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
Related
I'm extremely confused on how to use a centralized IDP with both authentication and authorization. The architecture for my project was to be a single web API and one React client. I wanted to keep things structured out into microservices just to try something more modern, but I'm having major issues with the centralized identity, as many others have.
My goal is fairly simple. User logs in, selects a tenant from a list of tenants that they have access to, and then they are redirected to the client with roles and a "tid" or tenant id claim which is just the GUID of the selected company.
The Microsoft prescribed way to add identity in my scenario is IdentityServer, so I started with that. Everything was smooth sailing until I discovered the inner workings of the tokens. While some others have issues adding permissions, the authorization logic in my application is very simple and roles would suffice. While I would initially be fine with roles refreshing naturally via expiration, they must immediately update whenever my users select a different tenant to "log in" to. However, the problem is that I cannot refresh these claims when the user changes tenants without logging out. Essentially, I tried mixing authorization with authentication and hit a wall.
It seems like I have two options:
Obtain the authorization information from a separate provider, or even an endpoint on the identity server itself, like /user-info but for authorization information. This ends up adding a huge overhead, but the actual boilerplate for the server and for the client is minimal. This is similar to how the OSS version of PolicyServer does it, although I do not know how their paid implementation is. My main problem here is that both the client and resource (API) will need this information. How could I avoid N requests per interaction (where N is the number of resources/clients)?
Implement some sort of custom state and keep a store of users who need their JWTs refreshed. Check these and return some custom response to the caller, which then uses custom js client code to refresh the token on this response. This is a huge theory and, even if it is plausible, still introduces state and kind of invalidates the point of JWTs while requiring a large amount of custom code.
So, I apologize for the long post but this is really irking me. I do not NEED to use IdentityServer or JWTs, but I would like to at least have a React front-end. What options do I have for up-to-date tenancy selection and roles? Right when I was willing to give in and implement an authorization endpoint that returns fresh data, I realized I'd be calling it both at the API and client every request. Even with cached data, that's a lot of overhead just in pure http calls. Is there some alternative solution that would work here? Could I honestly just use a cookie with authorization information that is secure and updated only when necessary?
It becomes confusing when you want to use IdentityServer as-is for user authorization. Keep concerns seperated.
As commented by Dominick Baier:
Yes – we recommend to use IdentityServer for end-user authentication,
federation and API access control.
PolicyServer is our recommendation for user authorization.
Option 1 seems the recommended option. So if you decide to go for option 1:
The OSS version of the PolicyServer will suffice for handling the requests. But instead of using a json config file:
// this sets up the PolicyServer client library and policy provider
// - configuration is loaded from appsettings.json
services.AddPolicyServerClient(Configuration.GetSection("Policy"))
.AddAuthorizationPermissionPolicies();
get the information from an endpoint. Add caching to improve performance.
In order to allow centralized access, you can either create a seperate policy server or extend IdentityServer with user authorization endpoints. Use extension grants to access the user authorization endpoints, because you may want to distinguish between client and api.
The json configuration is local. The new endpoint will need it's own data store where it can read the user claims. In order to allow centralized information, add information about where the permissions can be used. Personally I use the scope to model the permissions, because both client and api know the scope.
Final step is to add admin UI or endpoints to maintain the user authorization.
I ended up using remote gRPC calls for the authorization. You can see more at https://github.com/Perustaja/PermissionServerDemo
I don't like to accept my own answer here but I think my solution and thoughts on it in the repository will be good for anyone thinking about possible solutions to handing stale JWT authorization information.
I know design is subjective. But I wanted to know if this is a good idea?
Suppose I implement OpenID connect in my application. I support sign in through multiple platforms. But now, suppose I need to maintain a database of my users for authorisation of resources on my server; or let's just say I need to store user preferences.
Is it a good idea to maintain a user's table and push data into it every time a user signs in using OpenID, or using my sign up/sign in API, using email ID of the user as the primary key (since that doesn't change) provided by OpenID?
What are some good ways to combine the two? What are some pros and cons of this?
What are the best ways to support authorisation (of resources on my server) along with authentication using OpenID/oAuth?
It is a really good question and not covered well in many places.
TRACKING USERS
In terms of sign in via multiple platforms a common pattern is to use the same authorization server for all types of login and 'federate' to different identity providers, with the following benefits:
Simpler code in your UIs and APIs
A single user id per user regardless of the sign in method
USER DATA
In the real world of business apps you often need to manage users and authorize requests via 2 sources of user data, as you indicate. A couple of my articles may provide some useful techniques:
User Data Management
Authorization Design
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.
Suppose I have a working REST API for my product.
I want to give access only to developers who sign up to this product. Also, there will be several plans available so certain parts of the API are not accessible on the free plan.
From the grant types I've seen only the client-credentials one seems to be the closest solution. However that won't authenticate the developer account stored in my product db, it will only get an access token for that client. The user won't actually be 'logged in' per se. Add to that the fact that a single client can be reused by everyone, according to implementations I've seen.
The only way I see is creating a custom grant type, by adding an extra api_key to the client credentials type, which pertains to the developer account.
Is there a way to do this with the existing grant types? Introducing custom types will not work with many oAuth2 libraries out there out of the box and I don't want to give the developers the hassle of modifying them.
