Why you Should Always Use Access Tokens to Secure an API
There's a lot of confusion between OpenID Connect and OAuth 2.0, especially when it comes to determining which option is the best for a particular use case. As such, many developers publish insecure applications that compromise their users' data.
To help you make an informed decision and be aware of any risks, this article includes:
- A high-level overview of each protocol
- Information about the tokens issued by each protocol
- Suggestions on when you should use which protocol
We'll wrap things up with a discussion of why you should always secure an API with an Access Token, not an ID Token.
Two complementary specifications
OAuth 2.0 is used to grant authorization. It allows you to authorize Web App A access to your information from Web App B without requiring you to share your credentials. OAuth 2.0 was built with only authorization in mind and doesn't include any authentication mechanisms. In other words, OAuth 2.0 doesn't give the Authorization Server any way of verifying who the user is.
OpenID Connect builds on OAuth 2.0. It enables you, as the user, to verify your identity and to give some basic profile information without sharing your credentials.
An example of how these protocols are used
Let's say that you use a to-do application that allows you to log in using your Google credentials. You are asked to provide permission for the to-do app to read and write to your Google Calendar. Then, with this app, you can push to-do items, such as calendar entries, to your Google Calendar.
The portion of the login process where you "prove" your identity is implemented using OpenID Connect, while the part of the login process where you authorize the to-do application to modify your Google Calendar by adding entries is implemented using OAuth 2.0.
The role of tokens
You may have noticed that we've used the phrase without sharing your credentials several times in the paragraph above. How does this work?
Essentially, the two protocols operate by sharing tokens.
OpenID Connect issues an identity token, known as an ID Token, while OAuth 2.0 issues an Access Token.
How to use tokens
The ID Token is a JSON Web Token (JWT), and it is meant for the application only. For example, in our calendar example above, Google sends an ID Token to the to-do app that tells the app who you are. The app then parses the token's contents and uses this information (including details like your name and your profile picture) to customize your user experience.
The Access Token (which isn't necessarily a JWT), is meant for use by an API.
The Access Token's purpose is to inform the API that the bearer of the token has been authorized to access the API and perform a predetermined set of actions (which is specified by the scopes granted).
In the Google/to-do app example above, recall that Google sent an Access Token to the to-do app after you logged in and provided consent for your to-do app to read/write to your Google Calendar.
Whenever the to-do app wants to write to your Google Calendar, it will send a request to the Google Calendar API, making sure to include the Access Token in the HTTP Authorization header.
How NOT to use tokens
Now that we've seen some ways in which we can use tokens, let's talk about when they should not be used.
Access Tokens must never be used for authentication. Access Tokens cannot tell us if the user has authenticated. The only user information the Access Token possesses is the user ID, located in the sub claim.
ID Tokens should not be used to gain access to an API. Each token contains information for the intended audience (which is usually the recipient). Per the OpenID Connect specification, the audience of the ID Token (indicated by the aud claim) must be the client ID of the application making the authentication request. If this is not the case, you should not trust the token. Conversely, an API expects a token with the aud value to equal the API's unique identifier. Therefore, unless you maintain control over both the application and the API, sending an ID Token to an API will generally not work. Furthermore, the ID Token is signed with a secret known only to the application itself. If an API were to accept an ID Token, it would have no way of knowing if the application has modified the token (such as adding more scopes) and resigned it.
Compare the tokens
To better clarify the concepts we covered above, let's look at the contents of some sample ID and Access Tokens.
The (decoded) contents of our sample ID Token look like the following:
This token is meant to authenticate the user to the application. The audience (the aud claim) of the token is set to the application's identifier, which means that only this specific application should consume this token.
For comparison, let's look at the contents of an Access Token:
Note that the token does not contain any information about the user itself besides their ID (sub claim), it only contains authorization information about which actions the application is allowed to perform at the API (scope claim).
In many cases, you might find it useful to retrieve additional user information at the API, so the Access Token is also valid for calling the /userinfo API, which returns the user's profile information. The intended audience (indicated by the aud claim) for this token is both your custom API as specified by its identifier (such as
https://my-api-identifier) and the /userinfo endpoint (such as