Background:
I have a basic user database with username(email) and password. The users are able to sign in to a website of mine with these credentials. From the website they get a link to different services they have access to, but with different username/passwords. So they click the link "Open My Service X" and they have to login with their service unique login credentials. I do have the users service login-username. So I can map local-user <=> service-user.
I want SSO between service X which has support for SAML and my website.
Question/Problem:
I want the users to login with their user/password in my database, then single sign on towards service X where service X has support for SAML. I don't want a user to be able to sign up for a new user account to my website using the SAML support in service X. The user must already have an account in my database.
So my question might be rather vague, but I'm having a hard time to grasp how this can be achieved?
I was thinking of letting my webapp become a SAML identity provider, so that the SSO request are transferred back to my webapp and verified for their service-user. Would that be correct approach?
You're on the right track with your SAML IdP. There are basically three parts involved. Your email database (the identities), your existing application front end and the remote services which support SAML. Usually it's SAML2 these days.
To get single sign-on (SSO) across your portfolio of apps (your own app and the remote services) you could install an IdP like the Shibboleth IdP and convert your app to use it instead of using email/password to login. That would take a fair amount of work as you'd have to convert your app into a SAML SP, just like the remote services.
An easier way might be to only use the IdP for SAML to the remote services and get the IdP to recognise that your users are already logged in with their email/password. Cookie? So the IdP should never display a login page as it would recognise your app's cookie and match that with a user in the database. It then releases SAML attributes to the remote service based on that user's information. That also covers your use case of not allowing account creation via SAML from a remote service.
That would mean you might end up with the following URLs:
https://yourapp.com/
https://yourapp.com/idp/
Your users login with the first URL as normal and the remote services use the second URL. That way your app cookie will be visible to the /idp endpoint but you'd need to write code to match that with a user in the database.
Related
I have to design an IAM solution for a NodeJS microservice using Auth0. Objective is to allow third party mobile application users to access this microservice.
I understand OAuth and OpenID connect solution and one simple solution is third party application accesses APIs as a client using client credentials workflow.
Solution I have to design is allowing users to login and authenticate using their Enterprise IdP connected to our Auth0 Server. So that we can implement authorization and access control at user level.
At the same time customer application needs to be kept agnostic of Auth0 service.
What I mean by it is client should not be required to add any logic in their application for accommodating our Auth0 domain like we have in first party React application. user once logged in to customer application should get access to our API also by using SSO capability. I have read some documents about configuring customer IdP with our Auth0 server acting as a SAML SP. Still I could not understand hows of it and will Auth0 create an OAuth access token in this scenario.
I realise this requires an app to intermediate between customer's mobile app and our API service. Still, I am not able to understand data flow and communication between various components.
Also, I am not sure it is a common situation or requirement? If it is is there any technical term for it? This not seem like a standard B2B scenario.
have to design an IAM solution .. , I am not able to understand data flow and communication between various components ..
Before answering, the answer will points the asked specific questions, may not fit al your needs. SO is not really intended for writing tutorials or searching the documentation. Implementing an IdP (effecively a security module), one needs to do his homework and learn the details.
Maybe using an ready / out of box solution could be interesting. Using an open source IAM such as KeyCloak, WSO2IS could be a quick start. Or cloud services such as AWS Cognito, IBM AppId, Azure AD, .. could be a feasible solution too
a client using client credentials workflow .. access toked received by our API should be for user logged in
The client credentials grant is intended to authenticate only applications. That's it.
To authenticate users, other grant type is needed. For the user authentication the most common option is the authorization code or the implicit grant. The implicit grant is has its weaknesses and is being replaced by the code grant with PKCE (just search it).
End requirement is users of 3rd-party application not required to login again while 3rd-party application fetches data from our API .. Configuring their IdP (most probably Active directory) and our Auth0 servers for the same is all I need to understand
I see most common two options in use:
1. federated SSO authentication
This is the most commonly used option. The external (3rd party) IdP is configured as a "trusted" federated IdP. You often see the scenario when you have a service provider allowing to login with other IdP, often social networks (FB, Google, ...)
The login flow is as follows:
The client authorizes with the provider's (yours) IdP (let's call it IdP1).
IdP1 now acts as as Service Provider with IdP2 (IdP of the partner) and asks for the authorization (redirects the user to the IdP2).
User is authenticated and authorized with IdP2. If the user is already authenticated, the IdP2 doesn't need to ask the user's credentials again, this is how SSO works on this level
IdP2 returns to IdP1 (acting as a service provider).
