637 lines
30 KiB
Markdown
637 lines
30 KiB
Markdown
![hawk Logo](https://raw.github.com/hueniverse/hawk/master/images/hawk.png)
|
|
|
|
<img align="right" src="https://raw.github.com/hueniverse/hawk/master/images/logo.png" /> **Hawk** is an HTTP authentication scheme using a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm to provide partial
|
|
HTTP request cryptographic verification. For more complex use cases such as access delegation, see [Oz](https://github.com/hueniverse/oz).
|
|
|
|
Current version: **6.x**
|
|
|
|
Note: 6.x, 5.x, 4.x, 3.x, and 2.x are the same exact protocol as 1.1. The version increments reflect changes in the node API.
|
|
|
|
[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/hueniverse/hawk.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/hueniverse/hawk)
|
|
|
|
# Table of Content
|
|
|
|
- [**Introduction**](#introduction)
|
|
- [Replay Protection](#replay-protection)
|
|
- [Usage Example](#usage-example)
|
|
- [Protocol Example](#protocol-example)
|
|
- [Payload Validation](#payload-validation)
|
|
- [Response Payload Validation](#response-payload-validation)
|
|
- [Browser Support and Considerations](#browser-support-and-considerations)
|
|
- [**Single URI Authorization**](#single-uri-authorization)
|
|
- [Usage Example](#bewit-usage-example)
|
|
- [**Security Considerations**](#security-considerations)
|
|
- [MAC Keys Transmission](#mac-keys-transmission)
|
|
- [Confidentiality of Requests](#confidentiality-of-requests)
|
|
- [Spoofing by Counterfeit Servers](#spoofing-by-counterfeit-servers)
|
|
- [Plaintext Storage of Credentials](#plaintext-storage-of-credentials)
|
|
- [Entropy of Keys](#entropy-of-keys)
|
|
- [Coverage Limitations](#coverage-limitations)
|
|
- [Future Time Manipulation](#future-time-manipulation)
|
|
- [Client Clock Poisoning](#client-clock-poisoning)
|
|
- [Bewit Limitations](#bewit-limitations)
|
|
- [Host Header Forgery](#host-header-forgery)
|
|
- [**Frequently Asked Questions**](#frequently-asked-questions)
|
|
- [**Implementations**](#implementations)
|
|
- [**Acknowledgements**](#acknowledgements)
|
|
|
|
# Introduction
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** is an HTTP authentication scheme providing mechanisms for making authenticated HTTP requests with
|
|
partial cryptographic verification of the request and response, covering the HTTP method, request URI, host,
|
|
and optionally the request payload.
|
|
|
|
Similar to the HTTP [Digest access authentication schemes](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2617.txt), **Hawk** uses a set of
|
|
client credentials which include an identifier (e.g. username) and key (e.g. password). Likewise, just as with the Digest scheme,
|
|
the key is never included in authenticated requests. Instead, it is used to calculate a request MAC value which is
|
|
included in its place.
|
|
|
|
However, **Hawk** has several differences from Digest. In particular, while both use a nonce to limit the possibility of
|
|
replay attacks, in **Hawk** the client generates the nonce and uses it in combination with a timestamp, leading to less
|
|
"chattiness" (interaction with the server).
|
|
|
|
Also unlike Digest, this scheme is not intended to protect the key itself (the password in Digest) because
|
|
the client and server must both have access to the key material in the clear.
|
|
|
|
The primary design goals of this scheme are to:
|
|
* simplify and improve HTTP authentication for services that are unwilling or unable to deploy TLS for all resources,
|
|
* secure credentials against leakage (e.g., when the client uses some form of dynamic configuration to determine where
|
|
to send an authenticated request), and
|
|
* avoid the exposure of credentials sent to a malicious server over an unauthenticated secure channel due to client
|
|
failure to validate the server's identity as part of its TLS handshake.
|
|
|
|
In addition, **Hawk** supports a method for granting third-parties temporary access to individual resources using
|
|
a query parameter called _bewit_ (in falconry, a leather strap used to attach a tracking device to the leg of a hawk).
