I need a help, to find out the best architectural pattern to implement a feature.
We have an application that manages users access to a SalesForce platform. We can create a user, read the roles created in SF and append the user roles from our app and send the change to SF...and some other features not relevent in this question's scope.
We added a new concept to our app, to handle the growing number of SF users we manage. We add a profil concept. In few words, we create a profile with some roles for example DEV_PROFIL. We apply this profil to all the developer users. and we modify each user in Salesforce based on the roles in his profile.
From backend pov, I have a profile index, and a user index and a one to many relation ship. ( one profile can have many users ).
My question is the following :
How I can keep track and keep the user's roles synced with any change I can append to the profile.
Ex : Let's suppose I had 3 roles in my DEV profile. And 100 user have this DEV profile. No I added two new roles to my profile. How can I be sure that 100 users roles are synced after my change ??
PS : Salesforce does not know about my profiles, all he knows is the roles.
Related
For example, suppose I am making a restaurant app, which API should I use to let owners post their own restaurant and then manage it(title, available tables, foods etc.) from a dashboard? Can this be done with Sanity or Firebase?
With firebase yeah - I had done something similar before. You'll manage your users (restaurant owners) within Firebase. You can have a "Role" column that would indicate permissions for that user on your app.
So for example, you may have an admin, manager and general user. Admins will have read/write access to everything whilst manager some of the content and general users read only.
How to create users: https://firebase.google.com/docs/auth/web/manage-users
How to set 'custom properties', in your case - it can be the role: https://firebase.google.com/docs/analytics/user-properties?platform=android
Firestore is a document based, non SQL database and free to a certain point: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore
There many different ways this can be achieved, this would just be an example that comes to mind - and it would work for small scale projects.
If the app gets a lot of traffic and users, I'd switch to AWS.
Here is the scenario, I have a service containing many records. My service also has many users, each with the ability to create, read, update and delete records. The ability to perform these operations on each record must be controlled at the record level.
For example, user A can only read and update record 1 but user B can read, update and delete records 1, 2 and 3 and user C can perform all operations on all records.
How if at all, can this be done using Azure AD?
Obviously, using application roles is not sufficient because that gives the user uniform access rights to all records.
The tenant is also not useful because its the same for all users (in this example).
I definitely do not want to define access rights for every record individually, I would like to do something like assigning roles to a user group and then somehow assign records to the group.
Is there a standard way to deal with this type of resource based authorization?
As you correctly mention, role based access or authorization is very generic and using that, a user with specific role gets access (or gets denied access) to all resources. (If your sceanrio permits, you could make it a little better by dividing your resources into a few types and give access for 1 or more types of resources to 1 or more roles).
When trying to control access for each record individually, you will need to implement custom logic for resource based authorization. Typically applications utilize a mix of role-based and resource-based authorization driven by their requirements.
In the end it will boil down to a mapping that you need to maintain between 3 things
Resource (or a collection of resources)
Azure AD object (like role, group, individual user that is being given permission)
Permission that you're giving (understood and enforced by your application e.g. Blogs.Create permission for a Blogs application)
Relevant Documentation available on Microsoft Docs
Role-based and resource-based authorization
This documentation talks about similar concepts and shows a good example which makes use of both role based and resource based. CRUD operations on resources based on roles and then special privileges on specific resource for the owner of that resource (i.e. resource based)
Code Samples
Multi-tenant Survey Application Code
Code base for the documentation link above
Authorization in a web app using Azure AD groups & group claims
This one provides a sample task tracker application where users can share tasks with other users or Azure AD groups. Again you will see a mapping between resources (i.e. tasks in this case) and Azure AD objects (i.e. Users or Groups) is being maintained in sample database.
Assigning Application Roles for groups
Since you mentioned this as part of your question, just letting you know that this is possible from Azure Portal but only if you have Azure AD Premium license (I'm not sure which specific ones support it, but search on Group based assignments feature and you'll find it.)
I am new to Keycloak and I try to use it as authentication server in my solution.
I have the following entity's model: the devices are owned by a particular company to which some users belong. User with role admin can grant permission for viewing some set of devices to a regular user but only those devices that belong to the admin's company. Thus all users except admins can view only a subset of all devices in company.
Based on these requirements, I decided to make companies as groups and devices as Keycloak's resources. To evaluate permissions, I chose rule based policy.
The question is -- Can I set group as an owner of resource to check this relation in policy?
