Im searching solution about authentication.
I found IdentityServer and Im trying understand how it works.
In my case I need to check user exist in another app.
I have old project created in asp.net web froms and this project have a users collection stored in db.
Now I must create client who will be call to WebApi and in this WebApi I need to authenticate user. I want to do this using IdentityServer4. Can I in IdentityServer call to my old application or db this application and check user by custom method?
In future I want connect another application to IdentityServer and this new application should have users in IdentityServer, so I will be have two places where I will have users for two application. I need to be sure I can check user exist in this two ways.
When request will be form new app IdentityServer should check user in his db and if request is from client who will be call to old app should check this user in external app(db).
Example call:
enter image description here
I dont know I good understand idea of IdentityServer, but generaly I think this is not good solution for my case...For now I understand I can store users in database but only with Asp.Identity in IdentityServer.
What do you think about this case ?
In future I want connect another application to IdentityServer and this new application should have users in IdentityServer, so I will be have two places where I will have users for two application. I need to be sure I can check user exist in this two ways.
When request will be from new app, IdentityServer should check user in his db and if request is from client who will be call to old app, should check this user in external app(db).
The short answer is that IdentityServer4 is just an implementation of the OpenID Connect protocol and the persistence and authentication of users is entirely customisable so you're free to implement that any way you like.
As for where to keep your users - that will depend on your problem domain and business rules but I'd probably try and avoid using multiple DBs if possible and instead migrate existing users from legacy applications to your identity service's own store and take care to only bring over identity and authentication information and not access control/authorization information. i.e. keep the authorization logic in your client applications and APIs.
Related
I'm creating the user authentication in a web application, and I want to use Identity Server for resource protection.
The sample code and documentation shows how the user logs into Identity Server after creating an account for it. That is to say, they log in with their own Identity Server account. The quickstart even provides a UI.
But I don't want users of my application to have to log in to Identity Server, an external website. I want them to only have to log in to the web application.
So how to proceed? It just doesn't seem at all clear from the documentation how you're supposed to handle this scenario, which I would have thought would be the most common.
Do I just use a pre-defined API scope and user for token validation, holding for all the website's users? That doesn't seem to be very secure given that any user of the website or anyone with the client name and secret would have a valid token. Not sure what the point is in having the security if it's that easily worked around.
Or do I interact with my Identity Server instance somehow after the user is registered in the web application, and store the new user in a database? I can't find any mention of this in the documentation . It all seems to be very muddled to be honest.
Please could anybody shed light on some of this? What is the "standard" approach here? To have the user sign in to the external Identity Server website? That seems a great way to annoy your users.
If you only have one application and you don't intend to add more applications that needs to share users, then you should look at ASP.NET Core Identity
The whole point with OpenID-Connect/IdentityServer is to delegate the managing and handling of users/passwords (authentication) to a central entity. So individual applications don't need to deal with that complexity. IdentityServer is useful when you have multiple applications or if you have more complex integration needs. It is also perfect if you need to customize it to your own needs. If you don't need the customization part you can also outsource it to someone else like Auth0 that give you an IdentityServer like experience as a service.
I have a requirement to create an admin UI where I need to list all users registered on IdentityServer to start assigning permissions and roles. This application internally uses PolicyServer, but as a superadmin user, I would need to see all users registered on IdentityServer. Here IdentityServer is responsible for authentication and the other application that uses PolicyServer is responsible for the authorization.
Which is the correct way to proceed:
1- This admin UI application should be connected to the same database that IdentityServer uses to get all the users?
2 Or should I need to extend IdentityServer on this way?:
http://docs.identityserver.io/en/latest/topics/add_apis.html
I followed this issue here:
IdentityServer/IdentityServer3#2607
but still, it is not clear for me how to proceed on the question above.
Well, the users database is usually provided by ASP.NET Identity, not so Identity Server.
I had the same issue and I went on to develop the admin Web app in the same host as Identity Server, thus using the database connection to get to the users (and the API resources, clients, etc.).
I argue that this is the simplest way to achieve what you want. And still allows you to provide a complete API on your Identity Server for external apps. I also did that (for scenarios where client apps are allowed to view/edit the user profile, for example). The API was built using plain ASP.NET Core MVC.
I'm struggling with the correct way to secure a multi-tenant Web API with Identity Server. Let me explain.
We have a multi-tenant Web API that serves a ASP.NET MVC application.
Each new customer is assigned a new TenantId.
A customer can have multiple subscriptions of the application. Its
the same as saying that the app manages multiple databases per
customer (that he can access from the same base URL).
