I need to give users access to edit specific Azure Logic App workflows. I find I can support this with the Logic App Contributor role. At times, I have workflows that contain an XML Validation action. I do want users to be able to edit business rules before and after that action, and even configure the action such as selecting a different XSD. However, I do not want them to be able to configure the Integration account that supports the XML Validation action, or even have a read-only view to the Integration account. When I have such an action, a would-be editor is blocked with the error:
it does not have permission to perform action 'Microsoft.Logic/integrationAccounts/join/action' on the linked scope(s)
Is there a way to apply roles so that a user can edit such a workflow with no direct access to the Integration Account?
You should be able to configure a custom role that matches your scenario.
Essentially you would grant the user the following permissions
Microsoft.Logic/workflows/*
Microsoft.Logic/integrationAccounts/join/action
The Microsoft.Logic/integrationAccounts/join/action perimssion allows the user to modify a logic app linked with an integration account, but does not grant any permissions on the integration account itself (the user would need Microsoft.Logic/integrationAccounts/* for that)
You can restrict the Microsoft.Logic/workflows/* permission further (e.g. by scoping it down to write action only).
As mentioned by #SzymonWylezol, MS made a change on its end and the error no longer occurs. In the case where the IA in a separate Resource Group than the Workflow, I find the user must be given the join action permission on the IA, in that Resource Group.
Related
I create successfully a ServicePrincipal (SP) in AzureAD and able to do a lot of stull like {Connect to Azure, Create resource, etc...}
I need my SP to use command Get-AzNetworkServiceTag but it always return empty values.
When I try command command Get-AzNetworkServiceTag with my own account I get expected result. I believe problem come from permission and your help is very welcome to set least privilege.
My current permissions looks like:
Do you know which one should I use ?
Alternative question is what is best practices to determine permissions based on powershell command ? Although permissions could name to determine there is so many that it's difficult to choose correct one. Thanks you.
The command Get-AzNetworkServiceTag essentially calls the Azure Management REST API - Service Tags - List, it is not related to Azure AD, to solve the issue, you need to assign the Azure RBAC role(not Azure AD admin role) to your service principal.
To solve the issue, the easiest way is to assign the built-in role e.g. Reader, Contributor to your service principal at the subscription scope. But if you want to the
least privilege, your option is to create a custom role then use it, you could follow the steps below.
1.Navigate to your subscription in the portal -> Access control (IAM) -> Add -> Add custom role, follow the screenshots.
Then skip the Permissions, in the JSON, click Edit, add Microsoft.Network/*/read to actions -> Next and create it.
After creating the custom role, wait for a while, navigate to the Access control (IAM) -> add the custom role to your service principal.
In conclusion, the Microsoft.Network/*/read action permission is the least privilege in this case, after giving the role, it will work fine.
Alternative question is what is best practice to determine permissions based on powershell command?
You just need to know what does the command do, then find the operation in the Azure resource provider operations, in this case, there is no such operation like Microsoft.Network/serviceTags/read, so we need to use Microsoft.Network/*/read at least.
You are facing this issue because Powershell cmdlet works differently than compared to MS Graph. Instead of permissions, Powershell require roles to do this operations. Please add Global Administrator role to your service principle and then try the Connect-AzAccount so that, the issue will be fixed.
For more details, you may refer to Assigning administrator roles in Azure Active Directory.
I am trying to create a subscription during the application run time, the code should be able to create a subscription and clean it up after it finishes.
I want to do this with the least possible permissions to the service account I am using. For now, I have created a custom role and gave two access to the role pubsub.subscriptions.create , pubsub.subscriptions.delete.
Although this is allowing the creation and clean up of a subscription, it is allowing not only to delete the current subscription, but also the subscriptions created by other users in the same project.
How can I assign permissions, to be able to create subscriptions in Pub/Sub, delete the subscription created by this service account?
Another way to put it could be, how can I, create a subscription at run time and modify only this subscription's permission to include pubsub.subscriptions.delete. (with the same service account).
Is there a way to make a service account admin/editor for the resources(topics, subscriptions, compute engine, etc.) created by this account? something like an IAM role - make admin after resource creation.
Related Documentation Links:
https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/access-control
This is impossible due to limitations of the Google IAM by design.
In Google IAM permissions correspond 1:1 with REST methods. To call a method, the caller needs that permission. In other words, permissions are granted on methods so that call them, and not on objects so that modify/rename/delete them, as would be necessary in your case. You want to delete a certain object, right?
To get more granular access, you need to assign a Policy with a Custom Role on a Subscription object explicitly, but you can hardly assign a Pub/Sub Custom Role below the Project level.
