I have just written an app with Azure Active Directory Single Sign-On.
The consent framework is handled in the AccountController, in the ApplyForConsent action listed below. Until recently, everything has worked seamlessly. I could grant consent as an admin user of an external tenant, then sign out of the app, and sign in again as a non-admin user.
My Azure Active Directory app requires the following delegated permissions:
Read directory data
Enable sign-on and read users' profiles
Access your organisation's directory
Now, after I have gone through the consent framework (by POSTing from a form to ApplyForConsent as an admin user), signing in as a non-admin user fails with the error message AADSTS90093 (This operation can only be performed by an administrator). Unhelpfully, the error message doesn't say what "this operation" actually is, but I suspect it is the third one (Access your organisation's directory).
I stress again, this has only recently stopped working. Nothing has changed in this part of the code, although I grant it is possible that other changes elsewhere in the codebase may have had knock-on effects of which I remain blissfully ignorant.
Looking at the documentation, it seems that this use of the consent framework is already considered "Legacy", but I'm having a difficult time finding a more up-to-date implementation.
The requested permissions in the code sample below is the single string "DirectoryReaders".
I have three questions for helping me debug this code:
What is the difference between "Read directory data" and "Access your organisation's directory"? When would I need one rather than another?
Do I need to request more than just "DirectoryReaders"?
Is there now a better way to implement the Consent Framework?
This is the existing code:
private static readonly string ClientId = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ida:ClientID"];
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult ApplyForConsent()
{
string signupToken = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
string replyUrl = Url.Action("ConsentCallback", "Account", new { signupToken }, Request.Url.Scheme);
DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry.CleanUpExpiredSignupTokens();
DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry.AddSignupToken(signupToken, DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddMinutes(5));
return new RedirectResult(CreateConsentUrl(ClientId, "DirectoryReaders", replyUrl));
}
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult ConsentCallback()
{
string tenantId = Request.QueryString["TenantId"];
string signupToken = Request.QueryString["signupToken"];
if (DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry.ContainsTenant(tenantId))
{
return RedirectToAction("Validate");
}
string consent = Request.QueryString["Consent"];
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(tenantId) && String.Equals(consent, "Granted", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
if (DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry.TryAddTenant(tenantId, signupToken))
{
return RedirectToAction("Validate");
}
}
const string error = "Consent could not be provided to your Active Directory. Please contact SharpCloud for assistance.";
var reply = Request.Url.GetLeftPart(UriPartial.Authority) + Url.Action("Consent", new { error });
var config = FederatedAuthentication.FederationConfiguration.WsFederationConfiguration;
var signoutMessage = new SignOutRequestMessage(new Uri(config.Issuer), reply);
signoutMessage.SetParameter("wtrealm", config.Realm);
FederatedAuthentication.SessionAuthenticationModule.SignOut();
return Redirect(signoutMessage.WriteQueryString());
}
private static string CreateConsentUrl(string clientId, string requestedPermissions, string consentReturnUrl)
{
string consentUrl = String.Format(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, ConsentUrlFormat, HttpUtility.UrlEncode(clientId));
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(requestedPermissions))
{
consentUrl += "&RequestedPermissions=" + HttpUtility.UrlEncode(requestedPermissions);
}
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(consentReturnUrl))
{
consentUrl += "&ConsentReturnURL=" + HttpUtility.UrlEncode(consentReturnUrl);
}
return consentUrl;
}
I think this link addresses your issue:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/aadgraphteam/archive/2015/03/19/update-to-graph-api-consent-permissions.aspx
The quick summary is that now only admins can grant consent to a web app for '•Access your organisation's directory'.
This change was made back in March. Native apps are not affected by the change.
My suspicion was correct. I was using legacy tech in the question. By moving to Owin and Identity 2.0, all issues were solved.
The new approach is summarised by https://github.com/AzureADSamples/WebApp-GroupClaims-DotNet
Related
I'm trying to add optional claims using Microsoft Identity Web - NuGet for user authentication in NET Core 3.1 WebApp. Reading the MS Docs, it seems that the only steps needed are to declare the optional claims within the App Registration Manifest file in Azure. But when testing the login process using two different apps (my own code and an MS project example) it looks like the optional claims are not being added to the ID Token when returned from Azure following a successful login i.e they're not present at all when viweing the token details in Debug.
I'm not sure how to diagnose this and where to trace the issue i.e am I missing any required steps in Azure setup?