Each user belongs to a single customer (tenant) and will have access
to all that customer's subscriptions.
The API is set in a way that every endpoint includes both the tenant id and the subscription id so it can know from which subscription/database it should get the data.:
<server>/tentantId/subscriptionId/(...)
Now imagine that I have another external app (say a console app), using the client credentials flow, that is trying to access some API resource "on behalf" of a customer, meaning that will use a specific tenantId/subscriptionId pair:
<server>/1000/1/products
Every time a call hits one of the API endpoints I need to validate that this specific client app can access that tenant/subscription.
It would make a lot of sense if the Identity Server could perform that check automatically as part of the authorization flow.
If we added some way for the customer to register (consent) a specific client app to access the Web API on it's subscriptions, may be we could also set the Identity Server to know that in the form of scopes or at least include that information in the claims so that we could perform the permission check by inspecting the token instead of calling an external component.
Is this even possible?
Should I try to use scopes? Claims?
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Your question is confusing when you talk about multi-tenancy. Isn't an API multi-tenant by default? The way I see it, it's a resource that can be accessed by multiple users / clients.
If I understand correctly, all you want is to access the API through the MVC app on behalf of a user. In other words: a hybrid flow with API access.
Instead of putting the userid in the path, use the id from the sub claim. Which lets the API distinguish between calls on behalf of clients and calls on behalf of users.
The resource should take care of authorization. Depending on the type of authorization you can use claims. If a subscription needs to be checked then this should be done by the API, using the sub claim to distinguish the user.
Scopes on the other hand are meant to define the resource. With the scope "api1" I can access the Api1 resource (api). But it says nothing about authorization.
IdentityServer provides Authentication as a Service.
It is your apps' duty to provide the actual Authorization.
I have been trying to determine a good strategy for authentication between a single WPF application of which calls to Web API services.
The client WPF app should be the only application to ever call the Web API.
I think I do have some unique requirements I must abide by. For example, The boss does not want to use ssl in any way; he is paranoid of users may having to deal with certificates.
Like I said, the client application is the only client using the Web API. The API just calls a list of stored procedures on a separate server.
Currently, we have a user membership database that does not align with any membership db standard, but we currently have over 200,000 members. One of the stored procedures currently authenticates the user with the membership db. The client application requires valid users to sign in to the application at start-up, however, we are wanting to secure all of the Web API requests sent from client to prevent non-valid requests being made to the server and so to prevent.
We are concerned about using the individual accounts or local authentication to essentially authenticate every web API request because of the added cost.
I have been thinking that what we are really needed to do is pretty much authenticate that it is our software client(WPF application) making the request and this authentication could open up all the controllers and actions for requests made by the client rather than the user. The user and its authentication is somewhat separate and is in place to prevent unauthorized users on a particular machines install of the application.
So you must have a valid user account to use the application.
Any suggestion would be great. I am just asking to get pointed in the right direction. I am really new to security so all suggestion will be valuable to me.
Thanks.
We would like to connect a salesforce user to another salesforce user in another org without any user intervention from a service.
We have tried SAML Bearer Flow (using Remote Access Application) to connect to salesforce to retreive Access Token for one of our product. We are referring to the follwoing article.
http://help.salesforce.com/help/doc/en/remoteaccess_oauth_SAML_bearer_flow.htm
As referred by the SF article for this flow, it uses a previous user authorization to connect and retreive Token. In case the user (for whom Token is requested) has not already authorized the App, SF takes you to the Authorization page first and app will get the access token once app is authorized. This is working fine too. However it has this painful step of users authorizing the app before we can use this flow for the product. It would be good and simplified if this step can be done once for an org and the article does mentions that either User or Admin can authorize the app. However I am not able to find how an Admin can authorize the remote access application.
Does anyone knows and can guide how can an Admin authorize an App or is thre any other way we can achieve our requirement. Any thoughts will be really appreciated.
OAuth1 and OAuth2 require user intervention by design. Anything you do to defeat this would be circumspect and not best practice. You could make it easy on the user, but you will always have the initial "Authorize this app" message.
If you are trying to make it easy for the user to login to either org, then you may want to consider a hub-and-spoke SSO solution. See this doc.
If you are trying to pass information between two Salesforce instances, then you may want to consider Salesforce2Salesforce, or outbound workflow. However, this is done at system context, not user context.
If you want to maintain user context and security, you should consider the new Salesforce Canvas API. Canvas allows you to call an outbound service, and pass credentials to the service so that it can communicate back. There is no reason the foreign service could not be a Salesforce instance.