I've setup an open id connect provider, Google in this case, using the AddOpenIdConnect extension method in dotnet core. From the discovery document:
https://accounts.google.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
it does not seem that google supports federated sign-out because there is no end_session endpoint. However, in Identity Server 4, the call:
var providerSupportsSignout = await HttpContext.GetSchemeSupportsSignOutAsync(idp);
returns true. So during Logout it tries to sign out of google using:
return SignOut(new AuthenticationProperties { RedirectUri = url }, vm.ExternalAuthenticationScheme);
which throws an exception:
InvalidOperationException: Cannot redirect to the end session endpoint, the configuration may be missing or invalid.
Is this a bug in Identity Server 4 or is there a configuration property that needs to be set when setting up the Oidc provider so that this extension method will pickup that the provider does not support signout?
Doesn't appear to be a bug in Identity Server 4. The code behind this extension calls out to get the underlying authentication scheme handler.
public static async Task<bool> GetSchemeSupportsSignOutAsync(this HttpContext context, string scheme)
{
var provider = context.RequestServices.GetRequiredService<IAuthenticationHandlerProvider>();
var handler = await provider.GetHandlerAsync(context, scheme);
return (handler != null && handler is IAuthenticationSignOutHandler);
}
In this case, your handler will be OpenIdConnectHandler which appears to implement IAuthenticationSignOutHandler so that's why regardless of what is in the discovery document (end session endpoint supported or not), if you use the AddOpenIdConnect(...), it will always register a handler which seemingly supports sign out, but as you have pointed out, does not actually enforce the actual idp validation for that kind of functionality support (link to handler source).
And lastly, worthwhile to mention, that Identity Server 4 check is rightful here as according to Microsoft docs, the IAuthenticationSignOutHandler is indeed basically a marker interface used to determine if a handler supports SignOut.
So I guess you just simply can't use the generic AddOpenIdConnect(...), instead perhaps you should use AddGoogle(...) which does not implement IAuthenticationSignOutHandler so will work as expected with Identity Server 4 (link to source).
As Vidmantas Blazevicius mentioned, using .AddOpenIdConnect will make the extension method default to true because of the interface. I have changed my code to explicity check for the support of an end_session_endpoint by doing:
var discoveryClient = new IdentityModel.Client.DiscoveryClient("https://accounts.google.com/.well-known/openid-configuration")
{
Policy = new IdentityModel.Client.DiscoveryPolicy
{
ValidateEndpoints = false, //this is needed for google, if set to true then will result in error response
ValidateIssuerName = false //this is needed for Microsoft, if set to true then will result in error response
}
};
var discoveryResult = await discoveryClient.GetAsync();
if (!discoveryResult.IsError)
{
if (!String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(discoveryResult.EndSessionEndpoint))
supportsFederatedSignOut = true;
}
I then save an additional property on the model "SupportsFederatedSignOut" and then use this to determine whether external identity provider signout (SignOut) should be called.
Related
Has anyone an idear what to use as a general Authorization Service and have an working code example or good implementation steps how to implement such of thing.
It takes a lot of time to look what I am after, but didn't found any satisfied solution yet.
IdentityServer is not an option, while my permissions can not be stored as claims, because of the size of the token. It comes with about 200 persmissions, so it should be done in a dbcontext or something.
I looked at the PolicyServer, but it wasn't working as I expected. When I installed it at the IS4 application, it works on the IS4 controllers, but when the Authorize is called from an external application, it doesn't call the Authorize override at all were it should check the permissions.
And it seems that the permissions aren't set in the external application either in the User.Claims or what so ever. I'm missing some settings I think.
What I want to accomplish is that I have one permissions store (table) (which for example contains a bunch of index, add, edit or delete button or what so ever). The should be given to the autheniticated user which is logged in. But this single persmission-store should be available at all applications or APIs I run, so that the Authorize attribute can do his job.
I think it shouldn't be so hard to do, so I'm missing a good working example how to implement something like this and what is working.
Who can help me with this to get this done?