|
|
|
|
The **Hawk** scheme requires the establishment of a shared symmetric key between the client and the server,
|
|
which is beyond the scope of this module. Typically, the shared credentials are established via an initial
|
|
TLS-protected phase or derived from some other shared confidential information available to both the client
|
|
and the server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Replay Protection
|
|
|
|
Without replay protection, an attacker can use a compromised (but otherwise valid and authenticated) request more
|
|
than once, gaining access to a protected resource. To mitigate this, clients include both a nonce and a timestamp when
|
|
making requests. This gives the server enough information to prevent replay attacks.
|
|
|
|
The nonce is generated by the client, and is a string unique across all requests with the same timestamp and
|
|
key identifier combination.
|
|
|
|
The timestamp enables the server to restrict the validity period of the credentials where requests occurring afterwards
|
|
are rejected. It also removes the need for the server to retain an unbounded number of nonce values for future checks.
|
|
By default, **Hawk** uses a time window of 1 minute to allow for time skew between the client and server (which in
|
|
practice translates to a maximum of 2 minutes as the skew can be positive or negative).
|
|
|
|
Using a timestamp requires the client's clock to be in sync with the server's clock. **Hawk** requires both the client
|
|
clock and the server clock to use NTP to ensure synchronization. However, given the limitations of some client types
|
|
(e.g. browsers) to deploy NTP, the server provides the client with its current time (in seconds precision) in response
|
|
to a bad timestamp.
|
|
|
|
There is no expectation that the client will adjust its system clock to match the server (in fact, this would be a
|
|
potential attack vector). Instead, the client only uses the server's time to calculate an offset used only
|
|
for communications with that particular server. The protocol rewards clients with synchronized clocks by reducing
|
|
the number of round trips required to authenticate the first request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Usage Example
|
|
|
|
Server code:
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
const Http = require('http');
|
|
const Hawk = require('hawk');
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Credentials lookup function
|
|
|
|
const credentialsFunc = function (id, callback) {
|
|
|
|
const credentials = {
|
|
key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn',
|
|
algorithm: 'sha256',
|
|
user: 'Steve'
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
return callback(null, credentials);
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// Create HTTP server
|
|
|
|
const handler = function (req, res) {
|
|
|
|
// Authenticate incoming request
|
|
|
|
Hawk.server.authenticate(req, credentialsFunc, {}, (err, credentials, artifacts) => {
|
|
|
|
// Prepare response
|
|
|
|
const payload = (!err ? `Hello ${credentials.user} ${artifacts.ext}` : 'Shoosh!');
|
|
const headers = { 'Content-Type': 'text/plain' };
|
|
|
|
// Generate Server-Authorization response header
|
|
|
|
const header = Hawk.server.header(credentials, artifacts, { payload, contentType: headers['Content-Type'] });
|
|
headers['Server-Authorization'] = header;
|
|
|
|
// Send the response back
|
|
|
|
res.writeHead(!err ? 200 : 401, headers);
|
|
res.end(payload);
|
|
});
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// Start server
|
|
|
|
Http.createServer(handler).listen(8000, 'example.com');
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Client code:
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
const Request = require('request');
|
|
const Hawk = require('hawk');
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Client credentials
|
|
|
|
const credentials = {
|
|
id: 'dh37fgj492je',
|
|
key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn',
|
|
algorithm: 'sha256'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Request options
|
|
|
|
const requestOptions = {
|
|
uri: 'http://example.com:8000/resource/1?b=1&a=2',
|
|
method: 'GET',
|
|
headers: {}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// Generate Authorization request header
|
|
|
|
const header = Hawk.client.header('http://example.com:8000/resource/1?b=1&a=2', 'GET', { credentials: credentials, ext: 'some-app-data' });
|
|
requestOptions.headers.Authorization = header.field;
|
|
|
|
// Send authenticated request
|
|
|
|
Request(requestOptions, function (error, response, body) {
|
|
|
|
// Authenticate the server's response
|
|
|
|
const isValid = Hawk.client.authenticate(response, credentials, header.artifacts, { payload: body });
|
|
|
|
// Output results
|
|
|
|
console.log(`${response.statusCode}: ${body}` + (isValid ? ' (valid)' : ' (invalid)'));
|
|
});
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** utilized the [**SNTP**](https://github.com/hueniverse/sntp) module for time sync management. By default, the local
|
|
machine time is used. To automatically retrieve and synchronize the clock within the application, use the SNTP 'start()' method.
