I'm working on a project in Yii, and I have almost no experience with this framework and php.
I'm trying to give access to a view in Yii to different users depending on their role. In my code, in the Controller/accessRules function, I give permission to users with a specific role, that's working fine.
The thing/problem is: I also need to give that same permission to a specific users from very different roles and those roles they don't have to have permission. But those specific users they have a field activated in the 'users' table in the database (it's a boolean field, 1/0 values). If that field has a '1', those users must access to the view, if it's a '0', they don't.
I tried to check the value of the field I described before but the thing is if they don't have the role described in the accessRules, they don't have access. (or maybe the way I check this is not well done).
What I need to do to solve this? I need some tips.
Thanks!
Well, I finally found a solution. Not the one I was expecting but effective... I created a new role/profile in the database and added the role to the users I want to give access, also in the database. Then in the app I added the new role in the controller/action of the view, that's all. It's simple, I know. But I think it's not the best idea because of if the number of users starts growing and in the case every user needs a specific role...maybe it's too much work.
Related
I am fairly new to coding in the .Net environment. I am having trouble finding "real-world" examples on authentication/authorization using Identity. Most examples I come across are primarily textbook examples that use the ASP .Net registration template.
I am trying to find guidance on where to look (yes, I Googled and I get very unrealistic/unusable use cases or "classroom" examples) or how to do this.
I work for a small school and I am trying to build an application (possibly Blazor - just experimenting with various technologies now) that allows both students and employees to login into a portal and view their relevant data. I have an Employee table and a Student table based on POCO classes. When I add identity to the project it creates Users and Roles tables as well.
I would like to have the "Users" table based on the Student and Employee tables - not have a separate users table. I do not want to have a "registration" option either. I would like the option for an Admin (which would fall under an "Employee") to be able to add users, but not use a registration page.
How would I implement Identity and Roles without using all the extras added? I am using .Net 5.0.
Thank you for your time and pelase forgive the English - it's new to me as well.
I understand what you're trying to do. It IS possible to Create a Custom AuthenticationStateProvider
But unless you have a VERY robust database already, I wouldn't do it. Getting the default system set up and migrating users will take at most an hour. Setting up your own custom authorization system is likely to take you MUCH MUCH longer.
Having different users in different tables is not a good design plan. They all have names, phone numbers, e-mails and so on-- put them on one table.
Hi Derrick and welcome to the community! #Bennyboy1973 is correct, in that both your Students and Employees are all "Users", so they should all be stored in the same table. To add to that response a bit, probably the simplest way for you to manage them is by using Roles, so the Students could be in one role and the Employees could be in another. By having a role attached to each, you can then use the roles as a filter in your queries and you could also restrict the access and actions each type will have based on the role they are in.
Regarding having administrators add the users to the database without public access, this can be done as well. Once you get the default identity system up and running, you can scaffold out the whole system so it can be modified, and probably the easiest way to achieve what you are after is to then modify the default registration (signup) page so that it requires the user to be authenticated to reach it, and then implement a confirmation email to activate each new account.
There are a few things with this approach that you need to be aware of as well.
Since the admin will be setting up all the other user accounts, you should modify the email confirmation chain to require a password reset at some point. The administrators can have access to the user's information as needed but shouldn't have the user's passwords.
Identity Server will store passwords in an encrypted format, and you'll need an initial user in your database. What this means is that you will have to "seed" an initial admin user into the database that you can use to sign in and get started with everything else. You'll have to research how to do this, as it isn't as simple as just accessing the database directly and adding the user and roles because of the encryption. The program you build should be designed to do this for you on either the first run or if you are connecting to a new database, using a username and password that you know. It will then store the user properly that you can use to sign in as Admin, then change the admin password. This makes the whole thing more secure.
This all sounds like a headache, but it's worth it to work through and know how it all fits together. The, as mentioned in other answers, you can migrate existing data into the database.
I have setup my web api to use policy based authorization. I can have permissions like invoice:list, invoice:edit, invoice:delete, order:list, order:edit and so on.
Now, I need to return different sets of data depending on the user that is logged in. For example an user can retrieve all invoices (sales manager for example) and others just the ones created by them.
Would it be a good way to do it, add a bit more information to the claim like -> inovice:list:all, invoice:list:own, etc...? And add differnt filters to the final query depending on the "all" or "own" part?
What other alternatives can be implemented to solve this problem?
Cheers.
Hello again every one,
I have a question: I successfully implemented django-auth-ldap, the LDAP users can request successfully my DRF API. But nows, for my projetc needs, I have to define permissions depending of the group.
Indeed, I will have like 12 groups in my app. Depending of the group, I will authorize or not the user to request a given route, BUT even if I defined the global var AUTH_LDAP_MIRROR_GROUPS = True, and saw in my database the are linked to a group (see capture):
Users in database
Groups from LDAP inserted in db thx to django-auth_ldap settings
User linked to the groups defined
But now, I have some other problems: I do not know how to implement permissions depending of the group the user belong. In fact, if a user belong to the group ServerAdministrator, I want to allow him to access to every route accessible, but I dont know where to see this in the received request in my view?
