HTTP Basic Auth header > after it has been set! This is the reason why it's hard to implement > "logout" functionality in webapps when using HTTP Basic Auth.

> > Last but not least, HTTP Basic Auth is vulnerable to Replay attacks > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack]. Someone between client and > server can intercept requests and replay them, compromising user session. > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use more advanced > authentication scheme. > > I've just read an excellent article at > [http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-aut...] > which describes easy yet secure authentication scheme inspired by Amazon Web > Services REST API authentication > [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html]. > The idea is simple: collect auth information, hash (sign) it with a private > key, and send everything to server. To guard against Replay attacks, just > provide some timestamp to enforce request expiry after some time (say, 5-15 > minutes). Easy and simple!

> > -- > > (3) Support JSON for resource representations! > > I think this is pretty much obvious. XML has no real advantages over JSON. > JSON, on the other hand, has good support in webapps (JavaScript) and maps > directly to common data structures (i.e. string, number, boolean, and so > on). > > From webapp perspective, it's much easier and natural to use JSON than to > parse/format XML documents. > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use JSON, in addition to > XML representation.

> > -- > > Vojtech > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >

From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:25:06 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly Hi Oved, thanks for your feedback! > We currently return the JSESSIONID also using HTTP headers. We currently > return the jsession id also as part of the response HTTP headers, but the > client still needs to pass a cookie with the appropriate value in order > for the REST session to work. Isn't that enough to cope with this issue? Right, currently REST API responds with JSESSIONID cookie + separate JSESSIONID response header, both carrying session ID value. As I wrote in my original email: JavaScript running at [http://example.com/webapp] *cannot* get/set cookies from requests at [http://example.com/restapi] So WebAdmin cannot get/set REST API JSESSIONID cookie directly, which is why it uses separate JSESSIONID response header in order to *read* the session ID value. As for sending JSESSIONID cookie, WebAdmin currently relies on standard cookie-handling implemented in browsers: all cookies for location X [http://example.com/restapi] will be part of any request to location X. So it's the browser who sets JSESSIONID cookie for REST API request, not WebAdmin. To answer your question, currently it's enough to work around the cookie access limitation, but it's not good enough in my opinion (from JavaScript/webapp perspective).. > If not, then we might be able to do option #2: > Today, we keep the engine session ID on the HTTP session attributes. > So, we can support either passing the cookie with the JSESSIONID (taking > the engine session ID from the http session), or passing the engine > session ID as HTTP header (assuming we would also return the engine > session ID upon first REST request). Well, the problem I described only relates to the way how JSESSIONID value is transmitted between client and server: currently using cookies, so REST API client has to do cookie handling. It would be really great if I could tell REST API to use plain (i.e. *not* Set-Cookie & Cookie) HTTP header, for example "JSESSIONID", for the purpose of transmitting session ID value between client and server. For example, the request to acquire session would be: GET /api HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.org Prefer: use-jsessionid-header JSESSIONID: xxx [Feel free to replace "use-jsessionid-header" with anything you like. If client doesn't specify "use-jsessionid-header", server expects "Cookie" header by default to preserve compatibility.] And the response would be: HTTP/1.1 200 OK JSESSIONID: xxx [If client didn't specify "use-jsessionid-header", server would use "Set-Cookie" header by default to preserve compatibility.] > This approach is problematic, as it might work well now, when the only > attribute we use is the engine session ID, but in the future that might > not be the case. > If it is important enough (i.e., you can't really work with option #1) , > then we can make a decision to save the attributes on the engine session, > rather than on the HTTP session. > So, we would start by supporting them both together, adding new attributes > only to the engine session, and in the future deprecating the use of > cookies, and only supporting HTTP headers. I think you can keep the current implementation, i.e. use REST API HttpSession to store Engine session ID value. The only difference would be, when REST API receives the request, it looks for "Prefer:use-jsessionid-header", and if it's present, it uses "JSESSIONID" header value to look up HttpSession in some way (not sure about implementation details, though, but this should be possible to do). So, what do you think?

