Why do I need to set a DefaultForbidScheme - asp.net-core

In a WebAPI .net core project I have created a Middleware class that validates an api key. From validating it, it retrieves the permissions that the key has (user or admin) within the invoke method.
I pass it through a switch to set the principle like so
GenericIdentity identity = new GenericIdentity("API");
GenericPrincipal principle = null;
//we have a valid api key, so set the role permissions of the key
switch (keyValidatorRes.Role)
{
case Roles.User:
principle = new GenericPrincipal(identity, new[] { "User" });
context.User = principle;
break;
case Roles.Admin:
principle = new GenericPrincipal(identity, new[] { "Admin" });
context.User = principle;
break;
default:
principle = new GenericPrincipal(identity, new[] { "Other" });
context.User = principle;
break;
}
On controllers methods I have
[Authorize(Roles = "Admin")]
to validate the roles of an authenticated api key
If the user has the admin principle it goes through as expected. However, if it has a user or other principle then I get an error about
not having a DefaultForbidScheme
I googled around and added Authentication to my startup.cs with a customer scheme
services.AddAuthentication(options=> {
options.DefaultForbidScheme = "forbidScheme";
options.AddScheme<AuthSchemeHandle>("forbidScheme", "Handle Forbidden");
});
and created the AuthSchemeHandle
public class AuthSchemeHandle : IAuthenticationHandler
{
private HttpContext _context;
public Task<AuthenticateResult> AuthenticateAsync()
{
return Task.FromResult(AuthenticateResult.NoResult());
}
public Task ChallengeAsync(AuthenticationProperties properties)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public Task ForbidAsync(AuthenticationProperties properties)
{
return Task.FromResult(AuthenticateResult.Fail("Failed Auth"));
}
public Task InitializeAsync(AuthenticationScheme scheme, HttpContext context)
{
_context = context;
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
}
Now if the principle does not have Admin it fails without the error but the response that is returned on the API is 200 with no content. I was expecting a 4xx response with the message "Failed Auth"
I am just trying to work out why it is not as expected as although it seems "fixed" I do not understand how it has fixed it.
Is there a better way that I should be doing this?

why it is not as expected as although it seems "fixed" I do not understand how it has fixed it.
There's no dark magic when the authentication handler calls IAuthenticationHandler.ForbidAsync() method. We have to do relevant things ourself. In short, setting the StatusCode=403 as your need.
public async Task ForbidAsync(AuthenticationProperties properties)
{
properties = properties ?? new AuthenticationProperties();
_context.Response.StatusCode = 403;
// ...
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
As a side note, you don't need return a Task.FromResult() as it doesn't care about the result.
Is there a better way that I should be doing this?
The ASP.NET Core Team provides us an abstract class AuthenticationHandler to handle authentication. This abstract class has a built-in implementation for ForbidAsync(AuthenticationProperties properties) (and also for other public methods). So it's much easy to extends this abstract class as below:
public class MyAuthenticationHandler : AuthenticationHandler<AuthenticationSchemeOptions>
{
public MyAuthenticationHandler(IOptionsMonitor<AuthenticationSchemeOptions> options, ILoggerFactory logger, UrlEncoder encoder, ISystemClock clock)
: base(options, logger, encoder, clock)
{
}
protected override async Task<AuthenticateResult> HandleAuthenticateAsync()
{
return AuthenticateResult.NoResult();
}
}
Finally, add a configuration for authentication service:
services
.AddAuthentication(options=>{
options.DefaultAuthenticateScheme = "forbidScheme";
options.DefaultForbidScheme = "forbidScheme";
options.AddScheme<MyAuthenticationHandler>("forbidScheme", "Handle Forbidden");
});
It should work as expected.

Related

How to add custom authorization in .NET5?