I wrote some code to get the permissions by API call and use that in the IsInRole override. But when I declare it with the Authorize attr, it will not get in the method:
[ApiController]
1) [Authorize]
public class AuthController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly IdentityContext _context;
public AuthController(IdentityContext context)
{
_context = context ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(context));
}
[HttpGet()]
[Route("api/auth/isinrole")]
public bool IsInRole(string role)
{
2) if (User.FindFirst("sub")?.Value != null)
{
var userID = Guid.Parse(User.FindFirst("sub")?.Value);
if([This is the code that checks if user has role])
return true;
}
return false;
This is the IsInRole override (ClaimsPrincipal.IsInRole override):
public override bool IsInRole(string role)
{
var httpClient = _httpClientFactory.CreateClient("AuthClient");
3) var accessToken = _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext.GetTokenAsync(OpenIdConnectParameterNames.AccessToken).Result;
httpClient.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Bearer", accessToken);
var request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Get, "/api/auth/isinrole/?id=" + role);
var response = httpClient.SendAsync(request, HttpCompletionOption.ResponseHeadersRead).Result;
etc...
This isn't working while it is not sending the access_token in the request
The 'sub' isn't send
Is always null
The open source version of the PolicyServer is a local implementation. All it does is read the permissions from a store (in the sample a config file) and transform them into claims using middleware.
In order to use the permissions you'll have to add this middleware in all projects where you want to use the permissions.
Having local permissions, you can't have conflicts with other resources. E.g. being an admin in api1 doesn't mean you are admin in api2 as well.
But decentralized permissions may be hard to maintain. That's why you probably want a central server for permissions, where the store actually calls the policy server rather than read the permissions from a local config file.
For that you'll need to add a discriminator in order to distinguish between resources. I use scopes, because that's the one thing that both the client and the resource share.
It also keeps the response small, you only have to request the permissions for a certain scope instead of all permissions.
The alternative is to use IdentityServer as-is. But instead of JWT tokens use reference tokens.
The random string is a lot shorter, but requires the client and / or resource to request the permissions by sending the reference token to the IdentityServer. This may be close to how the PolicyServer works, but with less control on the response.
There is an alternative to your solution and that is to use a referense token instead of a JWT-token. A reference token is just an opaque identifier and when a client receives this token, he has go to and look up the real token and details via the backend. The reference token does not contain any information. Its just a lookup identifier that the client can use against IdentiyServer
By using this your tokens will be very small.
Using reference token is just one option available to you.
see the documentation about Reference Tokens
I am following the Implicit Workflow example from the angular-oauth2-oidc documentation.
Everything works well in my Angular app, and I can login (during which I am redirected to Identity Server), get my token and use this token to access my Web Api.
However, I have noticed that the "given_name" claim is null, and therefore, the username is not displayed on the login page. Specifically, the following method from the sample code appears to return null:
public get name() {
let claims = this.oauthService.getIdentityClaims();
if (!claims) return null;
return claims.given_name;
}
I thought perhaps this was a problem with permissions, but my scope is set to:
scope: 'openid profile email api1',
Any idea what I need to change to get this "given_name" claim?
For those who encountered the same issue. You can fix it by adding this line AlwaysIncludeuserClaimsInIdToken=true in the client settings on identity provider side.
OauthService.getIdentityClaims() is a Promise and holds UserInfo you can extract the name field with braces, so your function should be:
public get name() {
let claims = this.oauthService.getIdentityClaims();
if (!claims) return null;
return claims['name'];
}
The answer marked as "Best answer" is not correct. Get the user claims in the 'idtoken' will cause that the 'idtoken' be very big and then you may exceed the size limit.
The correct implementation is to use the 'UserInfo' Endpoint and then use the method 'loadUserProfile':
Example:
getUserClaims() {
const user = this.oauthService.loadUserProfile();
console.log(user, user);
}
I had the same issue, in my case with an error displayed on the browser console, saying that Request was blocked by Security Policy.
even having the AllowAnyOrigin() method called in startup, I lacked to get the header allowed. So when in my angular aap i call the loadUserProfile method via the
token_received event, it sends some headers that were not allowed.
Finaly this fix my issue:
app.UseCors(options => options.AllowAnyOrigin().AllowAnyHeader());
Don't forget calling that before usemvc
Is it possible to somehow extend IdentityServer4 to run custom authentication logic? I have the requirement to validate credentials against a couple of existing custom identity systems and struggle to find an extension point to do so (they use custom protocols).
All of these existing systems have the concept on an API key which the client side knows. The IdentityServer job should now be to validate this API key and also extract some existing claims from the system.
I imagine to do something like this:
POST /connect/token
custom_provider_name=my_custom_provider_1&
custom_provider_api_key=secret_api_key
Then I do my logic to call my_custom_provider_1, validate the API key, get the claims and pass them back to the IdentityServer flow to do the rest.
