I would like to know if the following scenario is possible:
A Fiware Orion Context Broker instance, to which different data providers connect to publish their data. For each data item (context), the particular data provider should be able to control which application or data consumer is allowed to subscribe to this context. Is this possible with Orion? How can this be done?
I've looked into the multitenant model, but I guess that is not the proper way to do this. Am I right? Are there any alternatives? You can protect the Orion instance with a PEP proxy, but I guess it does not allow access control on a per subscription basis.
Any hints would be highly appreciated.
The scenario that you propose can be implemented, if I understood correctly, with Steelskin PEP Proxy and the multitenant mechanism (but with some concerns).
In your scenario, your whole application would be a service (indicated in all transactions with the fiware-service), and each data-provider would own a dedicated subservice (indicated with the fiwareservicepath header). All the users (both administrator from the data-providers and final user and applications) would be users of that service. Using XACML, different permissions can be assigned to each possible action and user in different roles. E.g.: you can create a dataProvider role with full permissions under its subservice and a dataConsumer role that should be able just to subscribe and read.
This scenario has some problems, mainly concerning who creates the users and roles and assign roles to users. In order to use Steelskin, you have to map services to Keystone Domains and subservices to Keystone Projects; and users belong to the domain. It's the domain (service) administrator the one in charge of creating the users, so, in your case, data providers would not be able to create new users (and probably, even assigning them as subservice customers).
If you need an example on how to connect these pieces together to achieve this, take a look at:
https://github.com/telefonicaid/fiware-pep-steelskin/blob/master/keystoneInstallation.md
Hope it helps
Related
I'm quite new to the entire auth design and am still trying to understand how to use keycloak for authentication and authorisation.
Currently from what I understand in order to have authorisation enabled for a client you will need to have it in confidential.
After which I am kind of stuck in terms of how to set which policy for which permission.
I have a few types resources but currently placing them all under a single client for simplicity sake.
For my use case I have a workspace for users. So each workspace can have multiple users with different roles of owner,editor,viewer. And within the workspace there are artifacts. So it is some what like designing an authorisation for Google drive.
Would like some advice on how best to design it.
One way I have thought of is using groups and each workspace is a group. Using it to assign users to each group as a way to use the group policy for permission.
The other is really by creating multiple policy and permission for each artifact/resource and adding user to each policy for each workspace.
Would like any advice on authorisation design or even where to begin reading.
After some research I have come to these conclusion.
Yes these can be done by keycloak though most likely shouldn't be done in keycloak itself for its design.
Keycloak itself will most likely be more suitable in terms of authenticating/authorising on services or infra level. So this use case of having user be able to access workspaces or artifacts will be better done in application level having a separated service to handle the permission itself.
That being said if it really needs to be done in keycloak the design that I thought of that is not so scalable is as follow.
Create a policy/user and each workspace/artifact as a single resource. Depending on how many types of access/fine grain control is needed for each type of resource create the scope for each (e.g workspace:view, workspace:edit...). Then create a permission for each resource&scope. This allows fine grain access of basically assigning user to permission of each resource through the user policy.
But of course this design has its flaws of the need of too many policies, permissions and resources so it is better to have keycloak just handle the authentication part and authorisation is just giving users the role to be able to access a service and through the service check if the user is authorised for a certain action.
I tried to understand RBAC in order to determine if it is a good solution for our problem.
Let say that the context is a bank. Among the several actors, we have account managers and clients.
I think I have understand RBAC for the account manager. If we imagine Account Managers can create, modify, view and remove accounts, then:
Account Manager is a role,
create, modify, view, remove are the operations,
accounts are objects
create account is one of the permissions associated to the role Account Manager
But my problem is about clients ... They can consult only their accounts.
My problem is: How can we specified this particular account in RBAC? Is it at least possible or must I choose another way of manage access control? And which of them?
As mentionned, Attribute based access control may be the good solution. And XACML could be used in an application with complex policies.
Here is a very understandable documentation about ABAC in Spring Security
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 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.
I'm working on a project where I've multiple ressources and multiple users, what I need to do is to associate different access rignts to every user depending on the ressource he wants to access to
The problem is that a simple LDAP server can't implement this kind of situation,
An idea is to use multiple LDAP servers, one for each ressource, then how could I manage them all?
Or is there another authentication process I can use in this case?
Spring Security has a special ACL module to handle such situations. The basic idea is that each domain object / ressource may have separate access control list. You need to fill this list with appropriate permissions and add corresponding checks in your code. You can have parent -> child relations between the objects to reduce number of permissions. Check it out.
If you have logic behind the access to the resources, you may want to use a rules authorization language such as XACML.
If the assignment of resources to users is arbitrary then the use of ACLs with Spring Security's ACL module is good enough.
The problem is that a simple LDAP server can't implement this kind of situation
Mine does. You use LDAP to define the roles associated with each user, then you use web.xml to associate the resources with the roles that are required to access them, then you configure/write your login module such that it looks up the roles of each user when you login. Container-managed security can do all that.