I have ASP.NET Core MVC application using NET 5. Only authenticated users are allowed to access the application. The authorization policy below takes care of it.
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddControllersWithViews(options =>
{
var authorizationPolicy = new AuthorizationPolicyBuilder()
.RequireClaim(ClaimTypes.Email)
.RequireClaim(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier)
.RequireClaim(ClaimTypes.Name)
.RequireClaim(IdentityClaimTypes.IdToken)
.RequireAuthenticatedUser()
.Build();
options.Filters.Add(new AuthorizeFilter(authorizationPolicy));
})
}
The controllers are also using AuthorizeRoles attribute to check access based on roles.
public class AuthorizeRolesAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
public AuthorizeRolesAttribute(params string[] roles) : base()
{
if (roles.Length > 0)
{
Roles = string.Join(",", roles);
}
}
}
[AuthorizeRoles("ClientAdmin")]
public class WorkItemClientsController : BaseController
{
private readonly IClientWorkItemService _clientWorkItemService;
public WorkItemClientsController(IClientWorkItemService clientWorkItemService)
{
_clientWorkItemService = clientWorkItemService;
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("workitems/{workItemID}/clients")]
public async Task<ActionResult> Index([FromRoute(Name = "workItemID")] int workItemID)
{
}
}
The application has few actions that need to be further authorized based on the user's data in the database. I have the following
public class WorkItemRequirement : IAuthorizationRequirement
{
}
public class WorkItemAuthorizationHandler : AuthorizationHandler<WorkItemRequirement>
{
protected override Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, WorkItemRequirement requirement)
{
//check if logged in user can access this route based on workitemid from the route, if true then return context.Succeed(requirement);
}
}
public class WorkItemAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
public WorkItemAuthorizeAttribute()
{
Policy = "WorkItemPolicy"
}
}
I will add WorkItemAuthorizeAttribute to require action methods.
What I am missing here is how WorkItemAuthorizeAttribute will know which handler to invoke. In this case its WorkItemAuthorizationHandler.
What do I need to change/add in AuthorizationPolicyBuilder in startup.cs to make this association?
Pretty much everything you can find in official docs here
basically as you said you need to modify your policy to include your WorkItemRequirement like that:
.Requirements.Add(new WorkItemRequirement());
That will 'glue' Policy in your Attribute with your AuthorizationHandler

Resource based authorization in SignalR

I have web API with custom policies and authorization handlers.
I wanted to reuse authorization handlers but HttpContext is null when attribute is used on signalr's hub.
For example this is my controller.
[Authorize]
public sealed class ChatsController : ControllerBase
{
[HttpPost("{chatId}/messages/send")]
[Authorize(Policy = PolicyNames.ChatParticipant)]
public Task SendMessage() => Task.CompletedTask;
}
And this my my authorization handler. I can extract "chatId" from HttpContext and then use my custom logic to authorize user.
internal sealed class ChatParticipantRequirementHandler : AuthorizationHandler<ChatParticipantRequirement>
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor _httpContextAccessor;
public ChatParticipantRequirementHandler(IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor)
{
_httpContextAccessor = httpContextAccessor;
}
protected override Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, ChatParticipantRequirement requirement)
{
if(_httpContextAccessor.HttpContext != null)
{
// Logic
}
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
}
However this won't work with Azure SignalR because I don't have access to HttpContext. I know that I can provide custom IUserIdProvider but I have no idea how to access "chatId" from "Join" method in my custom authorization handler.
[Authorize]
public sealed class ChatHub : Hub<IChatClient>
{
[Authorize(Policy = PolicyNames.ChatParticipant)]
public async Task Join(Guid chatId)
{
await Groups.AddToGroupAsync(Context.ConnectionId, chatId.ToString());
}
Is it possible to reuse my authorization handlers?
I would like to avoid copypasting my code.
One solution is to extract my authorization code to separate services but then I have to manually call those from my hubs and abandon [Authorize] way.
Your chat is a resource, and you want to use resource based authorization. In this case declarative authorization with an attribute is not enough, because chat id is known at runtime only. So you have to use imperative authorization with IAuthorizationService.
Now in your hub:
[Authorize]
public sealed class ChatHub : Hub<IChatClient>
{
private readonly IAuthorizationService authService;
public ChatHub(IAuthorizationService authService)
{
this.authService = authService;
}
public async Task Join(Guid chatId)
{
// Get claims principal from authorized hub context
var user = this.Context.User;
// Get chat from DB or wherever you store it, or optionally just pass the ID to the authorization service
var chat = myDb.GetChatById(chatId);
var validationResult = await this.authService.AuthorizeAsync(user, chat, PolicyNames.ChatParticipant);
if (validationResult.Succeeded)
{
await Groups.AddToGroupAsync(Context.ConnectionId, chatId.ToString());
}
}
}
Your authorization handler should look different, because it needs the chat resource in its signature to do this kind of evaluation:
internal sealed class ChatParticipantRequirementHandler : AuthorizationHandler<ChatParticipantRequirement, Chat>
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor _httpContextAccessor;
public ChatParticipantRequirementHandler(IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor)
{
_httpContextAccessor = httpContextAccessor;
}
protected override Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, ChatParticipantRequirement requirement, Chat chat)
{
// You have both user and chat now
var user = context.User;
if (this.IsMyUserAuthorizedToUseThisChat(user, chat))
{
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
else
{
context.Fail();
}
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
}
Edit: there is actually another option I didn't know about
You can make use of HubInvocationContext that SignalR Hub provides for authorized methods. This can be automatically injected into your AuthorizationHandler, which should look like this:
public class ChatParticipantRequirementHandler : AuthorizationHandler<ChatParticipantRequirement, HubInvocationContext>
{
protected override Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, ChatParticipantRequirement requirement, HubInvocationContext hubContext)
{
var chatId = Guid.Parse((string)hubContext.HubMethodArguments[0]);
}
}
Hub method will be decorated normally with [Authorize(Policy = PolicyNames.ChatParticipant)]
You still will have two authorization handlers, AuthorizationHandler<ChatParticipantRequirement> and AuthorizationHandler<ChatParticipantRequirement, HubInvocationContext>, no way around it. As for code dublication, you can however just get the Chat ID in the handler, either from HttpContext or HubInvocationContext, and than pass it to you custom written MyAuthorizer that you could inject into both handlers:
public class MyAuthorizer : IMyAuthorizer
{
public bool CanUserChat(Guid userId, Guid chatId);
}