IdP1 reads the user information (using the id_token, userinfo service - assuming using the OAuth2/OIDC protocol all the time there are other protocols too) and builds its own the user-level token. It may or may not create a local user (it is called user provisioning).
IdP1 returns to the client and the client can request a user-level token.
Then the client can call the API services with the token trusted by the API provider.
2. Assertion Framework for OAuth Authorization Grants
This option is built on top of the Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants, it is an optional extension of the OAuth2 protocol. I call this a token swap service
Basically the token service could validate the access or ID token of a trusted (partner) IdP and issue its own token based on the provided user information.
As you see there are a lot of information and to build a secure solution you ned to make sure that all steps are properly secured (signature, expiration, issuer, validity, audience, subject domain, .. are validated). Disclaimer - as my job we implement IAM/IDM solutions and a lot can get wrong if shortcuts are taken. So you may really consider using an out of box and proven solution.
I am very new to the concepts of SSO and Keycloak. I am trying to read the official documentation of Keycloak. In the "Supported Protocols" part (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/securing_apps/index.html), the documentation talks about the two use cases of using OIDC like this:
"The first is an application that asks the Keycloak server to authenticate a user for them. After a successful login, the application will receive an identity token and an access token. The identity token contains information about the user such as username, email, and other profile information. The access token is digitally signed by the realm and contains access information (like user role mappings) that the application can use to determine what resources the user is allowed to access on the application.
The second type of use cases is that of a client that wants to gain access to remote services. In this case, the client asks Keycloak to obtain an access token it can use to invoke on other remote services on behalf of the user. Keycloak authenticates the user then asks the user for consent to grant access to the client requesting it. The client then receives the access token. This access token is digitally signed by the realm. The client can make REST invocations on remote services using this access token. The REST service extracts the access token, verifies the signature of the token, then decides based on access information within the token whether or not to process the request."
What I do not understand is this: In the first paragraph it talks about an application making a request and in the second one it talks about a client. But aren't applications counted as clients? Why the specific differentiation? And can anyone given an example of the remote services that is talked about in the second part?
Thank you.
But aren't applications counted as clients? Why the specific differentiation? And can anyone given an example of the remote services that is talked about in the second part?
Yes exactly it. The reason for the differentiation is because there could be many applications more than just this one client. And the client, that the user is authed against may want to access all those other applications' data.
For example take the google ecosystem. Does google email have access to drive, and photos, etc... While it could out the box, it doesn't. You need to explicitly allow email "offline access" to those other applications, even though they are all part of the same platform.
Keycloak understands this and provides that terminology. But it is a bit confusing because this isn't the best way to think about it. Instead a better explanation is that there is just the user and service clients. The service clients all talk to each other and ask for a user's data. While a user may want their data by going straight to one application, other applications may want that user's data too.
Assuming you want to actually allow one service to ask for user data from another service, you want to be using something that supports authorization as a service and not just authentication. There are some examples of this, such as PolicyServer and Authress.
Good Evening,
My group is rolling out SSO - yay. We have several applications that directly authenticate with Box.com and all token refreshes are handled automatically. After we migrated to SSO, we didn't include these service (app) accounts in our AD, so they do not have access via the SSO gateway.
My (likely incorrect) understanding of how OAuth with an SSO provider in the loop works:
We can still start the OAuth handshake directly with box - but box will forward this request to the SSO provider. The SSO provider will then authenticate the credentials and pass back a "all good" to box, which will issue an auth_token.
This is based off of the following from box:
"If you authenticate your application via Box’s OAuth 2.0, your
application will automatically let the customer sign-on with their
company credentials, just like they do with every other Box
application. This also applies to popular commercial services like
Okta, One Login, and Ping."
https://docs.box.com/docs/oauth-20
As well as this photo:
So if the external applications' service accounts with Box aren't in the AD of the SSO (too many acronyms), they should not be able to authenticate right?
But these apps are continuing to be able to authenticate. They are able to refresh their token and continue accessing box, even after the migration to SSO.
Where is the flaw in my understanding? Will these apps need to be added to the AD, or does this roll out of SSO not affect any of our external dependencies?
Thanks!
Got an answer from box:
third-party apps and integrations use a persistent authentication
token model. This means that unless a user deliberately logs them out
of the app, or an admin inactivates or deletes their account, this
user will never have to re-authenticate after initial login. Instead,
the app/integration will refresh their tokens. Refreshing tokens does
not require stepping through the SSO login flow, while generating an
initial set of tokens does.
