My Users table (the one that I created) has the following columns:
UserId,UserName,FirstName,LastName,DOB
After I ran this command
WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseConnection("DefaultConnection", "Users", "UserId", "UserName", autoCreateTables: true);
it created the required simple membership tables for me.
How would I go about "UnConfirming" an user or setting the "IsConfirmed" flag to false in the webpages_Membership using the new SimpleMembership API?
(Earlier, before going to simplemembership using the "Membership" class I could update an user using the api call : Membership.UpdateUser( user );)
I can't answer your question directly since I couldn't figure out a way to 'unconfirm' an account either. What I ended up doing, however, may help whoever finds this question.
I basically use Roles as a gatekeeper. Whenever I create a new account I add that user to a "User" role:
Roles.AddUserToRole(newUser.Username, "User");
I use the Authorize attribute to restrict access to my controllers (and use [AllowAnonymous] for actions that I want to be public -- like RegisterUser, for example). Then, inside each action I add a method to restrict access to only users that are in the "User" role.
if (!Roles.IsUserInRole(role))
{
throw new HttpResponseException(
new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized));
}
NOTE: I'm using Web API, but if you're using MVC you should have a much easier time. Instead of manually checking if a user is in a role in each action you can just use the authorize attribute:
[Authorize(Roles = "User")]
When I want to "UnConfirm" a user I just remove them from the "User" role.
Roles.RemoveUserFromRole(user.Username, "User");
This way if a user comes crawling back I can just reactivate their account by adding them back as a User.
What I ended up doing was updating that table directly via a SQL query. Not sure if thats the recommended way of doing it, but that seemed to work for me.
(Thanks for your suggestion too).
Look at this blog post on adding email confirmation to SimpleMembership registration process, which covers how the confirmation process works. The cliff notes are that when you create a new user you set the flag that you want to use confirmation like this.
string confirmationToken =
WebSecurity.CreateUserAndAccount(model.UserName, model.Password, new { Email = model.Email }, true);
When you do this the CreateUserAndAccount method returns a unique token that you can put in an email with a link so the user can confirm that they gave you a valid email address. When they click on the link it passes the token in the URL and the controller action can then confirm the token like this.
[AllowAnonymous]
public ActionResult RegisterConfirmation(string Id)
{
if (WebSecurity.ConfirmAccount(Id))
{
return RedirectToAction("ConfirmationSuccess");
}
return RedirectToAction("ConfirmationFailure");
}
The ConfirmAccount method checks if there is an uncomfirmed token that matches in the database and if there is it sets the isConfirmed flag to true. The user will not be able to logon until this is set to true.
set requireConfirmationToken to be true: (The 4th value shown below)
WebSecurity.CreateUserAndAccount(viewModel.UserName, viewModel.Password, null, true);
Source
http://www.w3schools.com/aspnet/met_websecurity_createuserandaccount.asp
Related
i am working on ASP.Net 5 , web api project and using Microsoft Identity and jwt token based for my security management . I have already extended the user claim table and add a new row of isSelected to this table . I need to know , how can i just get the claims that has the isSelected == true from the table , is there any way that i can use the _signinManager services for this task? I can do like this for normal situation :
var claims = await _signinManager.ClaimsFactory.CreateAsync(user)
and get the ClaimPrincipals , but this will return all the claims whether the isSelected is true or false .
Thank you!
Some behaviors require customization. Like in your case, you want the default configuration to filter list of data based on a particular column name (isSelected) and only return the filtered list. The best way to approach this using a customized UserManager or SignInManager and create a method that will do just what you're asking for.
Here's an idea:
Create a method called IList<UserClaim> GetUserClaimsBasedOnSelection(bool isSelected, User user). All that this method should do is use the underlying Claims retrieving method and just filter that list to only return the selected claims. That's it. And then after you just register your configured SignInManager inside Program.cs or startup.cs by adding this service to your AddIdentity service configuration .AddSignInManager<YourSignInManager>()
While developing a multi-tenant app with ASP.NET Core I noticed that it brings 2 new indices: NormalizedUserName & NormalizedEmail.