Authorization policy via attribute before data binding in web api

I am struggling to find a good solution for doing custom authorization checks without having to repeat the authorization check manually over and over again.
To illustrate, suppose I have the following setup for a .net core web api, which has two endpoints, one for GET and one for POST. I would like to check (maybe against db) whether the user has the right to see the resource, or the right to create a resource.
This is what the documentation refers to as resource based authorization
and would look something like this:
[Authorize]
[ApiVersion ("1.0")]
[Route ("api/v{version:apiVersion}/[controller]")]
[ApiController]
public class ResourcesController : ControllerBase {
private readonly IAuthorizationService _authorizationService;
//..constructor DI
[HttpGet ("{resourceId}")]
public ActionResult<Resource> Get (Guid resourceId) {
var authorizationCheck = await _authorizationService.AuthorizeAsync (User, resourceId, ServiceOperations.Read);
if (!authorizationCheck.Succeeded) {
return Forbid ();
}
return Ok (ResourceRep.Get (resourceId));
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult<Resource> Post ([FromBody] Resource resource) {
var authorizationCheck = await _authorizationService.AuthorizeAsync (User, null, ServiceOperations.Write);
if (!authorizationCheck.Succeeded) {
return Forbid ();
}
return Ok (ResourceRep.Create (resource));
}
}
Now imagine the ServiceOperations enum has a long list of supported operations, or there are 100 different endpoints, I will have to do the same check everywhere, or even worse, might forget to add a check where I should definitely have added a check. And there is not an easy way to pick this up in unit tests.
I thought of using attributes but as the docs state:
Attribute evaluation occurs before data binding and before execution of the page handler or action that loads the document. For these reasons, declarative authorization with an [Authorize] attribute doesn't suffice. Instead, you can invoke a custom authorization method—a style known as imperative authorization.
So it seems I cannot use an authorization policy and decorate the methods with authorization attributes (which are easy to unit test that they are there) when the check itself requires a parameter that is not available (the resourceId).
So for the question itself:
How do you use imperative (resource based) authorization generically without having to repeat yourself (which is error-prone). I would love to have an attribute like the following:
[HttpGet ("{resourceId}")]
[AuthorizeOperation(Operation = ServiceOperations.Read, Resource=resourceId)]
public ActionResult<Resource> Get (Guid resourceId) {..}
[AuthorizeOperation(Operation = ServiceOperations.Write)]
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult<Resource> Post ([FromBody] Resource resource) {..}
You can achieve it using AuthorizationHandler in a policy-based authorization and combine with an injected service specifically created to determine the Operation-Resources pairing.
To do it, first setup the policy in Startup.ConfigureServices :
services.AddAuthorization(options =>
{
options.AddPolicy("OperationResource", policy => policy.Requirements.Add( new OperationResourceRequirement() ));
});
services.AddScoped<IAuthorizationHandler, UserResourceHandler>();
services.AddScoped<IOperationResourceService, OperationResourceService>();
next create the OperationResourceHandler :
public class OperationResourceHandler: AuthorizationHandler<OperationResourceRequirement>
{
readonly IOperationResourceService _operationResourceService;
public OperationResourceHandler(IOperationResourceService o)
{
_operationResourceService = o;
}
protected override async Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext authHandlerContext, OperationResourceRequirement requirement)
{
if (context.Resource is AuthorizationFilterContext filterContext)
{
var area = (filterContext.RouteData.Values["area"] as string)?.ToLower();
var controller = (filterContext.RouteData.Values["controller"] as string)?.ToLower();
var action = (filterContext.RouteData.Values["action"] as string)?.ToLower();
var id = (filterContext.RouteData.Values["id"] as string)?.ToLower();
if (_operationResourceService.IsAuthorize(area, controller, action, id))
