I'm facing an issue for authenticating my users on my IS4 server with an application (Blazor Server/WASM).
My IDSRV4 is located on the same app that the API to protect, and each client has it owns database (for users and business models).
To choose the good database, I use an header and have set up a interceptor on EF Core to choose database according to header value.
Everything works great, except authentication. I was using resource_owner_password flow with a JavaScript app (security breach, I know) which allows me to pass custom headers for each calls (calling /connect/token with my custom header).
Now, with the authorization_code flow, I cannot manage to pass the header to choose good tenant, meaning good database, which causes authentication to failed because token is validated on another database that the user is currently register to.
I can pass the tenant to choose database during login process (when posting login info on IDSRV4 side), and I've set up event on client side to add header on when sending back code for having back id_token, but I lost the capability to do that after my idp redirect user after login on /connect/authorize (it seems there no extension on IDSRV4 side for adding custom headers).
So my user post login data (with tenant infos), that I lost when redirecting to /connect/authorize, and I have no way to customize this. Is there any chance to do that ?
Merging all users in the same database is not an option.
You can still add any custom headers to any HttpResponse from your MVC app hosting Identityserver.
// public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env)
app.UseCustomHeaders();
//CustomHeadersMiddleware.cs
public static class CustomHeadersMiddlewareExtensions
{
public static IApplicationBuilder UseCustomHeaders(
this IApplicationBuilder builder)
{
return builder.UseMiddleware<CustomHeadersMiddleware>();
}
}
public class CustomHeadersMiddleware
{
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
private readonly ILogger<CustomHeadersMiddleware> _logger;
public CustomHeadersMiddleware(RequestDelegate next,
ILogger<CustomHeadersMiddleware> logger)
{
_next = next;
_logger = logger;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
var watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
//To add Headers AFTER everything you need to do this
context.Response.OnStarting(() =>
{
if (!context.Response.Headers.ContainsKey("X-Response-Time-Milliseconds"))
context.Response.Headers.Add("X-Response-Time-Milliseconds",
new[] {watch.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString()});
return Task.FromResult(0);
});
await _next(context);
}
}
Related
I am facing an issue related to handling multiple authentication schemes in an asp.net core application which exposes API.
In particular, I am attempting to make two different authentication modes available, by registering two schemes, each with its own handler.
At the moment my configuration code (simplified) looks like this:
public class Startup {
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
services
.AddAuthentication()
.AddScheme<AuthenticationSchemeOptions, BasicAuthHandler>("Basic", o => {});
.AddScheme<AuthenticationSchemeOptions, ApiKeyAuthHandler>("ApiKey", o => {});
services.AddAuthorization(o => {
o.DefaultPolicy = new AuthorizationPolicyBuilder()
.RequireAuthenticatedUser()
.AddAuthenticationSchemes("Basic", "ApiKey").Build();
});
}
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env) {
...
app.UseAuthentication();
app.UseAuthorization();
...
}
}
public class BasicAuthHandler : AuthenticationHandler<AuthenticationSchemeOptions> {
protected override async Task<AuthenticateResult> HandleAuthenticateAsync() {
Console.WriteLine("Challenging Basic Authentication");
if( ... ) {
return AuthenticateResult.Success(...);
}
return AuthenticateResult.Fail(...);
}
}
public class ApiKeyAuthHandler : AuthenticationHandler<AuthenticationSchemeOptions> {
protected override async Task<AuthenticateResult> HandleAuthenticateAsync() {
Console.WriteLine("Challenging ApiKey Authentication");
if( ... ) {
return AuthenticateResult.Success(...);
}
return AuthenticateResult.Fail(...);
}
}
The ApiKeyAuthHandler authenticates requests depending on a custom header (say X-ApiKey) value, the BasicAuthHandler authenticates requests depending on credentials provided through Authorization: Basic BASE_ENCODED_USERNAME_AND_PASSWORD header.
