I'm working with an old legacy app at work that's written in ASP.NET 4. We recently started migrating to the cloud and we had to expose one of the endpoints so that our api gateway (Apigee) can call it. What is the correct way to restrict this endpoint so that it only allows calls from Apigee? I'm aware 2-way-ssl should solve this issue but that requires changes on the Apigee side and we don't have control over that. Is there something I can do on the API side to confirm that the certificate in the request is specifically from Apigee?
You're describing the need for what is sometimes called 'southbound' authentication. Specifically mutual-TLS sometimes called client authentication, as opposed to standard (or one-way) TLS where only the server is being authenticated by the calling client. You're right: mTLS (a.k.a., "two-way SSL") is one means to allow your back-end server to authenticate the calling Apigee-layer 'client'.
When you want client authentication via TLS (mTLS) you need to configure your back-end server endpoint to require mTLS at the time of the handshake, and to have stored in its Truststore the signing CA certificate of the client certificate you expect to see offered up by the calling client at time of connection. Done right, your server
requires mTLS and shuts down the handshake if the client won't
offer a client cert,
validates the client cert is authentic as being issued by a recognized signing CA (Truststore), and
is the actual client cert expected to be seen (e.g., by matching the expected distinguished name).
Here's an authoritative support-community article about doing all this, within Apigee: https://community.apigee.com/questions/63337/mutual-tls-between-client-to-edge-and-edge-to-back.html
I'm doing my school project and in my case, I have a client and 2 WCF cloud service in Azure cloud and the first service then needs to call another service. The client (caller) need to call the WCF service and verify the caller identity without Login, and what way can I use in this case, My idea is to use SSL Authentication or IP to verify the caller identity and is this method is correct or any suggestion method to this case?
There are multiple options for authentication. As you indicated you can use a SSL certificate to validate that the client is who you think they are (preferably SHA2 or above).
You can also white list by IP as you also mentioned. This could cause problems later if the there are multiple clients or their IP changes.
With WCF you can also use a Custom User Name and Password Validator where the client passes a user name and password in the request.
I think unless you have the option to use windows auth, tokens would be the other option, that is more complicated though. Using SSL or User Name Validator are probably the easiest to set up.
Don't know much about encryption...
Say I'm preparing a SAML request to submit to an identity provider. Why would I need to apply an x.509 certificate to this request? Is transmission over SSL alone not secure enough?
In the case of SAML, message-level security (i.e. the XML itself is signed and sometimes encrypted) because the communication involves parties that don't communicate directly. SSL/TLS is for transport-level security, only used between the two parties that are communicating directly and for the duration of this communication only.
Depending on which SAML binding you use, the dialog can look like this (e.g. along the lines of Shibboleth):
User's browser connects to Service Provider (SP)
SP gives the user a SAML request, not necessarily visible, but hidden within a form or equivalent.
User's browser (in a direct connection to the IdP) sends the SAML request to the IdP.
The user authenticates with it and gets a SAML response back.
The user's browser sends that SAML response to the SP.
In this scenario, there is no direct SSL/TLS connection between the SP and the IdP, although all 3 parties are involved. (Some variants of this involve a back-end communication between SP and IdP for attributes, but that's a different problem.)
An SSL/TLS connection wouldn't be sufficient for the IdP to know that the SAML request came from an SP for which it's allowed to authenticate and release attribute, since the connection to the IdP comes from the user's browser, not the SP itself. For this reason, the SP must sign the SAML request message before handing it to the user's browser.
An SSL/TLS connection wouldn't be sufficient for the SP to know the SAML response came from an IdP it trusts. Again, that's why the SAML response itself is also signed.
What applies to signing also applies to encryption, if the middle party, i.e. the user, isn't meant to see what's in the SAML message and/or if the connection between the user and the SP or IdP isn't over SSL/TLS (usually, it should be over HTTPS).
Yes - SSL is enough - but SSL is only point-to-point. You cannot secure your connection using SSL if there are a few intermediaries in the way between your source and your target machine.
In that case, e.g. when transmitting over the internet, you must safeguard the actual message, instead of the transport-level. That's why you need to encrypt the XML (or at least parts of it).
Marc
All that HTTPS will do is encrypt the communication between two points and prevent eavesdroppers -- it won't confirm who it was that sent the message. Neither will it assure secure communication if your message is then forwarded.
If you sign your request with the X.509 certificate you can be assured the decryptor has the shared secret contained in certificate. In other words, you can be assured the message can only be decrypted by the organisation you want it to be decrypted by.
In your case, the X.509 encryption requirement means that you should be assured that the identity provider is the only organisation that will receive your request.
A useful Wikipedia primer is here.
Most likely because they want to authenticate you (the client). HTTPS can be used for client authentication, but it rarely is in practice.
In practice, you could use HTTPS (SSL/TLS) to protect your SAML message. But you would want to use two-way SSL certificate verification/validation, meaning your client would need to verify the server's X.509 certificate and the server would need to be configured to perform client authentication, which would require it to check an X.509 certificate that the client presents. So, the client would need its own certificate anyway.
SSL/TLS is not really designed for this...it was/is designed to protect web traffic from being seen while in transport and for the client to be able to tell what server they are talking to and sending sensitive information to (it was really designed for e-commerce where the client (user buying something) knows who they are sending their credit card information to). In the case of SAML, the whole point is for the parties to know that the information they are exchanging has not been altered in transport and that each is talking to who they think they are. Using certificates to sign/encrypt that message itself accomplishes that.
Do not really know how x509 works.
If I have a Web Service that needs to authenticate and validate the client, and he uses a ClientCertificate, could he send me some information that I could then validate against?
I do not create the Web Site itself so I can't be sure they would do it right. I don't wan't to allow someone to say to the Web Service "It's okay, I ClientCertificated him and he's good".
You can implement your own custom client certificate validator but its usage will be different based on the way how do you use the client certificate. If you use pure message security your validator will be the only component used to validate the certificate. If you use HTTPS with client certificate (transport security) the certificate will be first validated by Windows (= your service hosting server must trust the certificate) and after that it will be passed to WCF and validated by your validator.
I have two WCF Services using WsHttpBinding with transport security mutual certificate authentication that are being hosted on the same windows server. Clients that can access one WCF service should not have access to the other WCF service. I need some help on configuring the client certificates on the windows host. The client certificates are signed by trusted CAs and the intermediate and root certificate chain is already installed on the the server. It seems like the service automatically relies on chain of trust and does not require the actual client certificates installed on the server at all before letting the client access the service - this is not the behavior I want. Can someone please tell me how I should be configuring these client certificates in order explicitly allow access to one service and not the other?
Thanks.
That has nothing to do with certificates themselves. When using mutual SSL authentication certificates are used only to authenticate client and the authentication is done outside of your application (this is difference to message security where you can create custom certificate validator). Once certificate is trusted client is automatically authenticated to anything on the server using certificates for authentication.
You are looking for authorization - the step where you define what can authenticated client do with your service. You can either hardcode your authorization logic into your service by using role based security or you can implement two custom ServiceAuthorizationManagers and assign each to single service.