Vojtech ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:13:12 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:04:24 PM > Subject: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly > > Hi guys, > > having worked with Engine REST API from web application (JavaScript) > perspective, there are things that could be improved to make REST API more > webapp-friendly. > > First of all, webapps are *not* traditional HTTP clients, i.e. they have > *not* full control over HTTP processing. There are some standard > conventions > and behaviors built into web browsers that any REST API implementation > should be aware of. > > -- > > (1) Don't force clients to use cookies for transmitting authentication > information! (or don't use cookies at all) > > Good explanation can be found at > [http://www.berenddeboer.net/rest/cookies.html]. Cookies have many > disadvantages: > > * cookie parsing/formatting is not trivial > --> extra complexity imposed on REST clients > > * in addition to Same-Origin Policy > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy], cookies can be get/set > *only* for the given path > --> JavaScript running at [http://example.com/webapp] *cannot* get/set > cookies from requests at [http://example.com/restapi] > > * cookies are the primary source of Cross-Site Request Forgery > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery] attacks > --> malicious websites/scripts can forge requests to REST API that will > include the cookie, compromising user session > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use regular HTTP header > for transmitting authentication information. > > For example, webapp could read such (sensitive information) header, store > it > securely via HTML5 Session Storage > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_storage] and implement related HTTP > processing on its own, e.g. pass this header for all authenticated requests > (instead of pushing this responsibility to browser). > Option #1: We currently return the JSESSIONID also using HTTP headers. We currently return the jsession id also as part of the response HTTP headers, but the client still needs to pass a cookie with the appropriate value in order for the REST session to work. Isn't that enough to cope with this issue? If not, then we might be able to do option #2: Today, we keep the engine session ID on the HTTP session attributes. So, we can support either passing the cookie with the JSESSIONID (taking the engine session ID from the http session), or passing the engine session ID as HTTP header (assuming we would also return the engine session ID upon first REST request). This approach is problematic, as it might work well now, when the only attribute we use is the engine session ID, but in the future that might not be the case. If it is important enough (i.e., you can't really work with option #1) , then we can make a decision to save the attributes on the engine session, rather than on the HTTP session. So, we would start by supporting them both together, adding new attributes only to the engine session, and in the future deprecating the use of cookies, and only supporting HTTP headers. cc-ed Juan and Michael, as they might have some input on that. > -- > > (2) Straight-forward HTTP Basic Auth has some drawbacks! > > HTTP Basic Auth [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication] > over (non-secure) HTTP connection means sending user credentials > (username/password/domain) in easy-to-decode cleartext, i.e. the value is > *not* encrypted or hashed in any way. Using secure lower-level protocol > (SSL) fixes the consequence, rather than the root cause of the > confidentiality issue. > > Furthermore, browsers typically remember HTTP Basic Auth information > (either > via browser-specific popup, or via XmlHttpRequest) until the browser window > is closed. This means the webapp has no control over HTTP Basic Auth header > after it has been set! This is the reason why it's hard to implement > "logout" functionality in webapps when using HTTP Basic Auth. > > Last but not least, HTTP Basic Auth is vulnerable to Replay attacks > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack]. Someone between client and > server can intercept requests and replay them, compromising user session. > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use more advanced > authentication scheme. > > I've just read an excellent article at > [http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-aut...] > which describes easy yet secure authentication scheme inspired by Amazon > Web > Services REST API authentication > [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html]. > The idea is simple: collect auth information, hash (sign) it with a private > key, and send everything to server. To guard against Replay attacks, just > provide some timestamp to enforce request expiry after some time (say, 5-15 > minutes). Easy and simple! > > -- > > (3) Support JSON for resource representations! > > I think this is pretty much obvious. XML has no real advantages over JSON. > JSON, on the other hand, has good support in webapps (JavaScript) and maps > directly to common data structures (i.e. string, number, boolean, and so > on). > > From webapp perspective, it's much easier and natural to use JSON than to > parse/format XML documents. > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use JSON, in addition > to > XML representation. > > -- > > Vojtech > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:08:31 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly Hi Oved, >> The only difference would be, when REST API receives the request, it looks >> for "Prefer:use-jsessionid-header", and if it's present, it uses >> "JSESSIONID" header value to look up HttpSession in some way (not sure >> about >> implementation details, though, but this should be possible to do). >> >> So, what do you think? >> > As far as I saw, the handling of the cookie is done before the REST code, > and that's why we need the cookie. > Perhaps there is a way to make jboss take the JSESSIONID from the HTTP > header, and not the cookie, but I didn't find a way to do that yet. I'm also not sure about this, so far I've only found: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5807664/tomcat-how-to-access-session-m... It seems that the solution is to either provide custom session manager implementation in JBoss, or to obtain standard session manager early when processing request and create session manually there. Vojtech ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:29:09 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, "engine-devel" > <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:25:06 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly > > Hi Oved, thanks for your feedback! > > > We currently return the JSESSIONID also using HTTP headers. We currently > > return the jsession id also as part of the response HTTP headers, but the > > client still needs to pass a cookie with the appropriate value in order > > for the REST session to work. Isn't that enough to cope with this issue? > > Right, currently REST API responds with JSESSIONID cookie + separate > JSESSIONID response header, both carrying session ID value. > > As I wrote in my original email: JavaScript running at > [http://example.com/webapp] *cannot* get/set cookies from requests at > [http://example.com/restapi] > > So WebAdmin cannot get/set REST API JSESSIONID cookie directly, which is > why > it uses separate JSESSIONID response header in order to *read* the session > ID value. As for sending JSESSIONID cookie, WebAdmin currently relies on > standard cookie-handling implemented in browsers: all cookies for location > X > [http://example.com/restapi] will be part of any request to location X. So > it's the browser who sets JSESSIONID cookie for REST API request, not > WebAdmin. > > To answer your question, currently it's enough to work around the cookie > access limitation, but it's not good enough in my opinion (from > JavaScript/webapp perspective).. > > > If not, then we might be able to do option #2: > > Today, we keep the engine session ID on the HTTP session attributes. > > So, we can support either passing the cookie with the JSESSIONID (taking > > the engine session ID from the http session), or passing the engine > > session ID as HTTP header (assuming we would also return the engine > > session ID upon first REST request). > > Well, the problem I described only relates to the way how JSESSIONID value > is > transmitted between client and server: currently using cookies, so REST API > client has to do cookie handling. > > It would be really great if I could tell REST API to use plain (i.e. *not* > Set-Cookie & Cookie) HTTP header, for example "JSESSIONID", for the purpose > of transmitting session ID value between client and server. > > For example, the request to acquire session would be: > > GET /api HTTP/1.1 > Host: www.example.org > Prefer: use-jsessionid-header > JSESSIONID: xxx > > [Feel free to replace "use-jsessionid-header" with anything you like. If > client doesn't specify "use-jsessionid-header", server expects "Cookie" > header by default to preserve compatibility.] > > And the response would be: > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > JSESSIONID: xxx > > [If client didn't specify "use-jsessionid-header", server would use > "Set-Cookie" header by default to preserve compatibility.] > > > This approach is problematic, as it might work well now, when the only > > attribute we use is the engine session ID, but in the future that might > > not be the case. > > If it is important enough (i.e., you can't really work with option #1) , > > then we can make a decision to save the attributes on the engine session, > > rather than on the HTTP session. > > So, we would start by supporting them both together, adding new > > attributes > > only to the engine session, and in the future deprecating the use of > > cookies, and only supporting HTTP headers. > > I think you can keep the current implementation, i.e. use REST API > HttpSession to store Engine session ID value. > > The only difference would be, when REST API receives the request, it looks > for "Prefer:use-jsessionid-header", and if it's present, it uses > "JSESSIONID" header value to look up HttpSession in some way (not sure > about > implementation details, though, but this should be possible to do). > > So, what do you think? > As far as I saw, the handling of the cookie is done before the REST code, and that's why we need the cookie. Perhaps there is a way to make jboss take the JSESSIONID from the HTTP header, and not the cookie, but I didn't find a way to do that yet. > Vojtech > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt;, "Juan Hernandez" > <jhernand(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Michael Pasternak" <mpastern(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:13:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:04:24 PM > > Subject: [Engine-devel] Proposal to make REST API more webapp-friendly > > > > Hi guys, > > > > having worked with Engine REST API from