Both handlers work fine: I can provide Authorization header with basic auth credentials and I can provide an api-key through the custom header.
Generally speaking, the two registered handlers are executed sequentially, in the same order I've registered them. So far, so good.
However, when I provide both basic credentials in Authorization header and api-key through X-ApiKey header, I noticed that
the first handler (BasicAuthHandler) is executed, returning AuthenticateResult.Success
the second handler (ApiKeyAuthHandler) is executed, even the first already authenticated the request successfylly, also returning AuthenticateResult.Success
the identity finally available in my controller is the one built by the second handler
I'm wondering why the second handler is executed after the first completed authentication successfully: I googled about this but can't found any configuration flags to enable a sort of short-circuit after the first success result.
The reason seems to be this foreach statement that iterates over all available authentication schemes regardless of theirs results.
Does anyone have any idea of a way to challenge available authentication scheme while no one is successful, stopping when the first succeeds?
No doubt I could implement a CompositeAuthHandler in order to manage this requirement, but I would prefer an already-made, official solution to my problem.
A note about the context which justifies the requirement of short-circuit handler evaluation: the example provided above is simplified and uses two very cheap authentication handlers, but the real case I'm facing off involves at least one very slow handler, that perform paid calls to an external system - so I would like to avoid calling it for requests already authenticated by former handlers.
Consider that I have .NET Controller with Policy-based authorization:
public class ImportantController: Controller {
[HttpGet]
[Authorize(Policy = "CanAccessVIPArea")]
public IActionResult ShowInformation() {
...
return OK(VipData);
}
[HttpPost]
[Authorize(Policy = "CanChangeVIPData")]
public IActionResult SaveInformation([FromBody] VipData) {
...
return CreatedAtAction(...);
}
}
Obviously, the real example is much more complex; I apologize if my simplification leads to too much make-believe in it. Also, real application is SPA with Angular front end; but I don't think it makes any difference for the purposes of this question.
When the user calls ShowInformation() I show a lot of data. On that page I have Save button that calls SaveInformation(). Authorization middleware checks for the right policy and it all works fine.
The problem is that by the time the user presses Save, she entered a lot of data, only to find out that she doesn't have the permissions to save. Obviously, leading to bad experience. I want to check for permissions on SaveInformation in the middleware that gets invoked when the user calls ShowInformation. I would prefer not to check for the hardcoded policy because it is on the server and it can change (we have pretty sophisticated permission management system that manipulates permissions at runtime). Invocation of SaveInformation is in the same Angular service as ShowInformation, and it is very easy to check...
I would like to invoke something like /api/SaveInformation?dryrun that will short-circuit the pipeline after authorization middleware with success or failure.
You can inject an IAuthorizationService and ask to evaluate a policy by name:
public class ImportantController: Controller
{
private readonly IAuthorizationService authorization;
public ImportantController(IAuthorizationService authorization)
{
this.authorization = authorization;
}
public async Task<IActionResult> ShowInformation()
{
// ...
var result = await authorizationService.AuthorizeAsync(User, "IsLucky");
return OK(VipData);
}
}
My pratice is to include all permission claims in the id token, when the user first login to the system, the id token will return to the client side. The client side then render the page according to the permission claims.
What I need to do
I'm developing an application using ASP.NET CORE and I actually encountered a problem using the Identity implementation.
In the official doc infact there is no reference about the multiple session, and this is bad because I developed a SaaS application; in particular a user subscribe a paid plan to access to a specific set of features and him can give his credentials to other users so they can access for free, this is a really bad scenario and I'll lose a lot of money and time.
What I though
After searching a lot on the web I found many solutions for the older version of ASP.NET CORE, so I'm not able to test, but I understood that the usually the solution for this problem is related to store the user time stamp (which is a GUID generated on the login) inside the database, so each time the user access to a restricted page and there are more session (with different user timestamp) the old session will closed.
I don't like this solution because an user can easily copy the cookie of the browser and share it will other users.