As I understood, I should implement custom permissions I should write programmatically in a User object (which should inherit from django AbstractUser)
If yes, How does it work? Should I empty my whole Database and then let django-auth-ldap insert users and it also will create the given permissions defined inside the database?
Maybe it is not clear, do not hesitate to ask questions if I can be more precise.
Kind regards.
Benjamin
I am currently setting up a small server with several applications. Since no Active Directory etc is planned, but I do need a centralized user administration, I decided for LDAP since all applications are capable of authenticating against it.
I have already set up a domain "dc=example,dc=lan". It has two organizational Units. Groups and Users. My plan was, to create a posixGroup for every application, so that a user can be added to each group (if he/she was allowed to use this application).
The structure would then be (example):
for each group
cn=ejabberd,ou=groups,dc=example,dc=lan
where cn=ejabberd is of type "posixGroup"
and for users
cn=user1,ou=users,dc=example,dc=lan
where cn=user1 is of type "posixAccount"
Some, but not all, applications expect the "mail" attribute as login name. Some don't.
My problem is, that searching for users in ou=users is easy as 1,2,3 - searching in "cn=ejabberd,ou=groups,dc=example,dc=lan" is sheer driving me crazy since the users are not a "child" to this group but a "memberuid" attribute.
I have tried different filters and thought about another setup.. Just cannot think of anything different making sense right now.
Am I running down the wrong way, or maybe just blind to what's right in front of me?
I'd be glad for any finger pointing out a direction.
So here is, how I did it:
I created the following structure.
+dc=example,dc=com
+ou=groups
| +employees (PosixGroup)
| +service1 (GroupOfNames)
| +service2 (GroupOfNames)
+ou=users
| +user1 (User Account)
| +user2 (User Account)
etc..
Groups like "service1" and "service2" are of type "GroupOfNames". Furthermore I had to install the "memberOf"-Overlay so I could search for this exact attribute of a user.
This now gives me the possibility to tell each service to use a search filter that returns only the members of one special group, which will be granted access. For instance, ejabberd will use this filter:
"(&(objectClass=inetOrgPerson)(memberof=cn=ejabberd,ou=groups,dc=example,dc=com))"
Found these informations on the following website. Just take care to set the filter case sensitive! "memberOf" will not return any results, since the overlay in this example uses "memberof".
http://www.schenkels.nl/2013/03/how-to-setup-openldap-with-memberof-overlay-ubuntu-12-04/
I suggest you're on the wrong track. You don't want to authenticate by application, you just want to define overall roles that users can be in. The applications can then be defined to require certain role(s) per application funtion, web page, etc. As a limiting case, an application can be a role, but if you set out to define it that way you're overly limiting yourself.
To answer your immediate problem, you only have to search under the ou=Groups item for posixGroups which have memberUID={0} where {0} is the DN of the user. In other words the search filter is
(&(objectClass=posixGroup)(memberUID={0}))
Iterating those search results then gives you the DNs of all the groups of which he is a member.
It's my 1st time i'm working with Yii2's RBAC system.
I used http://www.yiiframework.com/doc-2.0/guide-security-authorization.html to get myself familiar with topic.
As i needed some kind of administration for roles / permissions, i installed this extension: https://github.com/mdmsoft/yii2-admin
I'm working on application that let's users submit articles. There are two kind of users, Administrators, and normal Users.
I created 2 roles for that purpose. Admin role and User role.
Users (both admins and users) must have ability to edit articles. Admins should be able to edit any article, while users can edit only their own articles.
For that i created 2 permissions. "Edit" permission and "EditOwn" permission. Than i created "IsOwner" rule and attached it to "EditOwn" permission.
I assigned "Edit" permission to Admin role, and "EditOwn" to User role and everything works great.
Now i'd like to create "lock" status for each article. If Article is locked, user can not edit it even if it's he's own article. Admins should be able to edit it even if it's locked.
For that i created new rule "IsLocked" but i dont know how to add it to "EditOwn" permission. I don't know is it even possible to have 2 rules attached to one permission?
EDIT:
Right now, i have this "dealt with" in way that i have additional permission "EditOwnIsLocked" to which i attached "IsLocked" rule which is than child of "EditOwn", which is child of "Edit".
This works, but it feels dirty and plain and simple wrong.
As it turns out, there is (for now) no way to attach multiple rules to a permission.
You can deal with need of multiple rules in way i do right now, by creating additional permission and attach rule to it and than make child<->parent connection, or you can edit your rule to check for all situations (in my case to check for IsParent and IsLocked).
Those solutions arn't perfect but it's what it is for now. First solution spawns unnecessary permissions, and clutter your permission list (in case you are using yii2-admin or similar extensions), but keeps your rules clean, and second solution keeps your permission list clean but makes you retype same code in multiple rules which is kinda oposit of what OOP stands for.