web application (JavaScript) > > perspective, there are things that could be improved to make REST API > > more > > webapp-friendly. > > > > First of all, webapps are *not* traditional HTTP clients, i.e. they have > > *not* full control over HTTP processing. There are some standard > > conventions > > and behaviors built into web browsers that any REST API implementation > > should be aware of. > > > > -- > > > > (1) Don't force clients to use cookies for transmitting authentication > > information! (or don't use cookies at all) > > > > Good explanation can be found at > > [http://www.berenddeboer.net/rest/cookies.html]. Cookies have many > > disadvantages: > > > > * cookie parsing/formatting is not trivial > > --> extra complexity imposed on REST clients > > > > * in addition to Same-Origin Policy > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_origin_policy], cookies can be get/set > > *only* for the given path > > --> JavaScript running at [http://example.com/webapp] *cannot* get/set > > cookies from requests at [http://example.com/restapi] > > > > * cookies are the primary source of Cross-Site Request Forgery > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery] attacks > > --> malicious websites/scripts can forge requests to REST API that will > > include the cookie, compromising user session > > > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use regular HTTP > > header > > for transmitting authentication information. > > > > For example, webapp could read such (sensitive information) header, store > > it > > securely via HTML5 Session Storage > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_storage] and implement related HTTP > > processing on its own, e.g. pass this header for all authenticated > > requests > > (instead of pushing this responsibility to browser). > > > > Option #1: > We currently return the JSESSIONID also using HTTP headers. We currently > return the jsession id also as part of the response HTTP headers, but the > client still needs to pass a cookie with the appropriate value in order for > the REST session to work. Isn't that enough to cope with this issue? > > If not, then we might be able to do option #2: > Today, we keep the engine session ID on the HTTP session attributes. > So, we can support either passing the cookie with the JSESSIONID (taking > the > engine session ID from the http session), or passing the engine session ID > as HTTP header (assuming we would also return the engine session ID upon > first REST request). > > This approach is problematic, as it might work well now, when the only > attribute we use is the engine session ID, but in the future that might not > be the case. > If it is important enough (i.e., you can't really work with option #1) , > then > we can make a decision to save the attributes on the engine session, rather > than on the HTTP session. > So, we would start by supporting them both together, adding new attributes > only to the engine session, and in the future deprecating the use of > cookies, and only supporting HTTP headers. > > cc-ed Juan and Michael, as they might have some input on that. > > > > -- > > > > (2) Straight-forward HTTP Basic Auth has some drawbacks! > > > > HTTP Basic Auth > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_access_authentication] > > over (non-secure) HTTP connection means sending user credentials > > (username/password/domain) in easy-to-decode cleartext, i.e. the value is > > *not* encrypted or hashed in any way. Using secure lower-level protocol > > (SSL) fixes the consequence, rather than the root cause of the > > confidentiality issue. > > > > Furthermore, browsers typically remember HTTP Basic Auth information > > (either > > via browser-specific popup, or via XmlHttpRequest) until the browser > > window > > is closed. This means the webapp has no control over HTTP Basic Auth > > header > > after it has been set! This is the reason why it's hard to implement > > "logout" functionality in webapps when using HTTP Basic Auth. > > > > Last but not least, HTTP Basic Auth is vulnerable to Replay attacks > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_attack]. Someone between client and > > server can intercept requests and replay them, compromising user session. > > > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use more advanced > > authentication scheme. > > > > I've just read an excellent article at > > [http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-aut...] > > which describes easy yet secure authentication scheme inspired by Amazon > > Web > > Services REST API authentication > > [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html]. > > The idea is simple: collect auth information, hash (sign) it with a > > private > > key, and send everything to server. To guard against Replay attacks, just > > provide some timestamp to enforce request expiry after some time (say, > > 5-15 > > minutes). Easy and simple! > > > > -- > > > > (3) Support JSON for resource representations! > > > > I think this is pretty much obvious. XML has no real advantages over > > JSON. > > JSON, on the other hand, has good support in webapps (JavaScript) and > > maps > > directly to common data structures (i.e. string, number, boolean, and so > > on). > > > > From webapp perspective, it's much easier and natural to use JSON than to > > parse/format XML documents. > > > > Alternative: clients could be given the *option* to use JSON, in addition > > to > > XML representation. > > > > -- > > > > Vojtech > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel