Box documentation at https://developers.box.com/docs/#oauth-2, says that user is redirected to authentication page in first leg of oAuth, and application can pass a parameter "scope".
scope: What scope the eventual auth token will have. This field is not required. If not specified the application will get the default scope configured. If your application has different kinds of users that may need different types of scope, then you can provide a comma separated list of scopes, to give some users a lower scope if they sign in from different locations. If you are using a Provision-granted application, you must specify the alias: folder_readwrite to use the auth-code grant.
Type: string
But I could not find what are all possible values that can be passed as scope.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
My requirement is to restrict the login to only box admins, if someone has any other ideas then please share.
If you still need help with this, to see all the possible values, check all the scopes in your app (actually select the all the checkboxes). Then, in your initial request to Box (i.e. https://app.box.com/api/oauth2/authorize) do not include a scope parameter. You will be redirected to a Box authorize page (login if necessary). There should be a hidden input with all the possible scope values.
From my scope settings I received this hidden input
name="scope" value="root_readwrite manage_enterprise manage_managed_users manage_groups manage_enterprise_properties"
Hope that helps!
Using beast's answer I was able to find the appropriate documentation page:
https://developer.box.com/v2.0/docs/authentication#section-oauth-2-scopes
Here's what it says at the time of writing:
root_readwrite - Read and write all files and folders
manage_enterprise - Manage an enterprise
manage_managed_users - Manage an enterprise's managed users
manage_groups - Manage an enterprise's groups
manage_enterprise_properties - Manage an enterprise's properties
manage_data_retention - Manage an enterprise's retention policies
manage_app_users - Create and manage app users
manage_webhook - Manage Webhooks
They also have a few scopes that require filing a support ticket (no OAuth2 name provided):
Global Content Manager
Admin can make calls on behalf of Users
Can suppress email notifications from API calls
Related
I'm trying to get my standalone webapplication to use my Liferay 6.2 as "user store". That means I want the user to log in to Liferay and then be able to move on to another application with some credentials and user specific information passed as well. Moving on and passing information is already working, the issue I'm having right now is making sure the user-object that is passed on is the user that is actually logged in right now.
I use the LFR_SESSION_STATE_ cookie do determine the logged in user. But when I log in again with another user I get a second cookie with a different user-id. So now I need to make sure that I'm passing the correct user. The USER_UUID cookie does not contain the same uuid as provided by Liferay (as of now I didn't check if it's a hash of the uuid).
Long story short, I'm looking for a way to recognize the currently logged in user and be able to pass the credentials and additional information to my application.
I will take care of security concerns like manipulated cookies etc. subsequently. Maybe that will raise another question wenn I get to that point ;-)
I'd really appriciate any help or push in the right direction.
Thanks in advance guys ... sebastian
Some possibilities:
Make your application a portlet application
Publish your Liferay Database through LDAP (EE only) and use a separate SSO application
Create a Liferay-Hook that sets a cookie (to "/") containing the required user information - encryption and signatures are on yourself. You can create hooks that get executed on every successful login
I have a "chicken egg" problem.
In application I use UserDetailsService to get User (we don't store user information in our DB, we use third party service to actually get all information).
Recently we've added account activation feature. After registration, we send an activation email to a user and if he clicks on it, we mark the User as ACTIVE and redirects him to log in page. User can login only if he has ACTIVE status. The problem is: we'll start charging user from the date he activates his account even if he never logs in. How can I (maybe using spring security) make those processes (activation and login) almost simultaneous? We don't want to charge user if he just activates his account, we want to charge him only if he has logged in (after activation). So can I actually do it somehow "user clicks activation link, login and then his status is changed to ACTIVE (but he can login only if he is ACTIVE)".
Sorry if my problem description isn't clear enough
I'll appreciate any feedback.
Thanks!
If I understood your requirements correctly, you'll need two different entry points (login pages) to your application:
One for activation (first login) for users not yet activated.
Another "normal" one for active users.
The problem is that the authentication logic would need to be context sensitive and be aware of which of the above pages initated the authentication. However the framework was not designed for such uncommon use-cases, so the authentication provider has no knowledge about the URL from which the login-form were actually sent.
What you need to solve is to somehow relay contextual information to an authentication provider that processes the auth request according to that information (i.e. authenticate only non-active users logging in from url1, and authenticate only active users logging in from url2). There could be hundreds of different ways to achieve this, one possible solution is to put two different authenentication filters in place that intercept auth requests sent to the two different urls. Details outlined below:
Create your own custom versions of the existing WebAuthenticationDetailsSource and WebAuthenticationDetails (preferably by subclassing the latter) that stores and exposes the URI of the authentication request. (That will be the contextual information based on which the auth provider can implement its conditional logic.)
Configure and insert two different instances of the UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter in the filter chain. Set their filterProcessesUrl attribute to /j_spring_security_check_active_user and /j_spring_security_check_nonactive_user respectively, plus inject the above created custom AuthenticationDetailsSource in both of them.
Override DaoAuthenticationProvider.additionalAuthenticationChecks() in a subclass in the following way:
Retrieve the URI stored in the above created WebAuthenticationDetails object (it's accessible via authentication.getDetails())
Assert that the user is active/non-active according to the URI, and throw an AccountStatusException if the asserion fails.
Don't forget to delegate to the superclass if the assertion succeeds.
Create the two different login pages mentioned at the beginning of the post, making sure that the login forms post credentials to their respective URL (/j_spring_security_check_nonactive_user vs. /j_spring_security_check_active_user).
In my Java web application,when a user gets logged in,i store the user name and other details in session as follows,
session.setAttribute("userName",username);
I am using ExtJs4 for UI.How to get the session variables in extJs?
Thanks
I can second #Geronimo approach. You need to get user Id and/or permissions when you authenticate the user. However...
You can't rely just on the username/permissions that you store somewhere in your JS code because it can't be easily spoofed. If you present user with some information that can be different for different levels of access you still need to do server side validation of the user identity.
You can't get session variables off the server web container using javascript only.
I do the same thing (storing userId as a session variable in java). I use Ext.Request to perform an Ajax request to a java servlet to get it (along with other data about the user like permission settings for the webapp to enable or disable features they wouldn't be able to use).
EDIT:
I second sha's answer also, the only reason I pass the authentication information back to the client is for cosmetic reasons - so that user doesn't think he can use a feature in javascript that would be denied by my server side authentication. If he were to spoof the userId or permissions and try to use the feature, the real authentication on the server side would stop him.
I understand that the question has been asked for a long time ago, but despite the large number of views and the absence of an plain answer, I decided to offer this answer:
Assume that the session variable is registered like /index.php?PHPSESSID=9ebca8bd62c830d3e79272b4f585ff8f
In this case, you can get the variable PHPSESSID through JS object "location" and transform it through Ext.Object.fromQueryString()
So:
console.log( Ext.Object.fromQueryString( location.search ) );
will prepare PHPSESSID variable for your needs.
OK, so I'm quite new to the whole world of claims aware applications. I was able to get up and running very quickly using Azure ACS but it's been a bit of a different story when trying to use ADFS 2.0 as the identity provider (I want to actually use it as a federated provider, but for the time being I'm just trying to get a sample running using it as an identity provider).
I've been looking at the guides here and have tried to follow the AD FS 2.0 Federation with a WIF Application Step-by-Step Guide guide listed there. It takes you through setting up ADFS 2.0 along with a little claims aware sample application that you can use just to view the claims that are getting sent through.
So I can get that up and running, passing through the claims defined in the guide (just the windows account name). The problem is when I try to add any more. I can go to the relying party application in the ADFS GUI and add an Issuance Transform Rule, using the Pass Through or Filter Incoming Claim rule template. However, when I run my application, unless the added claim type is Name, it won't pass the claim through to my application.
One of the ones that I wanted passed through was the email address for the user who logged in to the application. So I added a rule to pass through the email address, then updated the web.config of the sample application to uncomment this line under the claimTypeRequired section:
<claimType type="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/emailaddress" optional="false" />
Note that I'm setting it as non-optional. I also updated the federation metadata of the application to add in the following:
<auth:ClaimType Uri="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/emailaddress" Optional="false" xmlns:auth="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsfed/authorization/200706" />
I then went into the ADFS GUI, went to the Relying Party Trusts and selected Update from Federation Metadata on my sample application. So it now lists the email as one of the accepted claims.
I then went into the Claims Provider Trusts and added the email claim rule into the Acceptance Transform Rules for the Active Directory provider trust (the only one listed).