I though to store the information of the logged in user session inside the database, but this will require a lot of connection too.. So my inexperience with ASP.NET CORE and the lack of resource on the web have sent me in confusion.
Someone could share a generic idea to implement a secure solution for prevent multiple user login?
I've created a github repo with the changes to the default .net core 2.1 template needed to only allow single sessions. https://github.com/xKloc/IdentityWithSession
Here is the gist.
First, override the default UserClaimsPrincipalFactory<IdentityUser> class with a custom one that will add your session to the user claims. Claims are just a key/value pair that will be stored in the user's cookie and also on the server under the AspNetUserClaims table.
Add this class anywhere in your project.
public class ApplicationClaimsPrincipalFactory : UserClaimsPrincipalFactory<IdentityUser>
{
private readonly UserManager<IdentityUser> _userManager;
public ApplicationClaimsPrincipalFactory(UserManager<IdentityUser> userManager, IOptions<IdentityOptions> optionsAccessor) : base(userManager, optionsAccessor)
{
_userManager = userManager;
}
public async override Task<ClaimsPrincipal> CreateAsync(IdentityUser user)
{
// find old sessions and remove
var claims = await _userManager.GetClaimsAsync(user);
var session = claims.Where(e => e.Type == "session");
await _userManager.RemoveClaimsAsync(user, session);
// add new session claim
await _userManager.AddClaimAsync(user, new Claim("session", Guid.NewGuid().ToString()));
// create principal
var principal = await base.CreateAsync(user);
return principal;
}
}
Next we will create an authorization handler that will check that the session is valid on every request.
The handler will match the session claim from the user's cookie to the session claim stored in the database. If they match, the user is authorized to continue. If they don't match, the user will get a Access Denied message.
Add these two classes anywhere in your project.
public class ValidSessionRequirement : IAuthorizationRequirement
{
}
public class ValidSessionHandler : AuthorizationHandler<ValidSessionRequirement>
{
private readonly UserManager<IdentityUser> _userManager;
private readonly SignInManager<IdentityUser> _signInManager;
public ValidSessionHandler(UserManager<IdentityUser> userManager, SignInManager<IdentityUser> signInManager)
{
_userManager = userManager ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(userManager));
_signInManager = signInManager ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(signInManager));
}
protected override async Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, ValidSessionRequirement requirement)
{
// if the user isn't authenticated then no need to check session
if (!context.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
return;
// get the user and session claim
var user = await _userManager.GetUserAsync(context.User);
var claims = await _userManager.GetClaimsAsync(user);
var serverSession = claims.First(e => e.Type == "session");
var clientSession = context.User.FindFirst("session");
// if the client session matches the server session then the user is authorized
if (serverSession?.Value == clientSession?.Value)
{
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
return;
}
}
Finally, just register these new classes in start up so they get called.
Add this code to your Startup class under the ConfigureServices method, right below services.AddDefaultIdentity<IdentityUser>()
.AddEntityFrameworkStores<ApplicationDbContext>();
// build default authorization policy
var defaultPolicy = new AuthorizationPolicyBuilder()
.RequireAuthenticatedUser()
.AddRequirements(new ValidSessionRequirement())
.Build();
// add authorization to the pipe
services.AddAuthorization(options =>
{
options.DefaultPolicy = defaultPolicy;
});
// register new claims factory
services.AddScoped<IUserClaimsPrincipalFactory<IdentityUser>, ApplicationClaimsPrincipalFactory>();
// register valid session handler
services.AddTransient<IAuthorizationHandler, ValidSessionHandler>();
You can use UpdateSecurityStamp to invalidate any existing authentication cookies. For example:
public async Task<IActionResult> Login(LoginViewModel model)
{
var user = await _userManager.FindByEmailAsync(model.Email);
if (user == null)
{
ModelState.AddModelError(string.Empty, "Invalid username/password.");
return View();
}
if (await _userManager.ValidatePasswordAsync(user, model.Password))
{
await _userManager.UpdateSecurityStampAsync(user);
var result = await _signInManager.SignInAsync(user, isPersistent: false);
// handle `SignInResult` cases
}
}
By updating the security stamp will cause all existing auth cookies to be invalid, basically logging out all other devices where the user is logged in. Then, you sign in the user on this current device.