Is this possible?
I'm assuming you have control over the clients, and the requests they make, so you can make the appropriate calls to your Identity Server.
It is possible to use custom authentication logic, after all that is what the ResourceOwnerPassword flow is all about: the client passes information to the Connect/token endpoint and you write code to decide what that information means and decide whether this is enough to authenticate that client. You'll definitely be going off the beaten track to do what you want though, because convention says that the information the client passes is a username and a password.
In your Startup.ConfigureServices you will need to add your own implementation of an IResourceOwnerPasswordValidator, kind of like this:
services.AddTransient<IResourceOwnerPasswordValidator, ResourceOwnerPasswordValidator>();
Then in the ValidateAsync method of that class you can do whatever logic you like to decide whether to set the context.Result to a successful GrantValidationResult, or a failed one. One thing that can help you in that method, is that the ResourceOwnerPasswordValidationContext has access to the raw request. So any custom fields you add into the original call to the connect/token endpoint will be available to you. This is where you could add your custom fields (provider name, api key etc).
Good luck!
EDIT: The above could work, but is really abusing a standard grant/flow. Much better is the approach found by the OP to use the IExtensionGrantValidator interface to roll your own grant type and authentication logic. For example:
Call from client to identity server:
POST /connect/token
grant_type=my_crap_grant&
scope=my_desired_scope&
rhubarb=true&
custard=true&
music=ska
Register your extension grant with DI:
services.AddTransient<IExtensionGrantValidator, MyCrapGrantValidator>();
And implement your grant validator:
public class MyCrapGrantValidator : IExtensionGrantValidator
{
// your custom grant needs a name, used in the Post to /connect/token
public string GrantType => "my_crap_grant";
public async Task ValidateAsync(ExtensionGrantValidationContext context)
{
// Get the values for the data you expect to be used for your custom grant type
var rhubarb = context.Request.Raw.Get("rhubarb");
var custard = context.Request.Raw.Get("custard");
var music = context.Request.Raw.Get("music");
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(rhubarb)||string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(custard)||string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(music)
{
// this request doesn't have the data we'd expect for our grant type
context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.InvalidGrant);
return Task.FromResult(false);
}
// Do your logic to work out, based on the data provided, whether
// this request is valid or not
if (bool.Parse(rhubarb) && bool.Parse(custard) && music=="ska")
{
// This grant gives access to any client that simply makes a
// request with rhubarb and custard both true, and has music
// equal to ska. You should do better and involve databases and
// other technical things
var sub = "ThisIsNotGoodSub";
context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(sub,"my_crap_grant");
Task.FromResult(0);
}
// Otherwise they're unauthorised
context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.UnauthorizedClient);
return Task.FromResult(false);
}
}
I have an MVC application hosted on a server (IIS) which points to 3 SQL databases. This has been running without issues for months.
I've just had to change the connectionstrings for all 3 SQL databases to point to new databases.
Now when I try to log in I get the following error..
The connection strings are using Windows Authentication and this account is set in the AppPool. I've also manually tried to connect to each database instance with the account and this works fine. I'm beginning to think the change is SQL connections is just a red herring.
In terms of the error message, I totally understand what the error is Im just not sure why its being thrown. The only thing I can think of is I'm in some kind of redirect loop which is appending the URL.
It definitely feels like an IIS issue but I can't put my finger on it.
Has anyone come across this before with OWIN or can advise on debugging steps that might diagnose the issue?
Startup.cs
public partial class Startup
{
private static bool IsAjaxRequest(IOwinRequest request)
{
IReadableStringCollection query = request.Query;
if ((query != null) && (query["X-Requested-With"] == "XMLHttpRequest"))
{
return true;
}
IHeaderDictionary headers = request.Headers;
return ((headers != null) && (headers["X-Requested-With"] == "XMLHttpRequest"));
}
public void ConfigureAuth(IAppBuilder app)
{
// Configure the db context, user manager and role manager to use a single instance per request
app.CreatePerOwinContext(ParentDbContext.Create);
app.CreatePerOwinContext<ApplicationUserManager>(ApplicationUserManager.Create);
app.CreatePerOwinContext<ApplicationRoleManager>(ApplicationRoleManager.Create);
app.CreatePerOwinContext<ApplicationSignInManager>(ApplicationSignInManager.Create);
app.CreatePerOwinContext(PrincipalManager.Create);
// Enable the application to use a cookie to store information for the signed in user
// and to use a cookie to temporarily store information about a user logging in with a third party login provider
// Configure the sign in cookie
app.UseCookieAuthentication(new CookieAuthenticationOptions
{
AuthenticationType = DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie,
LoginPath = new PathString("/Account/Login"),
Provider = new CookieAuthenticationProvider
{
// Enables the application to validate the security stamp when the user logs in.