The main problem is that it gets too difficult to have a unique user per tenant.
What I mean is having multiple users with the same UserName & Email but different TenantID.
In order to achieve this I have to remove those indices
public static void RemoveIndexes(this ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<ApplicationUser>(entity =>
{
var normalizedUserNameIndex = entity.HasIndex(u => new { u.NormalizedUserName }).Metadata;
entity.Metadata.RemoveIndex(normalizedUserNameIndex.Properties);
var normalizedEmailIndex = entity.HasIndex(u => new { u.NormalizedEmail }).Metadata;
entity.Metadata.RemoveIndex(normalizedEmailIndex.Properties);
});
}
My questions are:
What is the purpose of these 2 new indices?
What would it affect if we just remove them?
Is there anything we need to pay close attention to after removing them? (e.g. overriding default UserManager functionality or something to that effect)
First of all, I wouldn't change anything of the Identity Framework if I can't oversee the effects. If you insist, you can test what happens yourself. But, do you need to remove the fields?
If the relation of user-to-tenant is one-to-many, then tenantId should not be a field of ApplicationUser but rather be stored in a seperate table, like UserClaims.
You can add multiple tenantId's as claim of the same type, like http://tenant.company.com/Id. It will then become a collection of values, like what happens with roles.
If you don't want this then you can use different claimtypes, like http://tenant.company1.com/Id, http://tenant.company2.com/Id or something like that.
You can choose to include only claims that are linked to the tenant, which could be determined from the site binding or the url, for instance.
This design allows the user to login using the same password everywhere. Please note, this is about identity: who is the user? The user doesn't need to have a different password for every tenant.
It also makes it easier to change a password. Because I wonder, how does your scenario look like with multiple user records for each tenant? Will you update all records at once when a password changes? And how will you support 'forgot password' and other features?
We are having a portlet on a liferay page. We want to put up up a permission on every action method that is performed. For example on page A we have landed an XYZ portlet. Now we want that whenever there is any action performed form this portlet, we want to check that if the user is having a role to perform this action or not.
It wont be a good approach to put up the code in Action method of the portlet cause we are having approximately 20 such pages and portlets.
Can we have some sort of filter or so, so that each action request is checked if the user is having the access to the content or not.
Thank you...
My idea.
Use a filter to intercept all request
You can add a filter to the Liferay Servlet to check every request.
For that you can use a hook-plugin.
Look at this :
http://www.liferay.com/fr/documentation/liferay-portal/6.1/development/-/ai/other-hooks
http://connect-sam.com/2012/06/creating-servlet-filter-hook-in-liferay-6-1-to-restrict-access-based-on-ip-location/
Issue with filter is that you can't access ThemeDisplay or use PortalUtil.getUser(request).
So you must use work around like that :
private User _getUser(HttpServletRequest request) throws Exception {
HttpSession session = request.getSession();
User user = PortalUtil.getUser(request);
if (user != null) {
return user;
}
String userIdString = (String) session.getAttribute("j_username");
String password = (String) session.getAttribute("j_password");
if ((userIdString != null) && (password != null)) {
long userId = GetterUtil.getLong(userIdString);
user = UserLocalServiceUtil.getUser(userId);
}
return user;
}
Filtering the request
To filter the request you must get :
page id (Layout id in Liferay)
portlet id
portlet lifecycle
One more time using a filter is a pain because you can get the ThemeDisplay. These params are easy to get (with real object instancee) with ThemeDisplay.
So you must get this as parameter in the request.
final String portletId = ParamUtil.get((HttpServletRequest) servletRequest, "p_p_id", "");
final String layoutId = ParamUtil.get((HttpServletRequest) servletRequest, "plid", "");
final String portletLifecycle = ParamUtil.get((HttpServletRequest) servletRequest, "p_p_lifecycle", "");
Lifecycle details :
portletLifecycle is a int and the meaning of value is :
0 : RENDER
1 : ACTION (the one that interests you)
2 : RESOURCE
I think that with this data you can be able to define if user can or cannot make the action.