{
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
}
}
}
the OperationResourceRequirement can be an empty class:
public class OperationResourceRequirement : IAuthorizationRequirement { }
The trick is, rather than specify action's Operation in attribute, we specify it elsewhere such as in database, in appsettings.json, in some config file, or hardcoded.
Here's an example getting the Operation-Resource pair from config file:
public class OperationResourceService : IOperationResourceService
{
readonly IConfiguration _config;
readonly IHttpContextAccessor _accessor;
readonly UserManager<AppUser> _userManager;
public class OpeartionResourceService(IConfiguration c, IHttpContextAccessor a, UserManager<AppUser> u)
{
_config = c;
_accessor = a;
_userManager = u;
}
public bool IsAuthorize(string area, string controller, string action, string id)
{
var operationConfig = _config.GetValue<string>($"OperationSetting:{area}:{controller}:{action}"); //assuming we have the setting in appsettings.json
var appUser = await _userManager.GetUserAsync(_accessor.HttpContext.User);
//all of needed data are available now, do the logic of authorization
return result;
}
}
Please note that to make IHttpContextAccessor injectable, add services.AddHttpContextAccessor() in Startup.ConfigurationServices method body.
After all is done, use the policy on an action:
[HttpGet ("{resourceId}")]
[Authorize(Policy = "OperationResource")]
public ActionResult<Resource> Get (Guid resourceId) {..}
the authorize policy can be the same for every action.

Windows authentication/authorization

I am working on a website where I need to authorize the user through a service. I have managed to get windows authentication working if I use the AuthorizeAttribute (User.Identities will be set). My plan is to create a custom middleware that sets the roles/claims for the user but context.User is not set in the middleware. User.Identities will also not be set in the controllers where I don't add the AuthorizeAttribute.
My goal is to write a middleware that gets the windows username and calls a service with the username to get the roles the user has access to and then set the roles or claims for the user.
public class RoleMiddleware
{
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public RoleMiddleware(RequestDelegate next)
{
_next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
if (!rolesSet)
{
var result = _service.GetRoles(context.User.Identity.Name);
//set roles
//set claims
}
await _next.Invoke(context);
}
}
Would a middleware be the correct place to do this and what do I need to do to get access to the username in the same way as I do when I use the AuthorizeAttribute in a controller?
In my opinion that's not the right way to do it. ASP.NET Identity provide rich set of classes which you can override and extend to fit your requirements.
If you want to inject roles bases on some custom service then you should override RoleStore (and maybe RoleManager too) and inject there your custom roles.
It will be also worth to take a look here: Using Role Claims in ASP.NET Identity Core
I solved it by using requirements
public class CustomFunctionRequirement : IAuthorizationRequirement
{
public CustomFunctionRequirement(string function)
{
Function = function;
}
public string Function { get; }
}
The handler
public class CustomFunctionHandler : AuthorizationHandler<CustomFunctionRequirement>
{
private readonly Service _service;
public CustomFunctionHandler(Service service)
{
_service = service;
}
protected override Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, CustomFunctionRequirement requirement)
{
var functions = _service.GetFunctions(context.User.Identity.Name);
if (functions.Any(x => x == requirement.Function))
{
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
}
Setup in ConfigureServices in Startup
services.AddMvc(
config =>
{
var policy = new AuthorizationPolicyBuilder()
.RequireAuthenticatedUser()
.Build();
config.Filters.Add(new AuthorizeFilter(policy));
});
services.AddAuthorization(
options =>
{
options.AddPolicy("User", policy => policy.Requirements.Add(new CustomRequirement("User")));
});
I can now in my controller specify the requirement by adding the authorize attribute [Authorize(Policy = "User")].