If someone is more experienced in keycloak and knows how to better represent such model, please help.
Thank you in advance.
As working on keycloak, I didn't find any way to set the multiple owners for particular resources.
I'm having the alternate option to give the access permission, that owners have for their resources.
Let say Resource A owner is OWNER A, now there are two more user USER A and USER B. If suppose OWNER A already share the access permission to USER A and USER A wants to share Resource A to USER B on behalf of the Resource owner, then how should USER A can share the resource scopes to USER B?
Answer
Keycloak provides the facility of token exchanging or impersonation feature. With the help of this USER A can able to share the resources to USER B on behalf of the OWNER A (Owner of Resource A).
Reference: You just need to follow this Keycloak Impersonation
Add comments if you still face the problem
In Keycloak, you may represent a particular company (or any organization or organizational unit) as a realm:
https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_admin/index.html#core-concepts-and-terms
Create a new realm:
https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_admin/index.html#_create-realm
Then represent the company's users as users in the company's Keycloak realm
https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_admin/index.html#user-management
... and devices as Keycloak Clients (any kind of resource you want enforce permissions on is a Client in Keycloak model):
https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_admin/index.html#core-concepts-and-terms
An admin role is already defined by default for each role (Roles menu).
Instructions tested on Keycloak 4.0.0.
For each device, create the corresponding Client in Keycloak (Clients menu). Switch on Permissions Enabled on the Permissions tab of the new client. A list of admin console permissions will appear just below the switch button, such as the view permission.
Then, in order to assign the permission to view the device to some user, the admin should click on the view permission (link) just mentioned, create a User Policy (Create Policy... listbox) and select the users (assignees) in the Users field.
In order to assign the permission on multiple devices to the same group of people, use a Group or Role Policy instead (put the users in the same group before).
In order to assign the permission to groups of devices, use one Group/Role per group of device, then assign users to the Group/Role.
Each time a user logs in to my site via SocialAuth, a new profile is created for him if this is the first time this profile was used. Is there a standard way to map multiple OpenID profiles from different providers that belong to a single user?
For example, if a user logged in to my job board using his Yahoo profile and applied for some jobs, then logged in using Gmail and applied for some more, then realized that he has multiple profiles and must log out and re-login each time to access previous applications and related correspondence, I would like to allow that user to merge his profiles and allow logging in to the merged profile using either one going forward.
I have to programmatically create a task for a user that was not explicitly added in the site users. He has permissions to contribute to the task list, though, because he belongs to an AD group that has been granted those permissions. I can assign the task to the user through the UI; how do I do it through code though?
The accepted way of assigning tasks to users is to set the AssignedTo field of the task to an SPFieldUserValue pointing to that user. Except it cannot be done in this case, because the users cannot be found in SharePoint, only his group! Assigning the task to the whole group is a bad idea, for obvious reasons. And our system administrators categorically refuse to add the users to Sharepoint one by one, because that would duplicate the data they have in Active Directory, and generally be a pain to manage. What do I do?
When a user authenticates to SharePoint, an entry is created for them in the profile store, even if their permission to the site comes from an AD group.
I did a quick test by adding new user (TGroupsUser) and group (SPtestPermissions) to my AD, so there is no chance the user was ever on my site before. I added the user to the group and gave the group "Member" permissions to my site. I then authenticated to SP with this new user.
To show that the user is part of this SPWeb, I wrote a quick webpart to enumerate the users on the web. Note that there are three groups of users with the SPWeb. All Users, Site Users and Users. See this link for full description of these properties. Basically, users are users on the web. Site Users are users and groups on the site collection. All Users is all users of the site including those granted direct permission or granted through group and then visited the site. Here are the results, minus the system accounts.
All Users
SPSDEV\rross
SPSDEV\sptestpermissions
SPSDEV\TGroupsUser
Site Users
SPSDEV\rross
SPSDEV\sptestpermissions
SPSDEV\TGroupsUser
Users
SPSDEV\rross
Since this account (TgroupsUser) is part of the user collection for the web, you can treat just like a user added directly to the site. To finish the testing, I created a task with the following code for the assignedTo field.
TaskItem[SPBuiltInFieldId.AssignedTo] = web.SiteUsers.GetByEmail("myemail#domain.com");
Here is a screenshot of the new task assigned to TGroupsUser.
FYI - I needed to use AllowUnsafeUpdates on the web object.