Changes in SSO status, whether between SSO Off, Enabled, and Required,
or between two different connections, have no effect on existing
authentication sessions. Users won't be forcibly logged out when SSO
is turned on.
Upon next login attempt will the new SSO flow come into play. In this case, these users were already authenticated into the integration
prior to SSO roll-out. The SSO change would have impacted behavior in
that these users would need to authenticate via SSO going forward;
however, due to the persistent authentication model, that "next login"
never actually happens, and these users can continue to refresh tokens
and retain access without ever being challenged to authenticate into
the IdP again.
Basically I just want to know how does StackExchange's single signon system work?
In the SE network you need to login only once in one of the websites to be automatically logged in to the other sites upon visiting.
How should I implement such a feature in my own network of sites?
I assume it uses the cookie which resides on the user's browser and then authenticates it with the originating site. If it is legit then it logs the user in automatically.
You have to implement SAML or oauth2 to allow sso on your network.
In case of SAML your child websites will be service providers or resource servers.
While you need to setup and identity provider.
The sequence of events will be like this.
1. User hits a url of songs website, this site is resource server and does not handle authentication.
2.To authenticate resource server will construct a SAML authrequest and redirects to identity provider after signing it.
Idp verifies the signature after receiving authrequest.
3. User will be presented with a login form, user has to end login credentials.
4. After user authentication idp will generate a SAMl token and redirect back to resource server.
5. Resource server will extract identity information from SAML token, resource server will login the user with session or cookie.
Depends upon which technology you are working in i have implemented it in php using simplesamlphp.
OpenID authentication is inherently browser based. If I wanted to allow an OpenID user to authenticate against an API for use in alternative clients, is there an accepted best practice for that?
So if a user tried to log in with their OpenID into an iPhone app, for instance, how would that work? The only thing I can think of generating an API token of some sort for them and get the user to manually enter it somewhere. This approach is not user friendly.
This is the way sites like Basecamp work, but it still seems clunky to me.
The problem you're seeing is not unique to OpenID. Any password-less authentication scheme can have this problem. OAuth (http://oauth.net/) is a solution that is an open standard that is quickly gaining traction on a lot of web sites. It is totally independent of how the user authenticates, so their OpenID Provider does not need to support or even be aware that your site (the "service provider" in OAuth terms) is using OAuth. Your API client can be web based or even a local application!
The process would be something like this:
Roles:
the user: someone who has an account with your web site.
service provider: your web site, which has a programmatic API that requires some credential to access.
consumer: the client, whether web or local application, that needs access to the service provider's API.
Flow:
The user is at the consumer. He indicates he wants to access data at the service provider.
The user is either redirected (if the consumer is a web site) or a browser is popped up (if the consumer is a local app) and the user sees the service provider web site.
The user is either already logged into the Service Provider via a persistent cookie, or the user must first log into the Service Provider however that is done (OpenID in your case).
The Service Provider then asks the user: "Consumer (some consumer) wants access to your data (or our API, or whatever). Do you want to authorize this? (yes/no)
User confirms, and the browser window closes or is redirected back to the Consumer site.
Via some OAuth protocol magic, the consumer now has a secret credential that it can use to access your API and access whatever user-private information you just authorized.
Obviously I can't include the whole OAuth spec here, but you can see hopefully from the above that this should solve your problem. OAuth libraries exist to make adding support for it easy.
If you happen to be using ASP.NET, I suggest http://dotnetopenid.googlecode.com/ as it recently added OAuth support (v3.0 beta 1).
Neither OpenID nor OAuth define how a user authenticates. They define how the consumer directs the user agent to the authentication provider, how the user agent is directed back, and how the consumer can verify the identity that the user authenticated as.
The actual method used to authenticate is out of band for both schemes.
There are differences between OpenID and OAuth, but both require that the consumer use HTTP redirects and callback URLs. They're both browser based. If your app speaks HTTP, it can do either. However, a main point is that the user is only entering credentials into a trusted app.
What you want is not possible with OpenID. OpenID is based on the premise that you (the iPhone app) only want to know about your users that their OpenID-provider trusts them. They never authenticate themselves to you.
Good OpenID-providers in fact even prevent that you mediate the authentication process (as this would expose users to a possible attack - by you!): they demand that users login with them directly and refuse login-by-referral.
See: this related question
The problem is that the openid spec has no standard provision for authentication with the provider, so the provider can elect that authentication happens via a phone call or whatever.
Hopefully more providers embrace OAuth. Alternatively you could hand code the authentication for a few of the bigger sites.