I have a web app i am building whose core functionality involves performing automated CRUD tasks on amazon. Given the correct user login and password, the app user will be able to delete and add addresses on amazon. I am using selenium web-driver with mozilla agent for the automation task. At the moment, the user-name and password are hard-coded in the application.yaml file using figaro gem. What i want is for anyone accessing the app to be able to enter their own amazon username and password so the address deletion and removal process happens on their own amazon account.
Is there a way i can capture the current users's login and password via a form (with their consent of course) and set these as environment variables at runtime in secrets.yaml. So the login name becomes
amazon_user_name: <%= ENV["SECRET_USER_NAME"] %>
and the password becomes
amazon_pass_word: <%= ENV["SECRET_PASS_WORD"] %>
Or is there an overall better and neater way to get this done?
Just to further clarify and simplify: All i want to do is allow users a means of logging into their amazon account via my app so my app can perform the address automation (adding and deleting shipping addresses in bulk) on their amazon account. Any secure means of accomplishing this is welcome.
for a per user setup, the easiest thing would be to set it in the user session, encrypted if you like.
like this:
session[:super_secret_pass] = 'somepassword'
then pass it down from the controller to where you are invoking it.
Related
GOAL: Create users in Azure Active Directory using our Global Admin account from an API.
PROBLEM: Every single way I try, I get "unauthorized".
WHAT I'VE TRIED:
I've been focusing mostly on this: https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/invitations
I've tried as outlined here
the "Authorization Bearer {token}" is problematic -- I can't seem to properly retrieve tokens, using any of the built URLs recommended (ie, combining ClientID & TenantID in the URL.)
I've tried the relevant portions of this, including creating the app, setting permissions on the app, trying both Web API and Native. I'm able to get a code back, but using it always comes back with Unauthorized.
As an aside, I am using Nintex to run this web service, as it is part of my workflow. Typically, web services don't give me issues. So, this sucks.
I'm missing something, here. Any thoughts or direction?
UPDATE: Removed the word "method" - bad choice of phrasing.
If you want to use Microsoft Graph explorer to create user as the global admin, you could use POST https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/users, and the required permission is:
Permissions
For the details, you could read Create user.
Global admin runs as a user by default. To grant access to Active Directory, you need to elevate permissions in the portal.
I'm not convinced you have the permissions to create the user, and that's why I think you're getting the error.
Also, try and avoid using Global Admin. Create a Service Principal and provide more granular permissions.
I created a repository on hub.docker.com and now want to push my image to the Dockerhub using my credentials. I am wondering whether I have to use my username and password or whether I can create some kind of access token to push the docker image.
What I want to do is using the docker-image resource from Concourse to push an image to Dockerhub. Therefore I have to configure credentials like:
type: docker-image
source:
email: {{docker-hub-email}}
username: {{docker-hub-username}}
password: {{docker-hub-password}}
repository: {{docker-hub-image-dummy-resource}}
and I don't want to use my Dockerhub password for that.
In short, you can't. There are some solutions that may appeal to you, but it may ease your mind first to know there's a structural reason for this:
Resources are configured via their source and params, which are defined at the pipeline level (in your yml file). Any authentication information has to be defined there, because there's no way to get information from an earlier step in your build into the get step (it has no inputs).
Since bearer tokens usually time out after "not that long" (i.e. hours or days) which is also true of DockerHub tokens, the concourse instance needs to be able to fetch a new token from the authentication service every time the build runs if necessary. This requires some form of persistent auth to be stored in the concourse server anyway, and currently Dockerhub does not support CI access tokens a la github.
All that is to say, you will need to provide a username and password to Concourse one way or another.
If you're worried about security, there are some steps you can most likely take to reduce risk:
you can use --load-vars-from to protect your credentials from being saved in your pipeline, storing them elsewhere (LastPass, local file, etc).
you might be able to create a user on Dockerhub that only has access to the particular repo(s) you want to push, a "CI bot user" if you will.
Docker Hub supports Access Token
goto Account Settings > Security
its same as Github personal access token (PAT)
You can use this token instead of actual password
I want to build a small application similar to Run As (Windows native) and DropMyRights.
A simple form with a text box which will hold the path to the program that i want to run, and a dropdown to select the account to impersonate (<system>, <interactive>, or "user NameLastname") when starting the child process.
Just in case this is not enough reason to point me to the right direction, here goes the answer to "why would you want to do that?"
I noticed that some of my applications, like Google Calendar Sync, Google Drive Sync and Chrome autoupdater (not chrome.exe), when run as <system> can't pass through the proxy (ISA/TMG).
I do not have access to the server config settings, so i have to do this client-side.
The goal is to have the child process running as <interactive>, and use the NTLM token.
How can i pass CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials or CredentialCache.DefaultNetworkCredentials to the process?
I can't pass username/password/domain because we authenticate on the domain using smartcard logon.
That means i don't even know my Active Directory password.
