If I added data on LDAP in this way:
$ldapserver = "mail";
$ds = ldap_connect($ldapserver);
$r = ldap_bind($ds, $ldaprootun, $ldaprootpw);
add = ldap_add($ds, "cn=$full_name,ou=$domain,o=mygroup.com", $infonew);
Then does that mean that when I log in to my account I will use:
`cn="mynameHere",ou="domainIused",o=mygroup.com`
as my username? Or just my uid?
My account cannot login but I'm sure that it exists in LDAP.
Answers are very much appreciated. =)
Typically in LDAP applications you only ned to login with your UID, not your full X.500 name.
Try calling ldap_bind() with your creds and see what it returns?
Usually, the user provides a simple name. Then the app searches the LDAP source for some attribute that has that value. Then you bind or password compare in your code, as that full DN.
You can use uid which is Unique ID, which is required to be unique. I.e. If you find more than one instance of it, that is an error.
You can try CN, but that can often be multi valued depending on your LDAP implementations schema.
If you know you are going against eDirectory, then uid is fine, or CN just do something if it is multi valued.
If you know you are going against Active Directory, you can assume sAMAccountName is unique since the system enforces uniqueness. userPrinicpalName ought to be unique, but nothing actually enforces it.
You can always use mail, which is the email address pretty uniformly.
Related
Why do I want this?
I'm trying to get a unique identifier from my user which I can connect to database records. There are reasons I don't want to use the Email as the identifier. I read that SUB claim isn't supported with B2C, and to use OID in it's place.
Steps I've Taken
So, I've set up that both of my policies return Object ID on Azure B2C:
I'm using individual SignIn and SignUp policies at the moment, and I get all of the claims back, including the email claim which I specified I wanted to be returned. I cannot however find a claim related to OID or SUB.
User.Claims
Nets me the following results:
The single breadcrumb of hope that I have found is this claim:
Type: http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/nameidentifier
Value: Not supported currently. Use oid claim.
Questions
Have I missed some additional step that you need to perform to retrieve this particular claim?
Has anyone had any success retrieving an OID or SUB from Azure B2C?
Well, this is embarrassing, I must have looked over this line about 30 times and not noticed...
I was retrieving the OID token, it's claim type was:
http://schemas.microsoft.com/identity/claims/objectidentifier
As can be clearly seen in my provided screenshots. I'll leave this question up as, the schema may throw someone else off.
I struggled with this for a little while and this post helped me.
To update things with some code, the below will obtain the object identifier value (unique user id in Azure)
User.FindFirst("http://schemas.microsoft.com/identity/claims/objectidentifier").Value
Thanks for pointing out the differences in the schema/types!
If you are using the Microsoft.Identity.Web package there is now a ClaimsPrincipalExtensions class that provides an extension method, so that you can simply use:
// using Microsoft.Identity.Web;
User.GetObjectId();
This uses the oid or http://schemas.microsoft.com/identity/claims/objectidentifier claim.
Since the links above are broken and this is something that I really struggled to find a working example of, here is a code fragment of what I ended up using;
using System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt;
...
string oid;
string pTokenInput = Request.Headers["x-ms-token-aad-id-token"].ToString();
var lJWTHandler = new JwtSecurityTokenHandler();
if (lJWTHandler.CanReadToken(pTokenInput)
{
var lToken = lJWTHandler.ReadJwtToken(pTokenInput);
if (lToken.Payload.ContainsKey("oid"))
oid = lToken.Payload["oid"].ToString();
}
Hopefully, this will help someone else...
It seems that you do not necessarily need object-identifier here.
When debugging, I see that the value of object-identifier is mapped to nameidentifier
Which is accessible with the built-in constant NameIdentifier:
var identity = authState.User.Identity as System.Security.Claims.ClaimsIdentity;
var userId = identity.FindFirst(System.Security.Claims.ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier).Value;
I have a question about the rbac system. I think I've pretty well understood it but I need more informations about a special case.
I would like to do the autorisations on groups instead of users. I mean for instance the group "HR" has permission to create a person. Then any person who join this group would have it as well.
Let me give you more informations.
A part of my database:
And this a part of what my group hierarchy could be:
So what I'm looking for, this would be a must, is a system where each group has some autorizations. People get the autorizations of their group and of their parents group (for instance people in "Forsys" has the autorizations of "Forsys", "R&D" and "Administration").
The solution I see at the moment is using bizrule. But I'm not sure write php code in database is a good idea and then if I update the group hierarchy (R&D inherits of RH instead of Administration) I would have to modify bizrule in database. I tried it and it works well but as you can see it require a lot of code.
$user = User::model()->with("people","people.groups")->findByPk(Yii::app()->user->id);
foreach($user->people[0]->groups as $group)
if($group->id == 2)
return true;
return false;
It's just for see if a user is in a group (without checking parent groups and hierarchy)
Another possibility could be create a new table "group_auth" where we would say for instance:
-Group_2 has role "managePerson"
-Group_3 has operation "deleteUser"
...
And then everytime a user is added in or removed of a group we would update his autorizations in the auth_assigment table.
I'd like to hear other opinions on this subject.
All comments will be appreciated :)
Thank you for reading and sorry for my English if you had difficulties to understand me.
Michaël S.
Do users ever get their own authorization items? If not, seems like you could in essence swap out the userid column in auth_assignment and name it / treat it as groupID instead. That way you wouldn't need to worry about keeping user auth assignments in sync with your group roles.
A couple of places you'd probably need to make some changes:
- by default CWebUser passes in the logged in userid for use in bizrules. Might be good to change that our with your own override that passes in groupId/groupIds instead.
- you'd need to override CDbAuthManager and rework some of how things work there
We've done something similar on a project I've worked on (we were handling multi-tenant RBAC custom permissions), which required custom CDbAuthManager overrides. It gets a bit tricky if you do it, but there is an awful lot of power available to you.
Edit:
Understood about your users sometimes needing to have additional authorizations. What if your group has a 'roles' field with different roles serialized in it (or some other method of having multiple roles stored for that group, could also be a relationship).
Then, on user login (for efficiency), you'd store those roles in session. Probably the easiest way to handle things would be to write a custom checkAccess for your WebUser override:
https://github.com/yiisoft/yii/blob/1.1.13/framework/web/auth/CWebUser.php#L801
as that will make things simpler to do your custom checking. Then I'd probably do something like:
if(Yii::app()->user->hasGroupAccess() || Yii::app()->user->checkAccess('operation/task/role')) {
....
}
In your WebUser hasGroupAccess method, you could loop over all group roles and send those to checkAccess as well.
Think that will work?
What I use to check access for groups when it's in another table, or somewhere else in the application I give the user the role per default. By using this:
return array(
'components'=>array(
'authManager'=>array(
'class'=>'CDbAuthManager',
'defaultRoles'=>array('authenticated', 'R&D', 'Administration'),
),
),
);
Under: Using Default Roles
By using this, every user gets these assignments. Now, I create a business rule to make sure that the checkAccess('group') will return the correct value.
For example in your case the business rule for R&D would be:
return (
count(
Person::model()->findByPk(Yii::app()->user->id)->groups(array('name'=>'R&D'))
) > 0
) ? true : false;
So what this does is:
find the logged-in person by primary key
look into groups (from the user) for the group with name R&D
if there is a group: return true (else return false)
According to a requirement, i have to change the owner of an account if the user does not have read access to a third object.
I need a functionality similar to the isAccessible() method of Describe Field Result, but it is only available for the current logged in user.
Is there any other way to check the user's CRUD permissions for an object in Apex code?
I wrote an article about this on my blog. There is a feature that was just released in version 24.0 of the API (Spring Release) that will let you do just this on a record by record basis for the current user.
Here is the link to that blog entry that goes into details: How to tell if a user has access to a record
Don't confuse record level access with CRUD - the latter is the ability for a user to Create, Read, Update or Delete an object in general, regardless of sharing rules etc. that might affect the user's access to a particular record.
To check whether a user can create (e.g. Contacts) in general, just use
Schema.sObjectType.Contact.isCreateable()
(returns true or false)
From the documentation. it sounds like you want to use execute anonymously.
Apex generally runs in system context; that is, the current user's permissions, field-level security, and sharing rules aren’t taken into account during code execution. The only exceptions to this rule are Apex code that is executed with the executeAnonymous call. executeAnonymous always executes using the full permissions of the current user. For more information on executeAnonymous, see Anonymous Blocks.
Although Apex doesn't enforce object-level and field-level permissions by default, you can enforce these permissions in your code by explicitly calling the sObject describe result methods (of Schema.DescribeSObjectResult) and the field describe result methods (of Schema.DescribeFieldResult) that check the current user's access permission levels. In this way, you can verify if the current user has the necessary permissions, and only if he or she has sufficient permissions, you can then perform a specific DML operation or a query.