Best way is to do something similar to what Google, Facebook and others do -- detect if user is logging in from a different device. For your case, I believe you would want to have a slight different behavior -- instead of asking access, you'll probably deny it. It's almost like you're creating a license "per device", or a "single tenant" license.
This Stack Overflow thread talks about this solution.
The most reliable way to detect a device change is to create a
fingerprint of the browser/device the browser is running on. This is a
complex topic to get 100% right, and there are commercial offerings
that are pretty darn good but not flawless.
Note: if you want to start simple, you could start with a Secure cookie, which is less likely to be exposed to cookie theft via eavesdropping. You could store a hashed fingerprint, for instance.
There are some access management solutions (ForgeRock, Oracle Access Management) that implement this Session Quota functionality. ForgeRock has a community version and its source code is available on Github, maybe you can take a look at how it is implemented there. There is also a blog post from them giving a broad view of the functionality (https://blogs.forgerock.org/petermajor/2013/01/session-quota-basics/)
If this is too complex for your use case, what I would do is combine the "shared memory" approach that you described with an identity function, similar to what Fabio pointed out in another answer.
I am working on an ASP.NET Core 2.0 Web API and I want to do some integration tests using ASP.NET Core's TestServer class. I am using xUnit as my testing framework so I have created a TestServerFixture class that creates the in-memory TestServer instance and then use the TestServer's .CreateClient() to create the HTTPClient instance.
My Web API requires an OAuth2.0 Access Token from my Azure AD. I set this up using this code in my Startup.cs, ConfigureServices method:
// Add Azure AD OAUTH2.0 Authentication Services
services.AddAuthentication(sharedOptions =>
{
sharedOptions.DefaultScheme = JwtBearerDefaults.AuthenticationScheme;
})
.AddAzureAdBearer(options => Configuration.Bind("AzureAd", options));
and in my controllers, I have the [Authorize] attribute on the class.
So for my Integration Tests setup, I have a method in my TestServerFixture that obtains a valid token from Azure AD and I add it to my client request header as follows;
Client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Bearer", await _testServerFixture.GetAccessToken());
When I debug my integration test, I can see that the request does contain a valid access token but I am still getting a 401 Unauthorized from the API when I run my Integration Test.
After doing some digging I found several resources that talk about a similar issue with TestServer, but related to Authentication rather than Authorization, as I am experiencing. Here are links to these resources;
https://medium.com/#zbartl/authentication-and-asp-net-core-integration-testing-using-testserver-15d47b03045a
How do I integration test a ASP 5/Core Web API with [Authorize] Attributes
http://geeklearning.io/how-to-deal-with-identity-when-testing-an-asp-net-core-application/
These all talk about assigning a ClaimsPrincipal to the context.user using custom middleware. Since this is based upon Authentication rather than Authorization, I am not sure if I can do something similar for my Access Token.
I do know that in my API, I can access the HTTPContext.User and pull out the AppId value, which is part of the Access Token so it would seem that Authentication and Authorization both use the Context.User.
So, before I burn time building up my own custom middleware for this purpose, I wanted to see if anyone has already addressed this issue or perhaps are aware of a NuGet that does what I need.
EDIT - SOLUTION
I am showing this in case anyone else runs into this issue.