Answering questions:
It isn't clear what you mean by <system> and <interactive>. Please be
more specific. Do you mean you want to launch processes in your logon
session but have them run as SYSTEM? – Harry Johnston
By interactive i mean the logged on user credentials. Could be local, but in my case i need the domain credentials.
To be even more specific, i want to use the token already generated by the proxy.
I do not want to launch processes as system.
I want system processes to connect to the internet using my (already provided and approved by ISA/TMG) credentials.
More info about this here: What is Interactive Logon?
Hmmm. The Chrome updater isn't a normal application, it's a system
service. Are you trying to run system services in the logged on user's
context? – Harry Johnston
That's right. Exactly what i want to do.
But, Google Updater does not appear on the services list.
It's a scheduled task.
And changing the task to be executed with my credentials doesn't work. Still can not bypass the proxy.
Using the Jenkins OpenID plugin I'm able to configure Jenkins to use my Google Apps OpenID as a provider. Anonymous users are still able to access that application (they have read access only), but I want to have it so that users are forced to login using the Google App domain or they are denied access.
I'm currently using the Jenkins Authorization setting of "Logged in users can do anything", I've tried using the "Matrix based authentication" and denying anonymous users, assuming logged in users would still have permissions, is there a special group value I can use for "logged in users" in matrix based authentication?
It seems like "Matrix-based security" will only work for specific users when using Google Apps OpenID (I don't believe Google apps for domains has support for OpenIDTeam extension
Yes there is a special group you can use to do this but finding the information about how to do it isn't obvious.
If you hover over the 'Overall - Read' column on the Matrix-based security table you'll get the solution.
It states
The read permission is necessary for viewing almost all pages of Jenkins. This permission is useful when you don't want unauthenticated users to see Jenkins pages - revoke this permission from the anonymous user, then add "authenticated" pseudo-user and grant the read access.
I use the following technique in combination with the OpenID plugin which allows me to specify a Google Apps for Business domain to secure Jenkins with
Warning: Make sure you've got a backup of your installation before you start because if you get something wrong you may lock yourself out of your Jenkins. Unpicking the plugins and settings would take longer than just restoring from a backup.
Ensure your choice of OpenID provider is still working ok with your current 'Logged in users can do anything' setting
Select the 'Matrix based-security' mode for Authorization
Add a new 'authenticated' group (lower case 'a') to the Matrix-based security table.
Use the 'check all' icon at the right hand end of the new 'authenticated' row to tick all the permission boxes.
Use the 'check all' icon at the right hand end of the 'Anonymous' row to untick all the permission boxes.
Save the settings
Reload Jenkins
Now each time a user wants to see Jenkins they have to be already signed into their Google Account and no-one can get to see any Job names or views without login.
Hope this helps.
We have our own web server hosting our website that is open to the public outside of our network.
I have a request to make our "Internal Postings" link on our Careers page to authenticate the user against our network's Active Directory list.
I currently have it setup so the link hits a page inside the directory structure of the website, and this page's folder is set to "Integrated Windows Authentication". Anonymous access is turned off for this page. If the user is authenticated (ie: logged into our network or supplies proper credentials) it passes them on to an external careers website which hosts our job postings. If they fail to authenticate, it displays a custom 401 error page.
This works fine, but there is a problem with it. Using IE, people cannot just enter their username. They (of course) are required to enter the domain name as well. Unfortunately the default 'domain' is set to the URL of our website (www.xyz.com/username). I would like it to automatically choose the name of our internal domain (aaa/username) but am unsure of how to do this.
Another option would be to use LDAP and a little ASP scripting to authenticate the user. I have this code already, but am unsure of the security consequences of doing so. Basically, the page will be setup for anonymous authentication, and if the user isn't logged into our network, they will be prompted for a username/password using standard textboxes. This is then passed to an ASP script that does an LDAP lookup against our Active Directory. Is there any security issues with this method?
Which method would you choose to do?
Thanks.
EDIT: It seems I cannot authenticate to ActiveD via LDAP using a username/password combo. So forget about that option.
My question now is, how can I change the default 'domain' that IWA uses? Is that at all possible? IE seems to default to 'www.xyz.com\username' (my website) rather than 'aaa\username' (my domain name). Of course, www.xyz.com\username fails because that is not where our ActiveD resides... Is this possible? I want to make it as simple as possible for our employees.
You cannot authenticate an user with a script that looks up the user in LDAP. You need to know that the user is who it claims it is, and the only way to do that is to let NTLM/Kerberos authenticate the user (ie. establish proof that the user knows a secret stored in the AD, the password).
The URL of the web site to the set of sites considered be in the local intranet zone for IE browsers running on the internal network. By default sites consider to local intranet will be sent the current logged on users credentials when challanged with NTLM/Kerberos. Hence your internal users shouldn't even see a network logon box.
I hate to dredge up an old thread, but the answers are a bit misleading, if I understand the question. The thread Remus refers to is about authenticating via LDAP with a username only. As he points out, that isn't possible. But it looks like what Kolten has in mind is authenticating via LDAP with a username and password both. That's a standard practice called binding.