// This is a security feature which is used when you change a password or add an external login to your account.
OnValidateIdentity =
SecurityStampValidator.OnValidateIdentity<ApplicationUserManager, ApplicationUser, Guid>(
TimeSpan.FromMinutes(int.Parse(WebConfigurationManager.AppSettings["RefreshInterval"])),
(manager, user) => manager.GenerateUserIdentityAsync(user),
claim => new Guid(claim.GetUserId())),
OnApplyRedirect = ctx =>
{
if (!IsAjaxRequest(ctx.Request))
{
ctx.Response.Redirect(ctx.RedirectUri);
}
}
}
});
}
}
After hours of investigation I eventually found the issue.
The issue was the number of claims being added for a user. Once we reduced the number of claims it started working again.
The most likely cause is that you're stuck in an error loop. If the authentication to the database where the users is stored is failing then you will get sent to the error page which will try to run the authentication again and fail and send you to the error page, again and again. Each pass it would append to the previous url eventually reaching this state.
I'm building a closed app (users need to authenticate in order to use it). I'm having trouble in identifying the currently authenticated user from my Latchet session. Since apache does not support long-lived connections, I host Latchet on a separate server instance. This means that my users receive two session_id's. One for each connection. I want to be able to identify the current user for both connections.
My client code is a SPA based on AngularJS. For client WS, I'm using the Autobahn.ws WAMP v1 implementation. The ab framework specifies methods for authentication: http://autobahn.ws/js/reference_wampv1.html#session-authentication, but how exactly do I go about doing this?
Do I save the username and password on the client and retransmit these once login is performed (which by the way is separate from the rest of my SPA)? If so, won't this be a security concearn?
And what will receive the auth request server side? I cannot find any examples of this...
Please help?
P.S. I do not have reputation enough to create the tag "Latchet", so I'm using Ratchet (which Latchet is built on) instead.
Create an angularjs service called AuthenticationService, inject where needed and call it with:
AuthenticationService.check('login_name', 'password');
This code exists in a file called authentication.js. It assumes that autobahn is already included. I did have to edit this code heavily removing all the extra crap I had in it,it may have a syntax error or two, but the idea is there.
angular.module(
'top.authentication',
['top']
)
.factory('AuthenticationService', [ '$rootScope', function($rootScope) {
return {
check: function(aname, apwd) {
console.log("here in the check function");
$rootScope.loginInfo = { channel: aname, secret: apwd };
var wsuri = 'wss://' + '192.168.1.11' + ':9000/';
$rootScope.loginInfo.wsuri = wsuri;
ab.connect(wsuri,
function(session) {
$rootScope.loginInfo.session = session;
console.log("connected to " + wsuri);
onConnect(session);
},
function(code,reason) {
$rootScope.loginInfo.session = null;
if ( code == ab.CONNECTION_UNSUPPORTED) {
console.log(reason);
} else {
console.log('failed');
$rootScope.isLoggedIn = 'false';
}
}
);
function onConnect(sess) {
console.log('onConnect');
var wi = $rootScope.loginInfo;
sess.authreq(wi.channel).then(
function(challenge) {
console.log("onConnect().then()");
var secret = ab.deriveKey(wi.secret,JSON.parse(challenge).authextra);
var signature = sess.authsign(challenge, secret);
sess.auth(signature).then(onAuth, ab.log);
},ab.log
);
}
function onAuth(permission) {
$rootScope.isLoggedIn = 'true';
console.log("authentication complete");
// do whatever you need when you are logged in..
}
}
};
}])
then you need code (as you point out) on the server side. I assume your server side web socket is php coding. I can't help with that, haven't coded in php for over a year. In my case, I use python, I include the autobahn gear, then subclass WampCraServerProtocol, and replace a few of the methods (onSessionOpen, getAuthPermissions, getAuthSecret, onAuthenticated and onClose) As you can envision, these are the 'other side' of the angular code knocking at the door. I don't think autobahn supports php, so, you will have to program the server side of the authentication yourself.