OAuth: ASP.NET Web API User.Identity doesn't load claims set by authentication token provider

I am using OAuth bearer authentication, configured like this in Startup.cs:
OAuthBearerAuthenticationOptions oAuthBearerOptions =
new OAuthBearerAuthenticationOptions
{
AccessTokenProvider = new AccessTokenProvider(),
AuthenticationMode = AuthenticationMode.Active
};
app.UseOAuthBearerAuthentication(oAuthBearerOptions);
... where AccessTokenProvider is implemented as:
public class AccessTokenProvider : AuthenticationTokenProvider
{
public override async Task ReceiveAsync(AuthenticationTokenReceiveContext context)
{
// Internal logic to get data needed for building identity...
// Create claims identity
ClaimsIdentity identity = new ClaimsIdentity(identityName);
identity.AddClaim(new Claim(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier, nameIdentifier));
// Add other claims
// Set claims identity
context.SetTicket(new AuthenticationTicket(identity, new AuthenticationProperties()));
}
}
If I set a breakpoint at the end of ReceiveAsync, I can verify that the identity is built correctly (has claims) and that SetTicket is reached.
But when I try to access the identity from a Web API controller:
public abstract class BaseStorageController : ApiController
{
protected IStorageService StorageService;
protected BaseStorageController(IStorageServiceFactory storageServiceFactory)
{
StorageService = storageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity);
}
}
... the list of claims on the identity is empty!
What can be causing this?
Side note: I don't know if this is related, but I am using Castle Windsor as an IOC container to inject dependencies into my controllers (in the above case, IStorageServiceFactory). The above seemed to work (claims were not empty) before I added that. However, I'm not using CW to manage anything related to authentication. Here is my CW installer for api controllers:
public class ApiControllerInstaller : IWindsorInstaller
{
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
container.Register(Classes.FromThisAssembly().BasedOn<ApiController>().LifestylePerWebRequest());
}
}
I found the answer. It was not related to dependency injection/inversion of control. I'm not sure how I thought it was working prior to adding that.
The issue is similar to what is described here (but in my case the solution is different): User (IPrincipal) not avaliable on ApiController's constructor using Web Api 2.1 and Owin
Basically IPrincipal is not accessible from the constructor of the api controller, which is why there are no claims (the user is not yet authenticated). User.Identity is only accessible from the controller's actions, not the constructor. I changed my base controller implementation to the following to get around this issue:
public abstract class BaseStorageController : ApiController
{
private readonly IStorageServiceFactory _storageServiceFactory;
private IStorageService _storageService;
protected BaseStorageController(IStorageServiceFactory storageServiceFactory)
{
_storageServiceFactory = storageServiceFactory;
}
protected IStorageService StorageService
{
get
{
if (_storageService == null)
{
_storageService = _storageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity);
}
return _storageService;
}
}
}
Since StorageService is only accessed from controller actions, User.Identity is authenticated and has claims populated by the time that the StorageService getter gets called.
Hope this helps someone!
protected IStorageService StorageService
{
get
{
if (_storageService == null)
{
_storageService = _storageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity);
}
return _storageService;
}
}
this is not the best approach for implementing DI
It's much better to use constructor injection.
Check Constructor Injection in C#/Unity?
if you are not familliar with Unity, follow this link, very useful:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn223671(v=pandp.30).aspx
Regards