I ended up building the middleware that Zach Bartlett presented in his blog , but making the following changes.
public class AuthenticatedTestRequestMiddleware
{
#region Class Variables
private const string TestingAccessTokenAuthentication = "TestingAccessTokenAuthentication";
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
#endregion Class Variables
#region Constructor(s)
public AuthenticatedTestRequestMiddleware(RequestDelegate next)
{
_next = next;
}
#endregion Constructor(s)
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
if (context.Request.Headers.Keys.Contains("X-Integration-Testing"))
{
if (context.Request.Headers.Keys.Contains("Authorization"))
{
var token = context.Request.Headers["Authorization"].First();
var claimsIdentity = new ClaimsIdentity(new List<Claim>
{
new Claim(ClaimTypes.Authentication, token)
}, TestingAccessTokenAuthentication);
var claimsPrincipal = new ClaimsPrincipal(claimsIdentity);
context.User = claimsPrincipal;
}
}
await _next(context);
}
}
There were one interesting "Gotcha".
In Zach's blog he had the code;
public const string TestingHeader = "X-Integration-Testing";
at the top of his middleware and then references the TestingHeader in the test for the key in the header collection like this;
if (context.Request.Headers.Keys.Contains(TestingHeader)
Doing it this way was failing for me until I put the string literal instead of the variable into the .Contains() clause.
Now, my integration test is passing with a 200 OK response. :)
I was able to find a solution following Zach Bartlett's blog post, and making some small changes to make it pertain to the Authentication header. The code is shown as an edit in my original post above.
I have a client asking for an integrated authentication based solution utilizing a custom role/membership schema. My original plan was to use claims based authentication mechanism with integrated authentication. However, my initial research is not turning up a whole lot of useful information.
To the point, I have an ASP.NET (not core nor owin) WebAPI application, which has api actions used by angular SPA based (asp.net) web application. I am attempting to authorize the api calls using integrated authentication. My initial effort was focused around a custom AuthorizationAttribute and ClaimsAuthenticationManager implementation. However as I got deeper into that I started running into issues with the custom ClaimsAuthenticationManager, at this point I'm not sure that is the proper route to take.
So my question for you all is, can you at least give me some ideas of what it would take to make this happen? I don't need help with secific bits the code, just need to figure out the appropriate "stack" so to speak.
The only real requirement is WebAPI calls can be authorized, with a custom attribute passing a name of a claim to authorize on, but the claim is not in AD even though it is using windows authentication, the claims themselves would come from a database.
Thank you all in advance!
Look at https://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/security/authentication-and-authorization-in-aspnet-web-api.
Your scenario isn't much different:
you're using AD for authentication
you're using your db for authorization
Simply put this can be addressed by configuring web-api to use windows authentication.
<system.web>
<authentication mode="Windows" />
</system.web>
And add your own IAuthorizationFilter to Web API pipeline, that will check current principal (should be set), and then override this principal with your own (i.e. query db - get claims, and override it with your custom claims principal by setting HttpContext.Current.User and Thread.CurrentPrincipal).
For how to add filter to WebAPI pipe line check out How to add global ASP.Net Web Api Filters?
public class CustomAuthenticationFilter : IAuthenticationFilter {
public bool AllowMultiple { get { return true; } }
public Task AuthenticateAsync(HttpAuthenticationContext context, CancellationToken cancellationToken) {
var windowsPrincipal = context.Principal as WindowsPrincipal;
if (windowsPrincipal != null) {
var name = windowsPrincipal.Identity.Name;
// TODO: fetch claims from db (i guess based on name)
var identity = new ClaimsIdentity(windowsPrincipal.Identity);
identity.AddClaim(new Claim("db-crazy-claim", "db-value"));
var claimsPrincipal = new ClaimsPrincipal(identity);
// here is the punchline - we're replacing original windows principal
// with our own claims principal
context.Principal = claimsPrincipal;
}
return Task.FromResult(0);
}
public Task ChallengeAsync(HttpAuthenticationChallengeContext context, CancellationToken cancellationToken) {
return Task.FromResult(0);
}
}
public static class WebApiConfig {
public static void Register(HttpConfiguration config) {
config.Filters.Add(new CustomAuthenticationFilter());
// Web API routes
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes();
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute( ... );
}
}
Also there is no need for custom authorization attribute - use default one - its understood by everyone, and makes your code more readable.