I am currently working on a REST library for .net, and I would like to hear some opinions about an open point I have: REST and authentication.
Here is an example of an RESTful interface used with the library:
[RestRoot("/user")] public interface IUserInterface { [RestPut("/")] void Add(User user); [RestGet("/")] int[] List(); [RestGet("/get/{id}")] User Get(int id); [RestDelete("/delete/{id}")] void Delete(int id); }
The server code then just implements the interface and the clients can obtain the same interface through a factory. Or if the client is not using the library a standard HTTP request also works.
I know that there are the major ways of either using HTTP Basic Auth or sending a token to requests requiring authenticated users.
The first method (HTTP Basic Auth), has the following issues (partly web browser specific):
The issues for the second method are more focused on implementation and library use:
[RestGet("/get/{id}")]
vs. [RestGet("/get/{id}/{token}")]
.My idea was to pass the token as parameter to the URL like http:/server/user/get/1234?token=token_id
.
Another possibility would be to send the parameter as an HTTP header, but this would complicate usage with plain HTTP clients I guess.
The token would get passed back to the client as a custom HTTP header ("X-Session-Id") on each request.
This then could be completely abstracted from the interface, and any implementation needing authentication could just ask which user the token (if given) belongs to.
Do you think this would violate REST too much or do you have any better ideas?
Users of the REST API can authenticate by providing a user ID and password to the REST API login resource with the HTTP POST method. An LTPA token is generated that enables the user to authenticate future requests. This LTPA token has the prefix LtpaToken2 .
So, what is the difference between authentication and authorization? Simply put, authentication is the process of verifying who someone is, whereas authorization is the process of verifying what specific applications, files, and data a user has access to.
I tend to believe that authentication details belong in the header, not the URI. If you rely on a token being placed on the URI, then every URI in your application will need to be encoded to include the token. It would also negatively impact caching. Resources with a token that is constantly changing will no longer be able to be cached. Resource related information belongs in the URI, not application related data such as credentials.
It seems you must be targeting web browsers as a client? If so you could investigate using HTTP Digest access authentication or issuing clients their own SSL certificates to uniquely identify and authenticate them. Also, I don't think that session cookies are necessarily a bad thing. Especially when having to deal with a browser. As long as you isolate the cookie handling code and make the rest of the application not rely on it you would be fine. The key is only store the user's identity in the session, nothing else. Do not abuse server side session state.
If you are targeting clients other than the browser then there are a number of approaches you can take. I've had luck with using Amazon's S3 Authentication mechanism.
This is all very subjective of course. Purity and following REST to the letter can sometimes be impractical. As long as you minimize and isolate such behavior, the core of your application can still be RESTful. I highly recommend RESTful Web Services as a great source of REST information and approaches.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With