I don't think you have to invent a custom grant type.
A single client can be reused by everyone only if everyone knows the client secret.
So, it seems that what you have to do is (1) to authenticate a developer when you issue a pair of client ID and client secret to the developer and (2) to motivate the developer not to reveal the client secret to others.
I've been reading about Azure's Access Control Service and claims-based authorization in general for a while now, and for whatever reason, I still don't see the rationale behind moving from role/permission-based authorization to a claims-based model. The models seem similar to me (and they probably are), except that the list of what the client can and can't do comes from a third party and is wrapped up in some sort of token, instead of from some sort of database that the server has to query. What's the advantage of getting a third party (the token issuer) involved?
I fully understand the advantages of outsourcing authentication to a third party. It allows apps to not have to create new users all the time, worry about storing passwords, etc. when they can just push that off to some other service that already has the infrastructure set up. It's essentially the DRY principle for authentication.
However, in my mind, that same logic doesn't work for authorization. Each app has its own resources it has to protect, and therefore its own rules for authorizing users to perform certain actions. The infrastructure seems simple enough that each app could create it on its own (a table mapping users to roles, and possibly another mapping roles to permissions), and even if you wanted to outsource it, it seems that the claims-based model is doing something more complicated than that.
The only partial explanation I've seen comes from Building a Claims-Based Security Model in WCF, and it gives two main advantages to claims-based auth: more flexibility, and someone to "vouch" that the information in a claim is correct. When would you need either of those?
Claims-based authorization seems to be gaining popularity, so I assume there must be some good rationale for it; I just haven't figured out what that is yet. Can someone please provide a concrete example of a situation where claims-based auth works better than role-based, and why it works better in that case?
(EDIT: I missed a third benefit listed in the article: supporting single sign-on/federation. But doesn't authentication deal with that on its own without getting authorization involved?)
I guess the main promise of a benefit from federated security / claims-based system would be one fewer area you have to deal with different systems.
Imagine a site where you have local users authenticating with Windows credentials, a bunch of internet users using username/password, others using certificates, and maybe another group of users with biometric authentication.
In today's system, you have to set up and deal with all different kinds of authentication schemes and their different ways of doing things. That can get pretty messy.
The promise of a federated security solution would be to handle all those chores for you - the STS (security token server) would handle all different kinds of authentication systems for you, and present to you a uniform and trusted set of claims about a caller - no matter from where and on which path he's arriving at your site.
Of course, just examining and reacting to a single set of claims rather than having to understand four, five, ten different and disparate authentication systems looks like a really compelling promise to me!
The purpose of claims based authorization is to allow fine grained access control based on Boolean expressions that evaluate characteristics of the accessing entity and the resource. This reduces or eliminates the need to provision groups. As with federated identity, claims also provide a vehicle for an Identity provider to manage their users wile allowing a resource provider to gate users access to assets.
Note: Claims can be used within a single enterprise and provide the following benefits:
1) Access grants and revocations do not require provisioning or de-provisioning
2) Thus changes are instantaneous
3) Resource owners can define the scope and requirements for access rather than having admins create groups manage group memberships - this moves the access control decisions into the hands of the folks best suited to make such decisions (the data owner)
4) This results in fewer groups being required and fewer member in the groups
5) There can be issues creating a single group to accommodate a large community having access (for
example all full time employees can read a HR policy) - Claims avoids this problem
6) Audit is more informative - the reason a grant or deny took place is clearly visible
7) Claims support dynamic attributes, such as 2-factor authentication, time of day, or network restrictions
There are a lot more reasons, but those ones come to mind. There will shortly be a video at www.cionsystems.com that showcases this (disclaimer - I work there and recorded the video - I still need to post it) Also, for reference, claims aware apps and platforms include SharePoint 2010 on, Windows 2012 (file shares), Azure, many SaaS services (Facebook and Salesforce)
Also, with claims you can blend information from multiple sources (say Facebook and your local AD) etc. - which is increasingly important
Not sure if the rules allow this, but feel free to ping me with your questions or comments. I'll happily edit the post to make any corrections or add pertinent info.
Claims can come from AD, databases tables, SAML, OAuth, algorithms, XACML or any other trusted provider. Harnessing claims requires a bit of kit - with apps and platforms evolving rapidly in this space.
All the Best,
Paul
Claims-based access control also helps build up attribute-based access control and policy-based access control. If you standardize on a set of pre-agreed claims that can be assigned to users based on their other attributes (e.g. a US manager can have claim U_M; a European manager can have claim E_M).
In an attribute-based and policy-based environment, it's possible to achieve fine-grained authorization (also known as fine-grained entitlements) using XACML.
In this case, you can have authorization that depends on who the user is (claims) but also what they want to do (resource information) and under which circumstances (context).
CBAC with XACML will let you express rules like:
managers can edit notes they created themselves or notes that their
direct reports created.
Role based security is a limited security model
Authorization is:
Based on role membership only
Claims based security is much more flexible and expressive
Authorisation can be:
Based on role membership
Based on Age
Based on Geographic Location
Based on an account balance
Based on a size
Based on pre-defined securtiy levels
Based on any combination of the above