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
Hawk.sntp.start();
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Protocol Example
|
|
|
|
The client attempts to access a protected resource without authentication, sending the following HTTP request to
|
|
the resource server:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /resource/1?b=1&a=2 HTTP/1.1
|
|
Host: example.com:8000
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The resource server returns an authentication challenge.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized
|
|
WWW-Authenticate: Hawk
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The client has previously obtained a set of **Hawk** credentials for accessing resources on the "`http://example.com/`"
|
|
server. The **Hawk** credentials issued to the client include the following attributes:
|
|
|
|
* Key identifier: `dh37fgj492je`
|
|
* Key: `werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn`
|
|
* Algorithm: `hmac sha256`
|
|
* Hash: `6R4rV5iE+NPoym+WwjeHzjAGXUtLNIxmo1vpMofpLAE=`
|
|
|
|
The client generates the authentication header by calculating a timestamp (e.g. the number of seconds since January 1,
|
|
1970 00:00:00 GMT), generating a nonce, and constructing the normalized request string (each value followed by a newline
|
|
character):
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
hawk.1.header
|
|
1353832234
|
|
j4h3g2
|
|
GET
|
|
/resource/1?b=1&a=2
|
|
example.com
|
|
8000
|
|
|
|
some-app-ext-data
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The request MAC is calculated using HMAC with the specified hash algorithm "`sha256`" and the key over the normalized request string.
|
|
The result is base64-encoded to produce the request MAC:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
6R4rV5iE+NPoym+WwjeHzjAGXUtLNIxmo1vpMofpLAE=
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The client includes the **Hawk** key identifier, timestamp, nonce, application specific data, and request MAC with the request using
|
|
the HTTP `Authorization` request header field:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
GET /resource/1?b=1&a=2 HTTP/1.1
|
|
Host: example.com:8000
|
|
Authorization: Hawk id="dh37fgj492je", ts="1353832234", nonce="j4h3g2", ext="some-app-ext-data", mac="6R4rV5iE+NPoym+WwjeHzjAGXUtLNIxmo1vpMofpLAE="
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The server validates the request by calculating the request MAC again based on the request received and verifies the validity
|
|
and scope of the **Hawk** credentials. If valid, the server responds with the requested resource.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Payload Validation
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** provides optional payload validation. When generating the authentication header, the client calculates a payload hash
|
|
using the specified hash algorithm. The hash is calculated over the concatenated value of (each followed by a newline character):
|
|
* `hawk.1.payload`
|
|
* the content-type in lowercase, without any parameters (e.g. `application/json`)
|
|
* the request payload prior to any content encoding (the exact representation requirements should be specified by the server for payloads other than simple single-part ascii to ensure interoperability)
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
|
|
* Payload: `Thank you for flying Hawk`
|
|
* Content Type: `text/plain`
|
|
* Algorithm: `sha256`
|
|
* Hash: `Yi9LfIIFRtBEPt74PVmbTF/xVAwPn7ub15ePICfgnuY=`
|
|
|
|
Results in the following input to the payload hash function (newline terminated values):
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
hawk.1.payload
|
|
text/plain
|
|
Thank you for flying Hawk
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Which produces the following hash value:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Yi9LfIIFRtBEPt74PVmbTF/xVAwPn7ub15ePICfgnuY=
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The client constructs the normalized request string (newline terminated values):
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
hawk.1.header
|
|
1353832234
|
|
j4h3g2
|
|
POST
|
|
/resource/1?a=1&b=2
|
|
example.com
|
|
8000
|
|
Yi9LfIIFRtBEPt74PVmbTF/xVAwPn7ub15ePICfgnuY=
|
|
some-app-ext-data
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Then calculates the request MAC and includes the **Hawk** key identifier, timestamp, nonce, payload hash, application specific data,
|
|
and request MAC, with the request using the HTTP `Authorization` request header field:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
POST /resource/1?a=1&b=2 HTTP/1.1
|
|
Host: example.com:8000
|
|
Authorization: Hawk id="dh37fgj492je", ts="1353832234", nonce="j4h3g2", hash="Yi9LfIIFRtBEPt74PVmbTF/xVAwPn7ub15ePICfgnuY=", ext="some-app-ext-data", mac="aSe1DERmZuRl3pI36/9BdZmnErTw3sNzOOAUlfeKjVw="
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
It is up to the server if and when it validates the payload for any given request, based solely on its security policy
|
|
and the nature of the data included.
