I'm quite new to the entire auth design and am still trying to understand how to use keycloak for authentication and authorisation.
Currently from what I understand in order to have authorisation enabled for a client you will need to have it in confidential.
After which I am kind of stuck in terms of how to set which policy for which permission.
I have a few types resources but currently placing them all under a single client for simplicity sake.
For my use case I have a workspace for users. So each workspace can have multiple users with different roles of owner,editor,viewer. And within the workspace there are artifacts. So it is some what like designing an authorisation for Google drive.
Would like some advice on how best to design it.
One way I have thought of is using groups and each workspace is a group. Using it to assign users to each group as a way to use the group policy for permission.
The other is really by creating multiple policy and permission for each artifact/resource and adding user to each policy for each workspace.
Would like any advice on authorisation design or even where to begin reading.
After some research I have come to these conclusion.
Yes these can be done by keycloak though most likely shouldn't be done in keycloak itself for its design.
Keycloak itself will most likely be more suitable in terms of authenticating/authorising on services or infra level. So this use case of having user be able to access workspaces or artifacts will be better done in application level having a separated service to handle the permission itself.
That being said if it really needs to be done in keycloak the design that I thought of that is not so scalable is as follow.
Create a policy/user and each workspace/artifact as a single resource. Depending on how many types of access/fine grain control is needed for each type of resource create the scope for each (e.g workspace:view, workspace:edit...). Then create a permission for each resource&scope. This allows fine grain access of basically assigning user to permission of each resource through the user policy.
But of course this design has its flaws of the need of too many policies, permissions and resources so it is better to have keycloak just handle the authentication part and authorisation is just giving users the role to be able to access a service and through the service check if the user is authorised for a certain action.
Related
What is the best way to restrict the scope of a connected app to a set of objects? My current solution is to use the Manage user data via APIs scope but that still grants more access than required.
A solution I see frequently is to create a user with a restricted profile and connect with that user but then you lose context of actions made by users in the connected app so this solution doesn't work
Tricky, you typically don't. (consider posting on https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/, there might be a clever way I didn't think of).
You can flip the connected app from "all users can self authorise" to "admin-approved users are preauthorised" and then allow only certain profiles / permission sets to use the app. But the bulk of it is "just" enabling the connection via API and cutting it to say Chatter only or OpenId identifiers. And that's already an improvement compared to SOAP APIs where you don't have scopes and the app can completely impersonate the user, do everything they can do in UI.
Profiles/permission sets/sharing rules are "the" way even in not immediately obvious situations like Lighting Connect Salesforce to Salesforce or Named Credentials access to another org.
If you can't restrict the visibility with profiles and access to all tables user can see is not acceptable...
you could create series of Apex classes exposing certain queries, updates etc and grant profile access to these classes - but without full api access? You could even let them pass any SOQL (evil) but use with sharing, WITH SECURITY_ENFORCED, stripInaccessible + custom restriction on tables before returning results
you could look into https://developer.salesforce.com/docs/atlas.en-us.238.0.apexref.meta/apexref/apex_class_Auth_ConnectedAppPlugin.htm although I suspect it's run only on connect, not on every request. So at best you could deny access if user has right to see some sensitive data, not great
if there are few objects you need to block updates if done via app - Quiddity might be the way to go. Throw error in a trigger if action started from REST context?
give the Transaction Security trailhead a go. If it looks promising (there's way to check "application" and "queried entities" according to this) - might be a solution. You'll likely have to cough up $ though, last time I checked the cool bits of event monitoring & transaction security were hidden behind an extra paid addon (standalone or bundled with platform encryption and Field Audit Track into Salesforce Shield solution)
2 logins? dedicated user for querying stuff but inserts/updates running as your end user?
I'm designing a system with REST API. REST API will be implemented using Spring Boot. The system should manage employee, product, orders information. It can be used as a standalone or as a part of some existing product ecosystem. I'm looking for some resource (book, blog, online course, etc.) to help me decide how to implement authentication and authorisation.
It's quite obvious how to do it if the system is used as a standalone product. User credentials/authorisation data can be stored in the same database next to product/employee and other data.
I'm not sure how to handle everything when the application is a part of some existing ecosystem. What if:
Someone wants to reuse existing User data store for authentication or third party service like Okta or Auth0.
Use existing data to build authorisation rules. For example authorise a person to modify product data if the person belongs to some User group.
I'm thinking about Oauth2+OIDC solution. For example Okta allows add a Claim based on Expression. User groups can be provided as Claims too. It seems Okta could be a source of both Authentication and Authorisation information. I'm not sure if it's a correct way to use Oauth2 and OIDC? What are potential pitfalls storing the authorisation data this way?
I've checked Keycloak and it seems authorisation data. can be stored there. So it's not an unusual practice to manage such a data in an authorisation server.
Maybe I should use Oauth2/OIDC for authentication only? Authorisation data (assigned roles, groups, etc.) can be stored in my application database. The application should provide means to manage the information.
I'd like to get some advice or source of information for this topic.
Thank you.
I would aim to keep OAuth data fairly small - the Authorization Server (AS) typically only needs a few fields to manage login such as Name / Email and a generated user id.
When data becomes domain specific it can become a burden to manage it in the AS, whereas in your product data it is easier to spin up custom UIs etc.
Instead the AS can reach out during token issuing to an API to include important claims in access tokens - such as roles etc. Meanwhile you don't want to expose detailed access tokens to internet clients.
The Curity web site has some good resources on patterns to meet the above requirements - here are a couple of links:
IAM Primer
Claims Best Practices
Suppose that I have a web application. Consider it like a Black-Box for now. I want to use a backend system to limit what a user can view/do on the app.
i.e. Sample users can only do three functions, Premium users can do 10 functions and see more pictures.
