You can not select more than 25 topics
			Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
		
		
		
		
		
			
		
			
				
					635 lines
				
				31 KiB
			
		
		
			
		
	
	
					635 lines
				
				31 KiB
			| 
											3 years ago
										 |  | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | <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: **3.x** | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | Note: 3.x and 2.x are the same exact protocol as 1.1. The version increments reflect changes in the node API. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | [](http://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) | ||
|  | <p></p> | ||
|  | - [**Single URI Authorization**](#single-uri-authorization) | ||
|  |   - [Usage Example](#bewit-usage-example) | ||
|  | <p></p> | ||
|  | - [**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) | ||
|  | <p></p> | ||
|  | - [**Frequently Asked Questions**](#frequently-asked-questions) | ||
|  | <p></p> | ||
|  | - [**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 occuring 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 | ||
|  | var Http = require('http'); | ||
|  | var Hawk = require('hawk'); | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Credentials lookup function | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var credentialsFunc = function (id, callback) { | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     var credentials = { | ||
|  |         key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn', | ||
|  |         algorithm: 'sha256', | ||
|  |         user: 'Steve' | ||
|  |     }; | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     return callback(null, credentials); | ||
|  | }; | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Create HTTP server | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var handler = function (req, res) { | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     // Authenticate incoming request | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     Hawk.server.authenticate(req, credentialsFunc, {}, function (err, credentials, artifacts) { | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |         // Prepare response | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |         var payload = (!err ? 'Hello ' + credentials.user + ' ' + artifacts.ext : 'Shoosh!'); | ||
|  |         var headers = { 'Content-Type': 'text/plain' }; | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |         // Generate Server-Authorization response header | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |         var header = Hawk.server.header(credentials, artifacts, { payload: 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 | ||
|  | var Request = require('request'); | ||
|  | var Hawk = require('hawk'); | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Client credentials | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var credentials = { | ||
|  |     id: 'dh37fgj492je', | ||
|  |     key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn', | ||
|  |     algorithm: 'sha256' | ||
|  | } | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Request options | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var requestOptions = { | ||
|  |     uri: 'http://example.com:8000/resource/1?b=1&a=2', | ||
|  |     method: 'GET', | ||
|  |     headers: {} | ||
|  | }; | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Generate Authorization request header | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var 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 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     var 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 synchronice 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: sha256 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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` | ||
|  | * Hash (sha256): `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 it's 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 contructed 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 | ||
|  | var Http = require('http'); | ||
|  | var Hawk = require('hawk'); | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Credentials lookup function | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var credentialsFunc = function (id, callback) { | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     var credentials = { | ||
|  |         key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn', | ||
|  |         algorithm: 'sha256' | ||
|  |     }; | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     return callback(null, credentials); | ||
|  | }; | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Create HTTP server | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var handler = function (req, res) { | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     Hawk.uri.authenticate(req, credentialsFunc, {}, function (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 | ||
|  | var Request = require('request'); | ||
|  | var Hawk = require('hawk'); | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Client credentials | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var credentials = { | ||
|  |     id: 'dh37fgj492je', | ||
|  |     key: 'werxhqb98rpaxn39848xrunpaw3489ruxnpa98w4rxn', | ||
|  |     algorithm: 'sha256' | ||
|  | } | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | // Generate bewit | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | var duration = 60 * 5;      // 5 Minutes | ||
|  | var bewit = Hawk.uri.getBewit('http://example.com:8080/resource/1?b=1&a=2', { credentials: credentials, ttlSec: duration, ext: 'some-app-data' }); | ||
|  | var uri = 'http://example.com:8000/resource/1?b=1&a=2' + '&bewit=' + bewit; | ||
|  | ``` | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | # 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 it's 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 malicous 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/) | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | # 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). |