I am currently working on a web app to list roles and permissions within my GCP organizaton and the different projects.
Here is what I would like to achieve:
I want the user to login when he arrives on the app
When he gets logged in I want a warning to pop up allowing him to delegate access to ressources to my app (like GCP permission)
Once all this is done I want my app to be able to use his gcp account to request permissions through the I'm API.
I know this could be accomplished by using a SAC and impersonnating the user but I would like to avoid it.
I checked IAP documentation but I don't think it would allow me to accomplish what I want.
Would Google sign in or any other kind of process would allow a user to delegate the right to access his GCP?
Related
I am trying to create a React app where a user with "admin" role can create a new user in firebase.
The workflow would look like that:
normal login -> check userRole -> if admin: show createUserForm.
As far as I have read from the documentation, I would need an Admin SDK, but the problem is - how to implement it on client-side app? Has anyone gone through this process?
The Firebase Admin SDK should only be used in a trusted environment, i.e. a server you control or Cloud Functions. It should not (and cannot) be used in a client-side React app.
If you want to allow certain users of your React app to create accounts for other users, you'll want to move that part of the flow to a trusted environment where you can use the Admin SDK.
So the flow becomes:
Detect in the client-code whether the user is an admin (likely using a custom claim) and only show the form if they are.
Call a Cloud Function from your client with the input from the form.
Ensure the user calling Cloud Functions is authorized.
Create the user account in the Cloud Function using the Admin SDK.
As you can see this is quite involved. I highly recommend considering alternative use-cases, such as what it actually is that you want the admin to control. Once you enable a provider in Firebase Authentication, any user can create an account with that provider. Trying to control that from within your application code is just a recipe for problems. Often what you're actually trying to control is what a specific user account can do: e.g. only approved users can access certain data. Depending on where you store this data, that is much easier to control. For example: if you store the data in the Firebase Database, is is common to create a whitelist of approved users in such a case (or the inverse: a blacklist of banned users).
I have a UWP app that uses WebAccountManager for AAD authentication. I also have a service, hosted in Azure, used by the UWP app. That service uses the token the UWP app sends to get another on-behalf-of token (I think that's what it's called) to then call other service APIs as the user (e.g. Microsoft Graph and Outlook REST API). In other words, UWP app calls WebAuthenticationCoreManager.RequestTokenAsync to get a token, sends it to my service, my service calls AuthenticationContext.AcquireTokenAsync to get an on-behalf-of token to use when calling the Outlook REST API, for example.
In the AAD registration for my service, the "Required Permissions" list all the services and permissions/API calls it might make on behalf of the user (E.g. "Microsoft Graph"-> "Have full access to user calendars")
When my UWP app creates the WebTokenRequest to pass into the RequestTokenAsync function, it currently passes an empty string as the value for "scope." What should it be passing for the scope parameter? Should it be passing the full and exact list of permissions that the service declares are required? If so, how do I get that permission list to the client? Just hard-code and update the list whenever the service required permissions list changes?
In Azure Active Directory, there are two fundamentally different ways to specify the permissions your app requires when authenticating.
Static Consent
Dynamic Consent
Back in the Azure Active Directory V1 endpoint, you would set "Required Permissions" to other APIs when registering your client application. This is setting up Static Consent. These permissions are fixed, and when you trigger the user to consent to these permissions, the user has to consent to them all at once. Additionally, if at some point your app wants to add new permissions to other APIs, you will need to force the user to go through the full consent experience again, which may even require special logic on your application.
This is why in the V2 endpoint, Microsoft developed Incremental and dynamic consent.
With the v2.0 endpoint, you can specify the permissions your app needs dynamically, at runtime, during regular usage of your app. To do so, you can specify the scopes your app needs at any given point in time by including them in the scope parameter of an authorization request.
Here, you can specify only the permissions your app needs to complete the flows it is trying to accomplish at that time. If you need more access, you can simply add it during your authentication experience, and it will prompt the user only for those new permissions.
Now let's return to your question. If you are using the V2 endpoint, you should be using Dynamic Consent, which means that the settings in "Required Permissions" do not really matter to you. You should be keeping the list of scopes your app requires in your app settings.
Some situations in the V2 endpoint still require Static Consent, like service to service calls with direct application permissions. For those situations you would pass the scope <resource>/.default as noted here. This might also work for delegated tokens, but it is better to just use Dynamic Consent.
I'm building an app using which the users registered(from the IAM page) for the project can access the resources of that project. I need the authentication when the URL is hit. Is there a way to achieve this?
Is it possible to provide IAM roles specific for a user request (assuming that the user will login using his email id) to access the resources based on IAM level permissions?
In the early days of AppEngine it was pretty easy to do some basic auth/access-control, but lately they're moving it to something called IAP.
From your wording I am assuming you are trying to abstract administrative tasks of a GCP project to lesser privileged administrators.
Questions 1 and 2 can be quickly solved by defining privileges in IAM using a pre-built roles or creating a custom role if you need to be more specific. Hereby you can use GSuite, GMail, Google Group accounts and let them sign into console.cloud.google.com. They will consequently only be able to see and act upon what you've assigned to them to in IAM.
If you still want to go through with building it yourself, every product does provide an API including authentication. Best practice for your use case is to instead of assigning an individual user access to a resource, you rather create a service account and then allow the user to call that service account. For this GCP has the Service Account Actor Role described well in the official documentation and also Salmaan Rashid provides a good practical insight on medium.
I have an node.js application with a working server2server GMail API communication via an service_account.
Everything works fine.
To be able to communicate with a users account, the G Suite Admin has to grant API Acess to the Client ID of my service_account manually.
As described here:
Impersonating list of users with Google Service Account
with a Marketplace App it would be possible, to grant access only to specific organizationals units (OUs) and it would be more fancy to use (enabling a marketing place app is more user friendly than configuring API Access for ClientID and Scope manually like here:
)
Now my question: Is it possible to provide a Marketplace App only for the purpose to grant API access for my application automatically? Will it get through the review when it has no other purpose? Any other hints on this?
Yes it is a working way to create a marketplace application to grant the API access automatically when the G Suite Admin installs this application.
The only restriction is, that your actual application has to support Google SSO to make it through the review process. So the user must be able to log into your Web Application by clicking on the icon in his G Suite account. If the user has no account in your web app, an account has to be created automatically (trial-account is sufficient)
Applications that run inside the Google App Engine can use Google Accounts for user authentication. I already used this feature and it works great. I just want to know how this is working. Is there a HTTP cookie created? How can an application inside the GAE see that a user is logged in?
The AppEngine SDK takes care of the details for you, but essentially it generates the equivalent of an OAuth request to the Google Account service. All interactions with the login process go through the Google Account service (and thus the cookies it uses for session tracking are not available to the individual app).