Are breaches of JWT-based servers more damaging?

Question

UPDATE: I have concluded my research on this problem and posted a lengthy blog entry explaining my findings: The Unspoken Vulnerability of JWTs. I explain how the big push to use JWTs for local authentication is leaving out one crucial detail: that the signing key must be protected. I also explain that unless you're willing to go to great lengths to protect the keys, you're better off either delegating authentication via Oauth or using traditional session IDs.

---

I have seen much discussion of the security of JSON Web Tokens -- replay, revocation, data transparency, token-specified alg, token encryption, XSS, CSRF -- but I've not seen any assessment of the risk imposed by relying on a signing key.

If someone breaches a server and acquires a JWT signing key, it seems to me that this person could thereafter use the key to forge unexpired JWTs and secretly gain access. Of course, a server could look up each JWT on each request to confirm its validity, but servers use JWTs exactly so they don't have to do this. The server could confirm the IP address, but that also involves a lookup if the JWT is not to be trusted, and apparently doing this precludes reliable mobile access anyway.

Contrast this with a breach of a server based on session IDs. If this server is hashing passwords, the attacker would have to snag and use a session ID separately for each user before it expires. If the server were only storing hashes of the session IDs, the attacker would have to write to the server to ensure access. Regardless, it seems that the attacker is less advantaged.

I have found one architecture that uses JWTs without this disadvantage. A reverse proxy sits between untrusted clients externally and a backend collection of microservices internally, described here by Nordic APIs. A client acquires an opaque token from an authorization server and uses that token to communicate with the server app for all requests. For each request, the proxy translates the opaque token into a JWT and caches their association. The external world never provides JWTs, limiting the damage wrought by stealing keys (because the proxy goes to the authentication server to confirm the opaque tokens). However, this approach requires dereferencing each client token just as session IDs require per-request dereferencing, eliminating the benefit of JWTs for client requests. In this case, JWTs just allow services to pass user data among themselves without having to fully trust one another -- but I'm still trying to understand the value of the approach.

My concern appears to apply only to the use of JWTs as authentication tokens by untrusted clients. Yet JWTs are used by a number of high-profile APIs, including Google APIs. What am I missing? Maybe server breaches are rarely read-only? Are there ways to mitigate the risk?

Answer 1

I believe you're thinking about this the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, it's great you're considering security, however the way you're approaching it in regards to double checking things server-side, adding additional checks that defeat the objective of stateless sessions, etc, appear to be along a one way street towards the end of your own sanity.

To sum up the two standard approaches:

• JWTs are sessionless state objects, MAC'd by a secret key held server side.

• Traditional Session Identifiers are stored either in memory or in a database server-side, and as you say are often hashed to prevent sessions from being hijacked should this data be leaked.

You are also right that write access is often harder for an attacker to achieve. The reason is that database data is often extracted from a target system via a SQL injection exploit. This almost always provides read access to data, but it is harder to insert data using this technique, although not impossible (some exploits actually result in full root access of the target machine being achieved).

If you have a vulnerability that allows access to the key when using JWTs or one that allows database tables to be written to when using session identifiers, then it's game over - you are compromised because your user sessions can be hijacked.

So not more damaging necessarily, it all depends on the depth of the vulnerability.

Double check that the security of your JWT keys align with your risk appetite:

• Where are they stored?
• Who has access?
• Where are backups stored?
• Are different keys used in pre-production and production deployments of your app?

The ways to mitigate is as good practise dictates with any web app:

• Regular security assessments and penetration testing.
• Security code reviews.
• Intrusion detection and prevention (IDS/IPS).
• WAF.

These will help you evaluate where your real risks lie. It is pointless concentrating on one particular aspect of your application so much, because this will lead to the neglect of others, which may well be higher risk to your business model. JWTs aren't dangerous and have no more risk than other components of your system necessarily, however if you've chosen to use them you should make sure you're using them appropriately. Whether you are or not comes down to the particular context of your application and that is difficult to assess in a general sense, so I hope my answer guides you in the right direction.

Answer 2

When an attacker is able to get hold of the signing key in a JWT based system that means that he is able to get access to the server backend itself. In that case all hope is lost. In comparison to that, when the same attack succeeds in session based systems the attacker would be able to intercept username/password authentication requests to the backend, and/or generate sessions ids himself, and/or change the validation routines required to validate the session ids and/or modify the data to which the session id points. Any security mechanism used to mitigate this works as well for session systems as for JWT systems.