Side Note: Just to confirm it is the jwt ID Token I want to receive the additional claims, NOT the jwt access token used for calling the graph or another Web API endpoint.
MS Docs reference: v2.0-specific optional claims set
Below is the extract from the Manifest file: (note I've even declared the "accessTokenAcceptedVersion": 2, given that optional claims I'm using are not available in ver.1, which if the above was left at default 'null' value then Azure will assume we're using legacy ver.1 - a possible gotcha)
"accessTokenAcceptedVersion": 2,
"optionalClaims": {
"idToken": [
{
"name": "given_name",
"source": "user",
"essential": false,
"additionalProperties": []
},
{
"name": "family_name",
"source": "user",
"essential": false,
"additionalProperties": []
}
],
"accessToken": [],
"saml2Token": []
},
Extract from startup class:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
// Added to original .net core template.
// ASP.NET Core apps access the HttpContext through the IHttpContextAccessor interface and
// its default implementation HttpContextAccessor. It's only necessary to use IHttpContextAccessor
// when you need access to the HttpContext inside a service.
// Example usage - we're using this to retrieve the details of the currrently logged in user in page model actions.
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
// DO NOT DELETE (for now...)
// This 'Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.AzureAD.UI' library was originally used for Azure Ad authentication
// before we implemented the newer Microsoft.Identity.Web and Microsoft.Identity.Web.UI NuGet packages.
// Note after implememting the newer library for authetication, we had to modify the _LoginPartial.cshtml file.
//services.AddAuthentication(AzureADDefaults.AuthenticationScheme)
// .AddAzureAD(options => Configuration.Bind("AzureAd", options));
///////////////////////////////////
// Add services required for using options.
// e.g used for calling Graph Api from WebOptions class, from config file.
services.AddOptions();
// Add service for MS Graph API Service Client.
services.AddTransient<OidcConnectEvents>();
// Sign-in users with the Microsoft identity platform
services.AddSignIn(Configuration);
// Token acquisition service based on MSAL.NET
// and chosen token cache implementation
services.AddWebAppCallsProtectedWebApi(Configuration, new string[] { Constants.ScopeUserRead })
.AddInMemoryTokenCaches();
// Add the MS Graph SDK Client as a service for Dependancy Injection.
services.AddGraphService(Configuration);
///////////////////////////////////
// The following lines code instruct the asp.net core middleware to use the data in the "roles" claim in the Authorize attribute and User.IsInrole()
// See https://learn.microsoft.com/aspnet/core/security/authorization/roles?view=aspnetcore-2.2 for more info.
services.Configure<OpenIdConnectOptions>(OpenIdConnectDefaults.AuthenticationScheme, options =>
{
// The claim in the Jwt token where App roles are available.
options.TokenValidationParameters.RoleClaimType = "roles";
});
// Adding authorization policies that enforce authorization using Azure AD roles. Polices defined in seperate classes.
services.AddAuthorization(options =>
{
options.AddPolicy(AuthorizationPolicies.AssignmentToViewLogsRoleRequired, policy => policy.RequireRole(AppRole.ViewLogs));
});
///////////////////////////////////
services.AddRazorPages().AddMvcOptions(options =>
{
var policy = new AuthorizationPolicyBuilder()
.RequireAuthenticatedUser()
.Build();
options.Filters.Add(new AuthorizeFilter(policy));
}).AddMicrosoftIdentityUI();
// Adds the service for creating the Jwt Token used for calling microservices.
// Note we are using our independant bearer token issuer service here, NOT Azure AD
services.AddScoped<JwtService>();
}
Sample Razor PageModel method:
public void OnGet()
{
var username = HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
var forename = HttpContext.User.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == "given_name")?.Value;
var surname = HttpContext.User.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == "family_name")?.Value;
_logger.LogInformation("" + username + " requested the Index page");
}
UPDATE
Getting closer to a solution but not quite there yet. Couple of issues resolved:
I originally created the Tenant in Azure to use B2C AD, even though I was no longer using B2C and had switched to Azure AD. It wasn't until I deleted the tenant and created a new one before I started to see the optional claims come through to the webapp correctly. After creating the new tenant and assigning the tenant type to use Azure AD, I then found that the 'Token Configuration' menu was now available for configuring the optional claims through the UI, it seems that modifying the App manifest is still required as well, as shown above.
I had to add the 'profile' scope as type 'delegated' to the webapp API Permissions in Azure.
The final issue still unresolved is that although I can see the claims present during Debug, I cant figure out how to retrieve the claim values.
