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.
Related
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
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.
Suppose that I have a web application. Consider it like a Black-Box for now. I want to use a backend system to limit what a user can view/do on the app.
i.e. Sample users can only do three functions, Premium users can do 10 functions and see more pictures.
What is the best way to do it?
I'm trying to using WSO2 Identity Server, but it doesn't offer this functionality. So I've thought that maybe I can integrate it with the WSO2 API Manager and make an API that limits users' access to a certain resource. But really I cannot find if it's possible do it. Anyone know it?
Please refer to : https://docs.wso2.com/display/IS530/Access+Control+Concepts
1) WSO2IS can act as a coarse grained access manager. Your application will act as a fine grained access mnager.
It means that roles can be defined in WSO2IS, managed and assigned to user. From there Roles assigned to one user can be provided as clains with the identity token generated by WSO2IS and sent to the application.
The application, on the other side, will manage roles to permissions links.
Access control is then done at each request by the application, based on the roles presented in the Identity Token by the user and the Permissions grid based on roles in the application.
2) The access control at the application is a business logic you must implement (or at least configure if it a COTS). It is possible to outsource this logic to WSO2IS as policies on attribute (with Workflows).
Please look at : https://docs.wso2.com/display/IS530/XACML+Architecture
Jeff
I am creating a Web API service for an application with a single tenant database. Each company will have it's own database strictly controlled and created by us. I am aware of the maintenance implications of single-tenant databases compared to multi-tenant and we feel single-tenant best fits our needs. Users will be created by us only.
There will be a master database to "map" each user to their company database when authenticating based on only their username (email address). If there is a match on email the authentication will then continue within the client's company database which will contain the password hash.
This leaves the databases self contained which is needed for foreign keys for audit records. The master database simply acts as a mapping or routing based on username (email address).
I created a new Web API project and used the Individual Accounts template. I like the way it works but unfortunately I don't see how I can customize this enough to accommodate for my needs. Would this be possible? I need to use tokens. The only other alternative I can think of is a completely custom authentication procedure but security is not something I want to take lightly as I'm sure I will mess up somewhere along the line. I am aware that the user passes its username and password over SSL to the server which responds with a token which then gets included in the header of each subsequent request to an authorized resource. I just need to know if this is something I will have to completely implement myself? This whole thing may just be a silly model for an application in which case I am open to suggestions.
Any feedback would be helpful.
Thanks
After lots of searching I finally found the type of solution I was looking for. Dominick from Thinktecture has a blog post which details a nice embedded token authorization method which I can now extend upon. This is exactly the type of solution I was looking for as it is extremely simple.
Embedding a simple Username/Password Authorization Server in Web API v2
I wish to create a functionality that is very similar to facebook or pokerstars if you have used them before. Basically the apps require the user to login and their information can be accessed from both browsers and native and web apps.
How can I go about achieving this? Please advice on what services to research on to accomplish this. To my current understanding. I would be creating the website in html and php and creating a webservice using RESTful protocols and hosting them on amazon aws servers. I can then connect to these servers in the native apps? I am not very clear on how the native apps will interact with the servers
If you know of any particular protocol or a better server hosting service please let me know.
If I'm interpreting your question correctly, you are looking for something like this:
The user starts either your browser app or your native app (perhaps a mobile app)
Since the user does not have an account yet, you present them with the appropriate dialog to create said account.
You then ask the "Identity Service" to create a profile for that user
The identity service returns a token for access
This is something we do in the mobile network industry all the time. Technically, we have TAC/ACS or HSS profile services, but in either case, it's the same thing -- a dedicated service and network process that:
Accepts connections from various clients (web, mobile, desktop...)
Has various primitives along the database CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) model
Answers requests the database
If you want a pre-configured solution, you could just use any networked database with a RESTstyle connector for example (MongoDB maybe?) But you could also just through this in a process that talks to a NoSQL or SQLLite database. The end result is the same.
For commercial solutions, I might like at OpenStack as you can run your code on it and they have identity brokers you might be able to CoOpt.
Personally, I'd just have a datastore running on a cloud somewhere like Amazon's EC2 which answers RESTful requests such as:
Create a user with a given profile set, return a unique token
Delete a user given a token
Update elements of the profile for a given token
I'm leaving out the necessary things like security here, but you get the idea.
This also has the advantage that you can have a single identity service for all of your applications/application services. The specifics for a given application element are just sub-fields in the profile. This gives you, not only a common identity broker for web, desktop and mobile, but a single-sign-on for all your applications. The user signs in once and is authenticated for everything you have. Moving from site to site, now just became seamless.
Lastly, you place your identity management, backup, security token management, etc OUTSIDE of your application. If you later want to add Google Authenticator for second-factor authentication, you don't have to add it to every application you have.
I should also add that you don't want to keep the identity database on the direct internet connection point. Someone could make your life difficult and get ahold it later on. Rather, you want your identity server to have a private link to it. Then do something like this:
When the account is created, don't store passwords, store hashes -- much safer
Have your application (web or otherwise) compute a key as the login
In this case, the user might enter a username and password, but the application or website would convert it into a token. THAT is what you send across.
Next, using that token (and suitable security magic), use THAT as the owner key
Send that key to the datastore and retrieve any needed values
Encrypt them back into a blob with the token
Send the block
THe application decrypts the blob to get at values
Why do we do this?
First, if someone were to try to get at your identity database, there's nothing useful. It contains only opaque tokens for logins, and blobs of encrypted data. Go ahead -- take the database. We don't care.
Second, sniffing the transport gets an attacker nothing -- again, it's all encrypted blobs.
This means later on, when you have five applications using the broker, and someone hacks the network and steals the database, you don't care, because your users never gave out logins and passwords in the first place, and even if they did, the data itself is garbage to anyone without the user key.
Does this help?