For example, you can call the isAccessible, isCreateable, or isUpdateable methods of Schema.DescribeSObjectResult to verify whether the current user has read, create, or update access to an sObject, respectively. Similarly, Schema.DescribeFieldResult exposes these access control methods that you can call to check the current user's read, create, or update access for a field. In addition, you can call the isDeletable method provided by Schema.DescribeSObjectResult to check if the current user has permission to delete a specific sObject.
http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/apexcode/index_Left.htm#StartTopic=Content/apex_classes_perms_enforcing.htm#kanchor431
Have you tried the runAs() method?
Something like (not verified):
User u = [SELECT Id FROM User WHERE Name='John Doe'];
System.runAs(u) {
if (Schema.sObjectType.Contact.fields.Email.isAccessible()) {
// do something
}
}
The DescribeSObjectResult class has methods for checking CRUD.
E.g. this allows you to test whether or not the current user can update the account object in general.
Schema.DescribeSObjectResult drSObj = Schema.sObjectType.Account;
Boolean thisUserMayUpdate = drSObj.isUpdateable();
#John De Santiago: your article covers record level access rather than object CRUD (= object level access)
Very old post. Since then SF add option to query object permission:
Select SobjectType ,ParentId, PermissionsEdit, PermissionsRead
From ObjectPermissions
Order by ParentID, SobjectType ASC
Basically you will need to get the profile and permissionset of the user that you want to check and the relevant object. So it will be something like:
Select SobjectType ,ParentId, PermissionsEdit, PermissionsRead
From ObjectPermissions
where parentId IN :UserProfileIdAndPermission
AND sObjectType=:objectType
Order by ParentID, SobjectType ASC
I'm trying to export the DN from Active Directory, but rather than have the CN equal to the displayName, need it to be the SAMAccountName. Can anyone help with this? I've tried adfind with the -replacedn switch and it changed the CN to SAMAccountName, but not the value. Thanks!
Example:
dn: CN=young\, neil,DC=example,DC=com
displayName: young\, neil
SAMAccountName: nyoung
Want the export output to be:
dn: CN=nyoung,DC=example,DC=com
This is not something you can easily change.
When they create users in Active Directory, as you type First Name and then Last Name the ADUC MMC tool builds a displayName of First Last, and uses that by default as the CN= component.
You could go and rename every object to cn=sAMAccountName value, but you would also have to force everyone with access to create a user to start doing that as well.
If you have an Identity Management solution of some kind creating the users, and not using manual processes this is trivial to implement. And for large solutions, it is really the only scalable model for CN values in AD. After all sAMAccountName must be domain unique, so this guarantees no naming collisions in CN parts of DN's.
I'm working on implementing a class for managing user permissions on my website.
For example: employees can view customer records but nothing else, employers can view customers as well as manage employees, and admins can do both those things as well as manage employers.
So far, what I've got is this:
I've stored a list of permissions, e.g addCustomer, delCustomer, etc. Each permission is linked to a list of the user roles which are allowed to do that action.
I've got a simple permissions class built. I'm using it something like this:
if ($permissions->can('addCustomer'))
echo " Add Customer ";
else
echo 'Not allowed to add customers';
However the tricky part is that in some places, I need to be more specific. For example: a customer has got the permission: readMsgs which allows him to read the messages between himself and an employee. However, if he has that permission, then he can simply change the url from:
site.com/messages/read/100
to
site.com/messages/read/101
And read message # 101 as well, which might be between another customer and employee. A customer shouldn't be able to read anyone's messages except himself.
Similarly, a customer has got the editCustomer permission, which allows him to edit his own profile by going to:
site.com/customers/99
(where 99 is his customer id)
But if he goes to
site.com/customers/100
He should not be allowed to access that page.
How can I solve this problem? Ideally I'd like to be able to pass on an id to the permissions class. E.g:
if (! $permissions->can('readMsg', $msgId))
echo 'not allowed';
if (! $permissions->can('editCustomer', $requestedCustomerId))
echo 'not allowed';
Any ideas how I'd have to restructure my class structure to allow the above kind of thing?
I would be more granular in my taxonomy of permissions (e.g., "readOwnMsgs" vs. "readAnyMsg"). This would elaborate your permission-checking code (e.g., site.com/messages/read/### goes something along the lines of "proceed if canReadAnyMsg or if canReadOwnMsg and message author is current user"), suggesting that this logic should be encapsulated in separate classes broken down by resource type or whatever other circumstances might have an effect on contextual information required to make such decisions.
I would have a message class with a canRead(User) function. This would check the user's permissions and say "Oh, I'm a message from a manager to an employee. Unless the user is the reciepient of the message, they can't read it." or just as easily "I'm a message from a manager to an employee. The user is a manager, so he can read it."
I'm typing it out in English because I suck a php (which appears to be the language of choice.)