I have an existing MVC project (purpose built customer portal) that I am integrating into Orchard CMS as a module.
The customer portal module has its own database containing user information, which I need to use for customer authentication.
However, I also want to retain Orchards user authentication for admin authentication to Orchard.
So essentially, I require two authentication schemes with two different login pages for this. One for customers and one for admins.
How could I implement this?
One solution might be to cancel the idea of having 2 differnt login pages and moving your users to Orchards user table.
Then link these users to a specific role named like My existing MVC users and grant permissions to this role accordingly.
If you take this route some of the benefits would be
bound to Orchards user database and therefore existing authentication handling
existing permission stuff can be used / extended out of the box
user management in one place
extensible by using own parts (e.g. AddressPart, ContactPart, ...)
Another solution would be to replace the existing authentication by implementing IAuthenticationService. But this seems rather complex.
Related
i am making a set of applications that share a common oidc provider (in my control), where the users will be created.
One of my applications is a stateless SPA "meeting" app where you can schedule meetings with other users, and you login purely by an OIDC token.
I am having a hard time thinking a strategy about the following
Should the "user" details be stored in the meeting app after a login? So let's say user A exists in the provider, then enters the meeting app. Should i save user A in the meeting app DB?
How to handle change of user details? Let's say user A changes name to User B in the provider. Until he logs in again, all the other users see him as User A still in the "contacts" list. What is the usual practice for solving this?
How to handle deletions in the provider. I need someway to signal that "deleted in provider -> deleted in app". Should i constantly poll the provider and get any missing users, create a push system, or is this just unneeded?
Thanks a lot in advance
That's actually a very good question and rarely explained well in online articles. Hopefully the below detailed notes help you with your solution. I have answered your questions at the end.
OAUTH USER DATA
Typically the core user data such as name, email etc belongs in the Authorization Server. It contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and changes are audited there. This is explored in further detail in the Privacy and GDPR article.
DOMAIN SPECIFIC USER DATA
This might include fields like a user's application preferences, and you may end up with data similar to this in your APIs:
Field
Description
id
A database surrogate key for the user
subject
The subject claim from an OAuth access token, which is typically a GUID or something similar
archived
A boolean flag set to true when a user is active in the app
field 1
A domain specific value
field 2
A domain specific value
To get OAuth user data within your applications your APIs can call the Authorization Server's SCIM 2.0 endpoint as described in this User Management article.
AUTHORIZATION AND ROLES
Interestingly, roles and application specific rights could be stored in either of the above data sources. You may want to start by putting roles in the OAuth data, but for cases where they are very domain specific and change often, I have found that storing them in my own API data works best.
DOMAIN SPECIFIC USER DATA AND ACCESS TOKENS
Sometimes you need to include domain specific user data (which might include roles) in access tokens. This Claims Article explains how claims can be looked up from external APIs during token issuance. This typically involves a REST call from the Authorization Server to one or more APIs, providing the subject value for which tokens will be issued.
CONSISTENT USER IDENTITY IN YOUR APPS
A user can potentially authenticate in multiple ways, such as default password / corporate login / social login. You may need to use some custom Account Linking logic to ensure that the subject field in the access token gets the same value in all cases. This prevents you ever creating duplicate users within your application.
USER INFO CHANGES
These are typically made by end users within an application screen, and your APIs then call SCIM endpoints to update the core OAuth data. A common case is when a user changes their name and / or email, eg if the user gets married. Note that the subject value remains the same after this edit.
USER ADMINISTRATION
In scenarios where corporate assets are used, an administrator typically provisions users, either individually or in bulk. This can be done via the SCIM endpoint. In some cases administrator actions may need to save data to both data sources - eg to create a user and set roles + application preferences.
USER INFO EVENTS
Sometimes your application needs to know about a user info event, such as new, deleted or changed users. This can be managed via Event Listeners, where an extension to the Authorization Server calls back your domain specific APIs when a user edit occurs. When a user is deleted in the OAuth user data you might then update the user's application state to archived.
DATA MIGRATIONS
Finally it is worth mentioning that the above also supports migrating to an OAuth architecture or between providers:
Get a combined view of the user data before migration
Insert all existing users into the new OAuth system via SCIM
Update the combined view of the user data with new subject values
Update your domain specific data with new subject values
SUMMARY
So to answer your questions:
Aim to avoid this because it adds complexity, though in some cases you may need to denormalise for performance reasons. The OAuth user data should remain the source of truth and the only place where edits occur to PII data.
Your meeting app would need to join on the OAuth user data and domain specific user data and present a list. This would probably involve caching a combined view of the user data.
See Administrator Events above. Your API should be informed of OAuth user data changes via an event, then your SPA would get current data on the next refresh.
When implemented like this you end up with simple code and a well defined architecture. Some providers may not provide all of these features though, in which case you may need an alternative approach to some areas.
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 have two trusted web properties Product A and Product B where I want to find or create a corresponding account on Product B using email whenever I create an account on Product A. What's the proper way to accomplish that in the realm of OAuth2?
To put it another way, from my understanding, regular Oauth2 flow will require the user to manually authorize Product A to access Product B by redirecting user to Product B to login or create a user before continue on Product A. I'd like to skip this step and allow account on Product B to be automatically created without user interaction. I can think of some custom ways to accomplish it, but how do I achieve that following OAuth2 best practices?
Why create the account?
OAuth has no abilities to create or to modify an account.
OAuth only provides DELEGATION of permissions by the end-user to an application.
Often sites will create a unique Identity Information Entry on their site to store site specific preferences or "tracking" information in that entry. Hoe this is performed varies widely but SCIM is fast becoming the "Standard" method to use.
-jim
Suppose I started with an ASP.NET5 MVC6 webapp based on a default Visual Studio 2015 web application template with individual user accounts and Google+ (FB, LI) authentication enabled.
Then I created two signup pages, one for consumer users and one for professionals. I want the application to create consumer user accounts if users came from consumer signup page. And I want the app to create professional user accounts if users came from the professional signup page.
What should I do to customize the default solution?
pass role parameter to /Accounts/ExternalLogin, then somehow preserve it through OAuth process and fix user creation logic?
same but use cookies to pass role info?
or maybe have 2 copies of external login infrastructure - each responsible for its own account type?
Isn't is a common problem - how to pass additional information to the code responsible for account creation?
What should I do to customize the default solution?
Quite good explanation with examples:
ASP.NET 5 Documentation -> Authorization
I want ... create consumer user accounts ... and ... create professional user accounts...
In my opinion you can use (create) one account type for all (in common Db) and then during registration process you can assign additional properties to this account. You can use Roles or Claims, so this allows you to personalise user experience depends on 'account type' (using Authorisation).
If you just want have only customer/professional accounts, probably Role-Based Authorisation will be simpler to use, however Claims-Based Authorisation is little bit more elastic and will be beneficial in the future.
I am using MVC 4 Razor engine and selected the project template as Intranet. So it uses Windows Authentication. Currently I have designed a Database with Tables to maintain the users and the role that they belong to. I would like to show specific screens alone to specific users bases on the roles.
For Example: Add User, Create Role Screens to Admins alone. And the rest of the screens to Users of Non Admin Role & Admin Role.
Basically, I would like to Authorize the users based on the Roles as per the Database Table. How can I achieve this? Please let me know if there are any articles for this.
Thanks in Advance.
You talk in the title about Windows Authentication, which implies an Active Directory, and then you say you want to authenticate users against a database (forms authentication), please, correct your question.
Here is a full tutorial about forms authentication in mvc 4
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff398049%28v=vs.100%29.aspx