When I run the app however, it's not passing through the email claim (or any others that I try). Can somebody tell me what I'm missing here?
I should also note, I ran a test to change my application to only accept the email claim rule, and not only did it not pass through the email, but it's still passing through the Windows Account Name and the Name claims, despite the fact that I don't even list them as accepted claims for my application.
If anybody could point out where I'm going drastically wrong here, it would be seriously appreciated.
After enabling logging as per the blog post before, here are the relevant entries from the log:
Event ID 1000, "Input claims of calling principal included in details":
So you can see, the information that I'm requesting is quite clearly missing. I have the logging output set to verbose but there's really nothing of any other interest. You'll see trace records for the NETWORK SERVICE user (with the same set of claims), but nothing striking. All the log entries are informational, there aren't any errors.
If you using ADFS as Identity Provider and want it to issue an email claim, then you have to use Send LDAP Attributes as Claims or a Custom Claim Rule which access AD as the attribute store and issues an email claim. Pass through is used on the incoming claims, assuming the user is already authenticated somewhere. In case of Windows Authentication Windows account name is issued from the Kerberos token and that's why you have to pass it through, but others you have to issue.
Does Active Directory issue E-Mail Address claims? I'm not sure how to check this, but if it doesn't, it's irrelevant that you're passing them through. In this case, you'll want to try a "Send LDAP Attributes as Claims" rule; based on what I see in my ADFS instance, try mapping the "E-Mail-Addresses" attribute to an "E-Mail Address" claim.
I had to do something similar to get UPN claims to come over, in circumstances similar to yours. I'm not sure whether it will matter that the LDAP attribute is potentially plural.
I'm reading about Federated Login for Google Account Users to figure out how I can have a user log in to a web application using their Google Account.
So towards the end of the process, Google returns a Google supplied identifier which is appended as openid.claimed_id. This means the web application uses this identifier to recognize the user and allow access to application features and data. My question is, is this identifier static? Can I use this identifier to repeatedly id the same user?
Yes. Consider the openid.claimed_id value to be the username. Especially with Google, but this is true for any OpenID Provider that truly implements 'directed identity', don't consider this username to be correlatible with other web sites. Any other relying party besides your own web site will get a different claimed_id value for the same Google user, by design.
Also, be sure to treat this claimed_id as case sensitive.
The specific answer to your question is found in Googles OpenID API documentation:
The Google-supplied identifier, which has no connection to the user's actual Google account name or password, is a persistent value; it remains constant even if the user changes their Google user name and/or email address. This identifier is also a "directed identity", that is, Google returns a different value to each relying party. Google uses the request parameter openid.realm to recognize the relying party, so if the third-party application decides to change this value, all user identifiers will change.
In fact, I just ran into an instance where the google claimed_id had changed for my test user. I was coming to the end of implementing OpenID into my app, and for no apparently reason the claimed_id in the response data is had changed.
I've been testing with this account for the past couple weeks, and the claimed_id was the same this entire time, as expected. Then wham, changed! I looked at the response data many times to verify, and the underlying code to retrieve the data had not changed.
I'm not sure how to handle this at the moment, but I think this is going to throw me for a loop. After initial authentication, users register to the site (as you might expect) and setup a screen name. How are we to verify it is the same user if the claimed_id had changed? We certainly can't use email address, per best practices.
EDIT
Now I have pie in my face! I missed one little detail, that turned out to be a major detail. I change my development environment and was hosting on a different v-host. This effectively change the realm, and this will change the claimed_id response according to the docs.
This was a good lesson for me, as I was about to implement OID on a subdomain in which realm was being set automatically in my code. Now I saved myself a headache down the road, because I would not have been able to use the same user database across all other sub-domains without breaking identity.
updating realm
MORE INFO
Just as a side note - even if you are developing your OpenID solution for one of your subdomains, it might be prudent for you to specify realm to your top-level domain.
e.g., openid.realm = http://*.yourdomain.com
It will allow you to expand your sign-in page across all your subdomains and keep user identity across them.
(optional) Authenticated realm. Identifies the domain that the end
user is being asked to trust. (Example: "http://*.myexamplesite.com")
This value must be consistent with the domain defined in
openid.return_to. If this parameter is not defined, Google will use
the URL referenced in openid.return_to.