|
|
|
|
If the payload is available at the time of authentication, the server uses the hash value provided by the client to construct
|
|
the normalized string and validates the MAC. If the MAC is valid, the server calculates the payload hash and compares the value
|
|
with the provided payload hash in the header. In many cases, checking the MAC first is faster than calculating the payload hash.
|
|
|
|
However, if the payload is not available at authentication time (e.g. too large to fit in memory, streamed elsewhere, or processed
|
|
at a different stage in the application), the server may choose to defer payload validation for later by retaining the hash value
|
|
provided by the client after validating the MAC.
|
|
|
|
It is important to note that MAC validation does not mean the hash value provided by the client is valid, only that the value
|
|
included in the header was not modified. Without calculating the payload hash on the server and comparing it to the value provided
|
|
by the client, the payload may be modified by an attacker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Response Payload Validation
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** provides partial response payload validation. The server includes the `Server-Authorization` response header which enables the
|
|
client to authenticate the response and ensure it is talking to the right server. **Hawk** defines the HTTP `Server-Authorization` header
|
|
as a response header using the exact same syntax as the `Authorization` request header field.
|
|
|
|
The header is constructed using the same process as the client's request header. The server uses the same credentials and other
|
|
artifacts provided by the client to constructs the normalized request string. The `ext` and `hash` values are replaced with
|
|
new values based on the server response. The rest as identical to those used by the client.
|
|
|
|
The result MAC digest is included with the optional `hash` and `ext` values:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Server-Authorization: Hawk mac="XIJRsMl/4oL+nn+vKoeVZPdCHXB4yJkNnBbTbHFZUYE=", hash="f9cDF/TDm7TkYRLnGwRMfeDzT6LixQVLvrIKhh0vgmM=", ext="response-specific"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Browser Support and Considerations
|
|
|
|
A browser script is provided for including using a `<script>` tag in [lib/browser.js](/lib/browser.js). It's also a [component](http://component.io/hueniverse/hawk).
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** relies on the _Server-Authorization_ and _WWW-Authenticate_ headers in its response to communicate with the client.
|
|
Therefore, in case of CORS requests, it is important to consider sending _Access-Control-Expose-Headers_ with the value
|
|
_"WWW-Authenticate, Server-Authorization"_ on each response from your server. As explained in the
|
|
[specifications](http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/#access-control-expose-headers-response-header), it will indicate that these headers
|
|
can safely be accessed by the client (using getResponseHeader() on the XmlHttpRequest object). Otherwise you will be met with a
|
|
["simple response header"](http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/#simple-response-header) which excludes these fields and would prevent the
|
|
Hawk client from authenticating the requests.You can read more about the why and how in this
|
|
[article](http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/cors/#toc-adding-cors-support-to-the-server)
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Single URI Authorization
|
|
|
|
There are cases in which limited and short-term access to a protected resource is granted to a third party which does not
|
|
have access to the shared credentials. For example, displaying a protected image on a web page accessed by anyone. **Hawk**
|
|
provides limited support for such URIs in the form of a _bewit_ - a URI query parameter appended to the request URI which contains
|
|
the necessary credentials to authenticate the request.
|
|
|
|
Because of the significant security risks involved in issuing such access, bewit usage is purposely limited only to GET requests
|
|
and for a finite period of time. Both the client and server can issue bewit credentials, however, the server should not use the same
|
|
credentials as the client to maintain clear traceability as to who issued which credentials.
|
|
|
|
In order to simplify implementation, bewit credentials do not support single-use policy and can be replayed multiple times within
|
|
the granted access timeframe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Bewit Usage Example
|
|
|
|
Server code:
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
const Http = require('http');
|
|
const Hawk = require('hawk');
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Credentials lookup function
|
|
|
|
const credentialsFunc = function (id, callback) {
|
|
|
|
const credentials = {
|
|
key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn',
|
|
algorithm: 'sha256'
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
return callback(null, credentials);
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// Create HTTP server
|
|
|
|
const handler = function (req, res) {
|
|
|
|
Hawk.uri.authenticate(req, credentialsFunc, {}, (err, credentials, attributes) => {
|
|
|
|
res.writeHead(!err ? 200 : 401, { 'Content-Type': 'text/plain' });
|
|
res.end(!err ? 'Access granted' : 'Shoosh!');
|
|
});
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
Http.createServer(handler).listen(8000, 'example.com');
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Bewit code generation:
|
|
|
|
```javascript
|
|
const Request = require('request');
|
|
const Hawk = require('hawk');
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Client credentials
|
|
|
|
const credentials = {
|
|
id: 'dh37fgj492je',
|
|
key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn',
|
|
algorithm: 'sha256'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Generate bewit
|
|
|
|
const duration = 60 * 5; // 5 Minutes
|
|
const bewit = Hawk.uri.getBewit('http://example.com:8000/resource/1?b=1&a=2', { credentials: credentials, ttlSec: duration, ext: 'some-app-data' });
|
|
const uri = 'http://example.com:8000/resource/1?b=1&a=2' + '&bewit=' + bewit;
|
|
|
|
// Output URI
|
|
|
|
console.log('URI: ' + uri);
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Security Considerations
|
|
|
|
The greatest sources of security risks are usually found not in **Hawk** but in the policies and procedures surrounding its use.