A Subscription creator does not become an "Admin" of the created object as it could be in an access management service with permissions assigned on objects. If explicit assigning of a Policy with a Custom Role on a freshly created Subscription was possible, it must be done by an account with a Role that can manage permissions: pubsub.admin for example. That means that you would have to grant this Role to your service account in addition to the existing Custom Role with the pubsub.subscriptions.create and *.delete permissions. As soon as you do this, the least privilege principle becomes meaningless.
Understanding IAM custom roles
Cloud IAM Documentation > Understanding roles > Pub/Sub roles
Access Control > Required permissions
Access Control > Roles
We are removing User, User Group and Permission models from our backend in favor of Auth0.
Our first idea was to just delete User, Group and Permission tables from DB and replace related foreign keys with varchar field. In this field we would then enter IDs that we get from Auth0 in JWT (pointing to something not present in our DB).
Is this good approach? I somehow feel that there must be more "relational" way of doing this.
Generally OAuth will not do all of the permission checks for you. Instead it gives you general mechanisms to sign the user in and issue + validate tokens.
In most real world architectures you also need to manage a second level of authorization in your back end - using domain specific user data for roles, permissions etc.
A couple of write ups of mine may help:
User Data Management
API Authorization
Auth0 Community Manager Dan here,
In this scenario you may be able to leverage the RBAC to replace your existing users/groups/permissions setup.
You would register a user's roles and the associated permissions of each role in the Auth0 dashboard or programmatically via the management API. Then you can setup a rule to add user roles to the token.
To connect this user to your existing user data store you can store the Auth0 id, similarly to how you have described.
This allows you to lookup the user when the token is received, and to associate any permissions or roles the user has. You can make roles API-specific by adding a prefix to the role, or have roles be general depending on your needs.
I have created an integration profile CORE_AKTANA_DI through which data for objects will be loaded into my Salesforce instance through a third-party user. I have provided "View All" permission for all objects to that profile. However, since this is a global Salesforce org, hence, there is data for other countries as well in this instance.
I want the user with the profile to see only data of France i.e with country "FR". In this case, my only choice is to:
Remove the "View All" permission of the profile from all objects.
Give the user a role such as "FR-Corp".
Create sharing rules for all objects with "Private" OWD and share with this role.
The problem is that since this is an integration profile, I cannot assign a role to the user with this profile. Also, it is not plausible to create sharing rules since there are a lot of objects with private OWD.
Same problem occurs by assigning the user to a public group, i.e a lot of sharing rules need to be created.
In this case, please suggest me the easiest possible options.
Actually, how to solve your issue is dependent on business process you are trying to implement. There are few ways:
sharing by hierarchy: setting proper roles and checking 'grant access using hierarchy'
sharing rules: setting proper sharing rules, owner/criteria based
manual sharing: using button
sharing using apex: using share object of any corresponding object
I think, this document will be useful for you.
I don't think what you say is correct:
"The problem is that since this is an integration profile, I cannot assign
a role to the user with this profile."
In my org we have a few integration connections. Each connection is anchored by a SF user license which has both Role and Profile. You should likely give the integration it's own user license and name the user something like "Integration (Fr)" Set the Roll up with appropriate hierarchy position, permissions and sharing rules and once you've done all the token resets needed set as API login only & password never expires. That should do it unless I'm missing something.
I can check user in active directory, if he exist then I give him permission to open app window, but what if an application has many levels of permission? Do I create special groups of permission in active direcotry and check if user belongs to one of them? . Can application log in automaticaly, or there is always need to enter password?
Active Directory can fulfill two related but seperate functions for an application: Authorization and Authentication.
Authentication is validating that the person using your application is a valid user. If you have the user's credentials (i.e. the application prompts the user for their username and password), you can authenticate them against AD by attempting a connection using their username/password.
Authorization is what lets you determine the level of permissions a particular user has in your application. Active Directory groups are a relatively straightforward and flexible way to implement the various permissions levels. Typically, I will create very fine-grained permissions groups that represent each securable action users can perform in the application (i.e. CanDeleteWidgets, CanAddWidgets, CanEditWidgets ). Then create functional or role groups where you place the users for that role (i.e. Managers, Coordinators, Technicians, etc). Finally, you just nest the role groups into the permissions groups so if, for example, the business requirement is that Managers can delete widgets, you would add the Managers group as a member of the CanDeleteWidgets group. While this may seem more complex, it makes it extremely simple to respond to changing business security requirements (i.e. "Technicians need to be able to delete widgets" - Piece of cake. Add the Technicians role group to the CanDeleteWidgets permissions group and you're done).
As far as logging in automatically, yes, there are a number of ways you can automatically log in a user. For winforms apps, you should just be able to grab the currently logged in user and use that. For web apps, if you can use integrated authentication, you end up with the same thing. Your web server will handle the authentication piece and send over the DOMAIN\USERNAME of the user in a server header variable.