Anyway, my backend works much more like what #oberstat describes. I establish authentication via old school https, create a session cookie, then do an ajax requesting a 'ticket' (which is a temporary name/password which i associate with the web authenticated session). It is a one use name/password and must be used in a few seconds or it disappears. The point being I don't have to keep the user's credentials around, i already have the cookie/session which i can create tickets that can be used. this has a neat side affect as well, my ajax session becomes related to my web socket session, a query on either is attributed to the same session in the backend.
-g
I can give you a couple of hints regarding WAMP-CRA, which is the authentication mechnism this is referring:
WAMP-CRA does not send passwords over the wire. It works by a challenge-response scheme. The client and server have a shared secret. To authenticate a client, the server will send a challenge (something random) that the client needs to sign - using the secret. And only the signature is sent back. The client might store the secret in browser local storage. It's never sent.
In a variant of above, the signing of the challenge the server sends is not directly signed within the client, but the client might let the signature be created from an Ajax request. This is useful when the client was authenticated using other means already (e.g. classical cookie based), and the signing can then be done in the classical web app that was authenticating.
Ok, Greg was kind enough to provide a full example of the client implementation on this, so I wont do anything more on that. It works with just a few tweaks and modifications to almost any use-case I can think of. I will mark his answer as the correct one. But his input only covered the theory of the backend implementation, so I will try to fill in the blanks here for postparity.
I have to point out though, that the solution here is not complete as it does not give me a shared session between my SPA/REST connection and my WS connection.
I discovered that the authentication request transmitted by autobahn is in fact a variant of RPC and for some reason has hardcoded topic names curiously resembling regular url's:
- 'http://api.wamp.ws/procedure#authreq' - for auth requests
- 'http://api.wamp.ws/procedure#auth' - for signed auth client responses
I needed to create two more routes in my Laravel routes.php
// WS CRA routes
Latchet::topic('http://api.wamp.ws/procedure#authreq', 'app\\socket\\AuthReqController');
Latchet::topic('http://api.wamp.ws/procedure#auth', 'app\\socket\\AuthReqController');
Now a Latchet controller has 4 methods: subscribe, publish, call and unsubscribe. Since both the authreq and the auth calls made by autobahn are RPC calls, they are handled by the call method on the controller.
The solution first proposed by oberstet and then backed up by Greg, describes a temporary auth key and secret being generated upon request and held temporarily just long enough to be validated by the WS CRA procedure. I've therefore created a REST endpoint which generates a persisted key value pair. The endpoint is not included here, as I am sure that this is trivial.
class AuthReqController extends BaseTopic {
public function subscribe ($connection, $topic) { }
public function publish ($connection, $topic, $message, array $exclude, array $eligible) { }
public function unsubscribe ($connection, $topic) { }
public function call ($connection, $id, $topic, array $params) {
switch ($topic) {
case 'http://api.wamp.ws/procedure#authreq':
return $this->getAuthenticationRequest($connection, $id, $topic, $params);
case 'http://api.wamp.ws/procedure#auth':
return $this->processAuthSignature($connection, $id, $topic, $params);
}
}
/**
* Process the authentication request
*/
private function getAuthenticationRequest ($connection, $id, $topic, $params) {
$auth_key = $params[0]; // A generated temporary auth key
$tmpUser = $this->getTempUser($auth_key); // Get the key value pair as persisted from the temporary store.
if ($tmpUser) {
$info = [
'authkey' => $tmpUser->username,
'secret' => $tmpUser->secret,
'timestamp' => time()
];
$connection->callResult($id, $info);
} else {
$connection->callError($id, $topic, array('User not found'));
}
return true;
}
/**
* Process the final step in the authentication
*/
private function processAuthSignature ($connection, $id, $topic, $params) {
// This should do something smart to validate this response.
// The session should be ours right now. So store the Auth::user()
$connection->user = Auth::user(); // A null object is stored.
$connection->callResult($id, array('msg' => 'connected'));
}
private function getTempUser($auth_key) {
return TempAuth::findOrFail($auth_key);
}
}
Now somewhere in here I've gone wrong. Cause if I were supposed to inherit the ajax session my app holds, I would be able to call Auth::user() from any of my other WS Latchet based controllers and automatically be presented with the currently logged in user. But this is not the case. So if somebody see what I'm doing wrong, give me a shout. Please!
Since I'm unable to get the shared session, I'm currently cheating by transmitting the real username as a RPC call instead of performing a full CRA.