I am designing a new web application which requires an oAuth2 implementation. I've been reading up on oAuth2 Authorization Code flow with PKCE. That makes sense, it ensures that de client who is initiating the Authorization Code flow is the same client as the one who is exchanging the authorization code for access token (and/or refresh token).
But then I was wondering on how we could deal with refresh tokens. I understand that BFF is now the preferred solution for this, where we use a separate component (Backend for Frontend) that handles all calls from the web app and proxies those to the backend api, all the while handling all access tokens and refresh tokens. The web app and BFF maintain a session cookie, so the BFF can track which access token should be added to which request and so forth.
Most blogs mention something in the lines of "and this is safe if you set the session cookie to strict and http only and secure, because no malicious JS can get that cookie then".
And that is where I have trouble understanding why this is safer. If cookies are safe enough to deal with session id's, then why are they not safe enough to deal with access tokens? Or even refresh tokens? If they are cookie based, then they are sent with each request and no malicious JS can access it. If they could, then the BFF model doesn't provide any additional security, just a little more complexity, no?
So bottomline is: if BFF is deemed safe(r) because the sessions are kept in secure http-only cookies, why is keeping access/refresh tokens in secure http-only cookies not safe?
BFF is considered safer not because of the cookie usage when using the access tokens but because the way of obtaining tokens is more secure. SPAs by definition are not able to keep a secret (in the browser) thus have to use a flow that involves a public client. The BFF allows for a confidential client because the client secret is kept in the backend.
Using PKCE with the public client gives you assurance indeed about the same entity requesting and receiving the tokens, but it give you little assurance about the authenticity of that client. A confidential client takes care of the latter.