|
|
Implementers are strongly encouraged to assess how this module addresses their security requirements. This section includes
|
|
an incomplete list of security considerations that must be reviewed and understood before deploying **Hawk** on the server.
|
|
Many of the protections provided in **Hawk** depends on whether and how they are used.
|
|
|
|
### MAC Keys Transmission
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** does not provide any mechanism for obtaining or transmitting the set of shared credentials required. Any mechanism used
|
|
to obtain **Hawk** credentials must ensure that these transmissions are protected using transport-layer mechanisms such as TLS.
|
|
|
|
### Confidentiality of Requests
|
|
|
|
While **Hawk** provides a mechanism for verifying the integrity of HTTP requests, it provides no guarantee of request
|
|
confidentiality. Unless other precautions are taken, eavesdroppers will have full access to the request content. Servers should
|
|
carefully consider the types of data likely to be sent as part of such requests, and employ transport-layer security mechanisms
|
|
to protect sensitive resources.
|
|
|
|
### Spoofing by Counterfeit Servers
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** provides limited verification of the server authenticity. When receiving a response back from the server, the server
|
|
may choose to include a response `Server-Authorization` header which the client can use to verify the response. However, it is up to
|
|
the server to determine when such measure is included, to up to the client to enforce that policy.
|
|
|
|
A hostile party could take advantage of this by intercepting the client's requests and returning misleading or otherwise
|
|
incorrect responses. Service providers should consider such attacks when developing services using this protocol, and should
|
|
require transport-layer security for any requests where the authenticity of the resource server or of server responses is an issue.
|
|
|
|
### Plaintext Storage of Credentials
|
|
|
|
The **Hawk** key functions the same way passwords do in traditional authentication systems. In order to compute the request MAC,
|
|
the server must have access to the key in plaintext form. This is in contrast, for example, to modern operating systems, which
|
|
store only a one-way hash of user credentials.
|
|
|
|
If an attacker were to gain access to these keys - or worse, to the server's database of all such keys - he or she would be able
|
|
to perform any action on behalf of any resource owner. Accordingly, it is critical that servers protect these keys from unauthorized
|
|
access.
|
|
|
|
### Entropy of Keys
|
|
|
|
Unless a transport-layer security protocol is used, eavesdroppers will have full access to authenticated requests and request
|
|
MAC values, and will thus be able to mount offline brute-force attacks to recover the key used. Servers should be careful to
|
|
assign keys which are long enough, and random enough, to resist such attacks for at least the length of time that the **Hawk**
|
|
credentials are valid.
|
|
|
|
For example, if the credentials are valid for two weeks, servers should ensure that it is not possible to mount a brute force
|
|
attack that recovers the key in less than two weeks. Of course, servers are urged to err on the side of caution, and use the
|
|
longest key reasonable.
|
|
|
|
It is equally important that the pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) used to generate these keys be of sufficiently high
|
|
quality. Many PRNG implementations generate number sequences that may appear to be random, but which nevertheless exhibit
|
|
patterns or other weaknesses which make cryptanalysis or brute force attacks easier. Implementers should be careful to use
|
|
cryptographically secure PRNGs to avoid these problems.
|
|
|
|
### Coverage Limitations
|
|
|
|
The request MAC only covers the HTTP `Host` header and optionally the `Content-Type` header. It does not cover any other headers
|
|
which can often affect how the request body is interpreted by the server. If the server behavior is influenced by the presence
|
|
or value of such headers, an attacker can manipulate the request headers without being detected. Implementers should use the
|
|
`ext` feature to pass application-specific information via the `Authorization` header which is protected by the request MAC.
