We are currently implementing feature on our server to allow our B2B customers to connect their own SSO method. So we will automatically register a user if he doesn't have any account.
But we will have to watch if the given user is deleted from the customer group. Is there any way to set a web hook on our side, to receive events from that customer's SSO, in order to be aware of a user deletion (or any other kind of edit that requires the user's token revocation) ?
Otherwise, I know we'll have to periodically send the given refresh token to the provider, so that we know that we can still trust the user existence from the customer's list. But if there's any other way to check that, we will look into it
Related
Inviting a consumer user to Azure AD B2C has been covered by other Stack Overflow questions & answers, and AFAIK requires the use of custom policies that entail a signed JWT being created and used during invite redemption.
What I'm trying to figure out: In our application, we have differently permissioned user groups and different organisations managed by internal RBAC logic. We identify & authorize users based on their oid claim in the access token that's returned to msal-react/msal-browser and used to authenticate against our backend's API.
In Microsoft Graph, a user can be invited and the API will respond with the created user's oid. However, this is the wrong type of user and not appropriate for B2C scenarios.
With the custom policy route not creating the user object in AAD B2C at the time of invite, and therefore without knowing the user's oid at the time of inviting them to the application, what might be the best way to configure their in-app profile and have them identifiable to the application itself upon first login?
My thought at the moment is to have the application store the emails of users that are invited who have not yet redeemed/signed-in. We can configure the emails claim to be returned upon login, which is checked against the invited emails store when an oid claim is returned that isn't present in the database. This can then trigger a function to update the user's internal id with the oid in their first login's claim.
If this is inadvisable or if there's a better way, I'd be very grateful to hear it.
It would work, or just pre create the user up front via MS Graph API. Then you have an email and objectId available.
You could also put an extension attribute on the account indicating whether the user has redeemed their invite. That would allow you to monitor who has redeemed, and also be a way to provide a different experience depending on if the user has redeemed or not redeemed the link.
I am creating an electron application that connects to an Database and do POST and GET requests to retrieve and insert data into it, the problem is that in the code i have defined my database uri ( im using mongodb)
const uri = "mongodb+srv://<myusesrname>:<mypassword>#cluster0.wqbiu.mongodb.net/query?retryWrites=true&w=majority"
like in the example above, but if i pack my electron app the connection to the database as well as the credentials its visible if someone unpacks the app.asar file and look in the server.js file how i can solve this problem? i dont want any security breaches neither for me or the people that will be using my application, thanks in advance for any answer :)
An application that requires a secure connection to something cannot afford to have any username's or password's hardcoded into its code.
Instead, a procedure of authentication and authorisation is utilised.
Authentication is used to verify the user. IE: They are who they say they are, often achieved via the use of some type of login form.
Authorisation is used to verify the logged-in user is allowed to access the requested resource. EG: Is this user allowed to retrieve a list of all users email addresses from the database.
As a rough guide, a user will login with their username and password. You could use OpenID as well here if you wanted. Once the user is 'logged-in' you could set a cookie or session and save the session id in the DB against the user. Of course, all of this is done over HTTPS.
There are various ways to control the validity of the session such as but not limited to refreshing the expiration date / time every time the user hits the server, auto timeout if the user has not interacted with the server for more than X minutes, etc.
In your app, the user could try and interact with the database at any time, but if the user is not logged in, the server could return the appropriate response and prompt the user to login. Some form of API here is really the way to go.
If the user is logged in then then next step is to authorise the users request, ensuring they are allowed to perform what they are asking before sending a response back. If they are not authorised to access the resource (EG: Edit another user’s post) then an appropriate response is returned indicating so.
As you can see, securing your app will take some work but the result of not doing so could be devastating to you and your users.
With IdentityServer4 I need to allow a single user session per time. If the user authenticates with device A and then with B, session and access token must be invalidated for A and, even better, client A could receive a notification that user has logged out in a second step.The main thing is making the server force invalidate session and token. There are similar questions, one of them redirects us to the following link:
https://github.com/IdentityServer/IdentityServer4/issues/736
where it is explained to use backchannel logout and in the login method of the identity server to obtain the previous IdentityServer sessionID that should have been persisted somewhere. Then I should send logout tokens to all clients.
Another solution is given here
How to Logout user from a particular session Identity Server 4, .Net Core?
telling us to use an ITicketStore implementation to be able to invalidate the session.
The configuration used is IdentityServer4 with authorizaton code flow with PKCE. Which approach is best for my case? Is there another approach where I could simply delete the access token in the id server database?
I think in your case probably a combination of both. In our real-world implementation we combine server-side storage of sessions via ITicketStore (stored in a custom database with sessions linked to user accounts and also storing the list of client IDs for each session) with the ability to trigger back-channel logout of any session at any time (i.e. not just via the default user-triggered mechanism).
In our case we do this to be able to invalidate sessions for other reasons (e.g. password or other security setting changes, a "log me out of everything" feature, impersonation rights being revoked etc) but this approach could form the foundation of a "single session per user" feature should you wish.
I am working on a integration with Salesforce using REST APIs and, as part of the project, I need to send updates to Salesforce and these updates are not user triggered, they are system triggered.
Because of that, what I expect to see on Salesforce Field History is not a user name but the name of our Connected App (the app that made the update).
What I see today is the user name because the way the integration was made initially using OAuth Authorization Code flow.
To change that part of the project, I followed the link (OAuth 2.0 JWT Bearer Flow for Server-to-Server Integration): https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=sf.remoteaccess_oauth_flows.htm&type=5
Making that, I was expeting to generate a token for a System, not for a User, but that's not what happened: when I used the token generate from the JWT Bearer Flow and ran the update, the Field History still shows the user name.
What could I do then?
Which are the options in Salesforce to achieve the behavior I'm expecting?
The most important, in my opinion, is to have a Token for our system, not for a user.
Thanks!
Everybody is an user in Salesforce. Even if you access unauthenticated pages (some contact us form? case or lead capture) - it gets tracked under special Guest User.
It sounds stupid but gives you unified interface to control permissions (Profiles/Permission sets). You want guests to access only FAQ articles and make cases? Sure thing, do it in profile, don't get paranoid about people trying to guess right URLs. You think an app was hacked? You can terminate the session just like any other "user". Want to allow login only in certain hours and from certain IP? Sure.
An app connecting with JWT will still need username (main difference being it's "just" certificate for signing the request instead of password).
Your best bet is to create dedicated "Mr System", "SystemX integration" account. It sounds like waste of license but in the long run saves you questions "why did you edit my account at 1 am" and you could even use it as backup account if you use SSO and it ever fails...
I am building a react site where users can purchase a "day", "weekly" or "monthly" pass for the content on the page. I only want to allow them access for a day if they purchase a day pass. Same for weekly and monthly. I am using JWT to keep users logged in. I have no idea how to create the functionality to verify if they should still have access or not. Would love some help. I am also using redux if that helps.
You need to start thinking about Authentication and Authorization separately. Your JWTs are (hopefully) performing the Authentication duty. The "limited access" you're asking about are the concern of Authorization. In other words: now that you know who this user is, what are they allowed to do?
You need to map your JWTs to some form of internal user id, and then determine if they can or cannot access the requested resource/endpoint/etc.
For example, you might allow all users to GET from /jobs to view the listing of job postings, but if they try to POST to /apply for a job, you verify that they are a "premium" user, with time remaining on their paid subscription.