What is the best way to do it?
I'm trying to using WSO2 Identity Server, but it doesn't offer this functionality. So I've thought that maybe I can integrate it with the WSO2 API Manager and make an API that limits users' access to a certain resource. But really I cannot find if it's possible do it. Anyone know it?
Please refer to : https://docs.wso2.com/display/IS530/Access+Control+Concepts
1) WSO2IS can act as a coarse grained access manager. Your application will act as a fine grained access mnager.
It means that roles can be defined in WSO2IS, managed and assigned to user. From there Roles assigned to one user can be provided as clains with the identity token generated by WSO2IS and sent to the application.
The application, on the other side, will manage roles to permissions links.
Access control is then done at each request by the application, based on the roles presented in the Identity Token by the user and the Permissions grid based on roles in the application.
2) The access control at the application is a business logic you must implement (or at least configure if it a COTS). It is possible to outsource this logic to WSO2IS as policies on attribute (with Workflows).
Please look at : https://docs.wso2.com/display/IS530/XACML+Architecture
Jeff
I am working on a project that allows a user to create a user to create app keys or secrets so that specific services can be used by external clients. A user can create multiple secrets that they can choose to use across multiple clients.
For this I am planning to create a decoupled auth server that will use identityserver4.
What really holding me back is that I am not sure whether or not I should create an API layer at the auth server. The reason I am considering API at auth server is so that I can create sort of an admin portal client that will give the users a front-end for creating, renewing, and accessing their app keys/secrets. Even the admin portal is going to be a de-coupled angular application.
There are two things that are holding me back at the moment:
I am not sure if it's a good or safe idea to serve this data via
an api layer. From what I understand, identityserver will not be able to provide functionality that allows me to access a list of a user's clients through an endpoint but please correct me if I'm wrong and there's a better way to approach this.
I know we can easily create new clients and persist it into the database with identityserver4 and I am planning to use ClientCredentials grant types for user clients, but is there a link at the database and identity level between a user and a client? Or will I need to create that functionality by myself?
So far I've looked but I have not bee able to find examples that are similar to my situation with identityserver4
Sorry for the noob question, I am just getting into identityserver and web security in general so many of these concepts are still very new to me.
For number 1, I would say yes you can create an API layer to server data. If you check the IdenttiyServer4 AdminUI, Rock Solid has also use the admin API behind the UI. But you must consider encryption, TLS and other security mechanism to keep this safe.
AFIK for number 2, there are no links at identity level between a user and a client. You have to create that by yourselves.
Basically, you need a system that supports Multitenancy. I have achieved that by adding a TenantId field in the AspNetIdentity user table. And also added the tenant Id to claim list.
Please do not hesitate to correct me if i am wrong.
I have an open source project with several contributors. The project's home page is hosted on Amazon S3. At the moment, the S3 bucket is on my personal account. Only I have access to it, and I pay the hosting (~$5 a month). There are other personal buckets on my account that contributors should not have access to.
I'd like to allow other contributors to modify the site. I'd also like to enable e.g. TravisCI to deploy to the site, which requires extending some credentials to third parties.
Is it necessary to set up a separate Amazon account entirely, or is IAM sufficient for my needs?
If IAM is the way to go, should there be a single IAM user shared among all contributors, or should I create a separate one for each contributor?
Do I need MFA? If so, how to safely distribute TOTP keys?
Any provisions I should make for succession (i.e. bus factor)?
Anything else I should know?
Thanks for any ideas or experiences here.
Is it necessary to set up a separate Amazon account entirely, or is IAM sufficient for my needs?
You should probably have an account for this project that is separate from any accounts you use for purposes unrelated to this project, for clean separation and in case you want to hand over control. What isn't in the account doesn't need to be protected from users who shouldn't see it.
Cross-account privileges are possible, so if others already have accounts, it's possible for you to authorize their existing credentials without knowing their secrets, but it's more complex.
If IAM is the way to go, should there be a single IAM user shared among all contributors, or should I create a separate one for each contributor?
You should absolutely create one for each contributor. That's kind of a no-brainer. Accountability.
Do I need MFA? If so, how to safely distribute TOTP keys?
It depends on your need for the added security. MFA is great and it's also a hassle. But you don't have to (and shouldn't) distribute the MFA secrets for virtual MFA. The user can log in with his/her credentials and create and download that themselves if you allow it.
Any provisions I should make for succession (i.e. bus factor)?
Heh, bus factor. Yes, you probably need a trusted adjutant with a high privilege level. In my accounts we don't actually use the root credentials, ever, but typically two people have a physical copy of the root credentials, though we do sometimes ride together in the same elevator, and we really shouldn't do that.
Anything else I should know?
Read the documentation. It takes a bit of time to sink in, but it takes less time if you get your hands dirty and play with it. Be sure when granting privileges that you verify that things which should not work do indeed not work, not just verify that things which should work indeed do work. But that applies to any authentication and authorization implementation.
Use IAM instance roles in EC2. Even if you can't think of a reason why an instance needs a role, give it one with no permissions anyway, because an instance can only be given a role at launch... yet Formerly, you could only add an IAM role to an instance at launch, but AWS announced on 2017-02-09 that you can now attach an IAM role to an instance after launch. As always, you can change the permissions granted to a role at any time.
Read about user groups. Attach users to groups and policies to groups to simplify granting the same privileges to multiple users.
Unrelated: activate billing alerts for your account to notify you when costs exceed thresholds you select.