|
|
|
|
The response authentication, when performed, only covers the response payload, content-type, and the request information
|
|
provided by the client in its request (method, resource, timestamp, nonce, etc.). It does not cover the HTTP status code or
|
|
any other response header field (e.g. `Location`) which can affect the client's behaviour.
|
|
|
|
### Future Time Manipulation
|
|
|
|
The protocol relies on a clock sync between the client and server. To accomplish this, the server informs the client of its
|
|
current time when an invalid timestamp is received.
|
|
|
|
If an attacker is able to manipulate this information and cause the client to use an incorrect time, it would be able to cause
|
|
the client to generate authenticated requests using time in the future. Such requests will fail when sent by the client, and will
|
|
not likely leave a trace on the server (given the common implementation of nonce, if at all enforced). The attacker will then
|
|
be able to replay the request at the correct time without detection.
|
|
|
|
The client must only use the time information provided by the server if:
|
|
* it was delivered over a TLS connection and the server identity has been verified, or
|
|
* the `tsm` MAC digest calculated using the same client credentials over the timestamp has been verified.
|
|
|
|
### Client Clock Poisoning
|
|
|
|
When receiving a request with a bad timestamp, the server provides the client with its current time. The client must never use
|
|
the time received from the server to adjust its own clock, and must only use it to calculate an offset for communicating with
|
|
that particular server.
|
|
|
|
### Bewit Limitations
|
|
|
|
Special care must be taken when issuing bewit credentials to third parties. Bewit credentials are valid until expiration and cannot
|
|
be revoked or limited without using other means. Whatever resource they grant access to will be completely exposed to anyone with
|
|
access to the bewit credentials which act as bearer credentials for that particular resource. While bewit usage is limited to GET
|
|
requests only and therefore cannot be used to perform transactions or change server state, it can still be used to expose private
|
|
and sensitive information.
|
|
|
|
### Host Header Forgery
|
|
|
|
Hawk validates the incoming request MAC against the incoming HTTP Host header. However, unless the optional `host` and `port`
|
|
options are used with `server.authenticate()`, a malicious client can mint new host names pointing to the server's IP address and
|
|
use that to craft an attack by sending a valid request that's meant for another hostname than the one used by the server. Server
|
|
implementors must manually verify that the host header received matches their expectation (or use the options mentioned above).
|
|
|
|
# Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
|
|
### Where is the protocol specification?
|
|
|
|
If you are looking for some prose explaining how all this works, **this is it**. **Hawk** is being developed as an open source
|
|
project instead of a standard. In other words, the [code](/hueniverse/hawk/tree/master/lib) is the specification. Not sure about
|
|
something? Open an issue!
|
|
|
|
### Is it done?
|
|
|
|
As of version 0.10.0, **Hawk** is feature-complete. However, until this module reaches version 1.0.0 it is considered experimental
|
|
and is likely to change. This also means your feedback and contribution are very welcome. Feel free to open issues with questions
|
|
and suggestions.
|
|
|
|
### Where can I find **Hawk** implementations in other languages?
|
|
|
|
**Hawk**'s only reference implementation is provided in JavaScript as a node.js module. However, it has been ported to other languages.
|
|
The full list is maintained [here](https://github.com/hueniverse/hawk/issues?labels=port&state=closed). Please add an issue if you are
|
|
working on another port. A cross-platform test-suite is in the works.
|
|
|
|
### Why isn't the algorithm part of the challenge or dynamically negotiated?
|
|
|
|
The algorithm used is closely related to the key issued as different algorithms require different key sizes (and other
|
|
requirements). While some keys can be used for multiple algorithm, the protocol is designed to closely bind the key and algorithm
|
|
together as part of the issued credentials.