You can get user roles from the user.
You can get the current page and portlet linked to the request.
And you can know if the request is an action request.
Good luck with Liferay.
You can add freely configurable permissions to Liferay, see the Developer Guide for detailed information. My first guess on this would be that these affect "model resources", e.g. the data that your portlet is dealing with, rather than portlet-resources, e.g. permissions on the individual portlet itself. Think of portlet-permissions as permissions that are defined by Liferay, model-resources as permissions where you can come up with your own vocabulary on the actions, e.g. "UPDATE_ADDRESS" etc.
These permissions will typically be tied to roles, which are granted to users/usergroups/etc.
Based on this variability, it depends on the nature of your permissions if you can write a filter to generically check permissions, or if it depends on more than the individual action call.
If you determine that there is a generic solution, look up PortletFilters, they behave just like ServletFilters. These can easily provide a home for permission checks.
It's quite hard to cover this topic in such a short answer, I hope to have given enough resources for you to continue your quest.
You can abuse some existing portlet permission like "Add to Page" and set it to roles that should call the action.
And by the rendering and action phases validate "has the user necessary permission".
Or you can create new permission and configure it by portlet-configuration. This way is cleaner, but difficulty.
I have a Laravel 4 app in which I have set up one user. In my login route I'm calling Auth::attempt with the email and password but it always comes back as false. I definitely have the password correct and the correct hash in the database as Hash::check returns true.
I think it may be due to using email as the login field instead of username, but I can't see any setting for that. This question implied you could add an option to config/auth.php but it didn't work. This question says to use username as the array key, but then I get SQL error because it tries to select on a username field in the database.
Do I need to add something to the User model to specify the username field? Here is my login route:
Route::post('login', function() {
// data from login form
$credentials = array(
'email' => Input::get('email'),
'password' => Input::get('password')
);
$auth = Hash::check(Input::get('password'), Hash::make('mypass'));
var_dump($auth); // this is TRUE
// login was good
$auth = Auth::attempt($credentials);
var_dump($auth); // this is FALSE
});
I found the problem. As suggested by Jason in the comment above, I had modified the models/User.php file and removed some functions that I didn't realise were necessary.
The getAuthIdentifier() and getAuthPassword() methods must be included in the User model for authentication!
In app/config/app.php make sure you have the 'key' set. This made me pull my hair out. Everything will apear to work, password seems hashed in the DB, but it will always return false until you set this key and re-hash your password into the DB.
"php artisan key:generate"
Had the same problem and made me sweat for hours. Definitively check your User.php model and make sure you have not overwritten the default one. Thanks Jason!
I am new to Laravel and I am trying to add some more information to the user variable I am getting back from Auth::user()
To be more detailed, I have a Many-to-Many relationship to a "Privileges" table. As the name suggests, that table holds specific privileges a user can have. In the pivot table, I just hold the the user_id and privilege_id. I have the necessary models set up and everything works fine if I do this in my before filter:
$user = Auth::user();
$user->priviledges()->get();
Now, I would really like to avoid querying every single time I want to find the privileges and would like to have Laravel's Auth class include the privilege information, so that when I do
$user = Auth::user();
I can do a
$user->privileges;
to get an array of all privileges the user has.
Any suggestions for the best approach?
The link to the answer above is not working. However, I found another solution here which worked for me as follows:
First I created a model called EmailPref.php in my own case;
app/model/EmailPref.php
class EmailPref extends Eloquent {
protected $table = 'email_pref';
public function user()
{
return $this->belongsTo('User');
}
}
and then I created a relationship (in my own case) in the User model like so;
app/model/User.php
public function emailPref()
{
return $this->hasOne('EmailPref');
}
I subsequently referenced it anywhere required within my application like so:
Auth::user()->emailPref;
Hence, I was able to add more information to the Auth user.
I'm no Laravel pro, but i think this will solve your problem: http://forums.laravel.io/viewtopic.php?id=1652