|
|
|
|
### Why is Host and Content-Type the only headers covered by the request MAC?
|
|
|
|
It is really hard to include other headers. Headers can be changed by proxies and other intermediaries and there is no
|
|
well-established way to normalize them. Many platforms change the case of header field names and values. The only
|
|
straight-forward solution is to include the headers in some blob (say, base64 encoded JSON) and include that with the request,
|
|
an approach taken by JWT and other such formats. However, that design violates the HTTP header boundaries, repeats information,
|
|
and introduces other security issues because firewalls will not be aware of these "hidden" headers. In addition, any information
|
|
repeated must be compared to the duplicated information in the header and therefore only moves the problem elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
### Why not just use HTTP Digest?
|
|
|
|
Digest requires pre-negotiation to establish a nonce. This means you can't just make a request - you must first send
|
|
a protocol handshake to the server. This pattern has become unacceptable for most web services, especially mobile
|
|
where extra round-trip are costly.
|
|
|
|
### Why bother with all this nonce and timestamp business?
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** is an attempt to find a reasonable, practical compromise between security and usability. OAuth 1.0 got timestamp
|
|
and nonces halfway right but failed when it came to scalability and consistent developer experience. **Hawk** addresses
|
|
it by requiring the client to sync its clock, but provides it with tools to accomplish it.
|
|
|
|
In general, replay protection is a matter of application-specific threat model. It is less of an issue on a TLS-protected
|
|
system where the clients are implemented using best practices and are under the control of the server. Instead of dropping
|
|
replay protection, **Hawk** offers a required time window and an optional nonce verification. Together, it provides developers
|
|
with the ability to decide how to enforce their security policy without impacting the client's implementation.
|
|
|
|
### What are `app` and `dlg` in the authorization header and normalized mac string?
|
|
|
|
The original motivation for **Hawk** was to replace the OAuth 1.0 use cases. This included both a simple client-server mode which
|
|
this module is specifically designed for, and a delegated access mode which is being developed separately in
|
|
[Oz](https://github.com/hueniverse/oz). In addition to the **Hawk** use cases, Oz requires another attribute: the application id `app`.
|
|
This provides binding between the credentials and the application in a way that prevents an attacker from tricking an application
|
|
to use credentials issued to someone else. It also has an optional 'delegated-by' attribute `dlg` which is the application id of the
|
|
application the credentials were directly issued to. The goal of these two additions is to allow Oz to utilize **Hawk** directly,
|
|
but with the additional security of delegated credentials.
|
|
|
|
### What is the purpose of the static strings used in each normalized MAC input?
|
|
|
|
When calculating a hash or MAC, a static prefix (tag) is added. The prefix is used to prevent MAC values from being
|
|
used or reused for a purpose other than what they were created for (i.e. prevents switching MAC values between a request,
|
|
response, and a bewit use cases). It also protects against exploits created after a potential change in how the protocol
|
|
creates the normalized string. For example, if a future version would switch the order of nonce and timestamp, it
|
|
can create an exploit opportunity for cases where the nonce is similar in format to a timestamp.
|
|
|
|
### Does **Hawk** have anything to do with OAuth?
|
|
|
|
Short answer: no.
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** was originally proposed as the OAuth MAC Token specification. However, the OAuth working group in its consistent
|
|
incompetence failed to produce a final, usable solution to address one of the most popular use cases of OAuth 1.0 - using it
|
|
to authenticate simple client-server transactions (i.e. two-legged). As you can guess, the OAuth working group is still hard
|
|
at work to produce more garbage.
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** provides a simple HTTP authentication scheme for making client-server requests. It does not address the OAuth use case
|
|
of delegating access to a third party. If you are looking for an OAuth alternative, check out [Oz](https://github.com/hueniverse/oz).
|
|
|
|
# Implementations
|
|
|
|
- [Logibit Hawk in F#/.Net](https://github.com/logibit/logibit.hawk/)
|
|
- [Tent Hawk in Ruby](https://github.com/tent/hawk-ruby)
|
|
- [Wealdtech in Java](https://github.com/wealdtech/hawk)
|
|
- [Kumar's Mohawk in Python](https://github.com/kumar303/mohawk/)
|
|
- [Hiyosi in Go](https://github.com/hiyosi/hawk)
|
|
|
|
# Acknowledgements
|
|
|
|
**Hawk** is a derivative work of the [HTTP MAC Authentication Scheme](http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-oauth-v2-mac-token-05) proposal
|
|
co-authored by Ben Adida, Adam Barth, and Eran Hammer, which in turn was based on the OAuth 1.0 community specification.
|
|
|
|
Special thanks to Ben Laurie for his always insightful feedback and advice.
|
|
|
|
The **Hawk** logo was created by [Chris Carrasco](http://chriscarrasco.com).
|