In the method below, I can see the required claims when using Debug, but can't figure out how to retrieve the values:
public void OnGet()
{
var username = HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
var forename = HttpContext.User.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == "given_name")?.Value;
var surname = HttpContext.User.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == "family_name")?.Value;
_logger.LogInformation("" + username + " requested the Index page");
}
Debug Screenshots shows the given_name & family_name are present:
I've tried different code examples using the claims principal to try and get the values out, but nothing is working for me. Hoping this final riddle is fairly simple to someone who knows the required syntax, as said we now have the required optional claims present, its just not knowing how to actually get the values out.
Big thanks to 'Dhivya G - MSFT Identity' for their assistance (see comments below my original question) method below now allows me to access the required claim values from the Token ID returned from Azure following successful login.
public void OnGet()
{
var username = HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
var forename = HttpContext.User.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == ClaimTypes.GivenName)?.Value;
var surname = HttpContext.User.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == ClaimTypes.Surname)?.Value;
_logger.LogInformation("" + username + " requested the Index page");
}
Hi,
We have a .Net Core 2.0 app, with Azure AD authentication.
At the moment we have some users associated with the app that have been given a role for the app in the Azure AD, and are using policies to check authorisation. Due business requirements we want to open the app to any user on the company, so we only need to check that the user is authenticated.
As an experienced C# developer, I went to the controller that had the following code
[Authorize(Policy = PolicyNames.RequireLinecardsUser)]
public class LinecardController : Controller
{
//controller code here
}
and changed it to this
[Authorize]
public class LinecardController : Controller
{
//controller code here
}
and for may user, that still has the role of LinecardUser, it works. it can access the app (the main entry point is inside that controller). But when we tested it with a user that does not have a role in the app, it gets an access denied exception.
So next step we went into startup, and removed the authorisation configurations ( it only had 2 now unused policies).
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
try
{
services.AddDbContext(options =>
{
options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("LinecardsContext"), opt => opt.UseRowNumberForPaging());
});
services.AddAuthentication(options =>
{
options.DefaultScheme = CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme;
options.DefaultAuthenticateScheme = CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme;
options.DefaultChallengeScheme = OpenIdConnectDefaults.AuthenticationScheme;
options.DefaultSignInScheme = CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme;
options.DefaultForbidScheme = OpenIdConnectDefaults.AuthenticationScheme;
})
.AddCookie(options =>
{
options.AccessDeniedPath = "/Account/AccessDenied/";
options.LoginPath = "/Account/Login/";
})
.AddOpenIdConnect(options =>
{
configuration.GetSection("AzureAd").Bind(options);
});
services.AddAuthorization(options =>
{
options.AddPolicy(PolicyNames.RequireLinecardsUser,
policy =>
{
policy.AddRequirements(new LinecardsWebUserRequirement());
policy.RequireAuthenticatedUser(); // Adds DenyAnonymousAuthorizationRequirement
// By adding the CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme, if an authenticated
// user is not in the appropriate role, they will be redirected to a "forbidden" page.
policy.AddAuthenticationSchemes(CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme);
});
options.AddPolicy(PolicyNames.RequireLinecardsAdmin,
policy =>
{
policy.AddRequirements(new LinecardsWebAdminRequirement());
policy.RequireAuthenticatedUser(); // Adds DenyAnonymousAuthorizationRequirement
// By adding the CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme, if an authenticated
// user is not in the appropriate role, they will be redirected to a "forbidden" page.
policy.AddAuthenticationSchemes(CookieAuthenticationDefaults.AuthenticationScheme);
});
});
services.AddScoped();
services.RegisterTypes();
services.AddReact();
services.AddAutoMapper();
services.Configure(x => x.ValueCountLimit = 100000);
services.AddMvc();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Log.Error(ex, "Error happened on configuring services");
throw;
}
}
That means that in the previous code we removed the services.AddAuthentication(); block. Same result, users that have roles can access the app, users that don't cannot. (tried with the browser in anonymous mode too, to make sure no caching problems were in action here).
Finally we tried to change the RequireLinecardsUser policy, so it didn't have the policy.AddRequirements(new LinecardsWebUserRequirement()); line (and changed the controller to the original authorization line with the policy.
Once again, same results, works fine for me, access denied for users that don't have a role.
Am I missing something obvious? Something that changed in Core 2.0? Something Azure related?
Because every documentation that I found says that the [Authorize] annotation without any arguments should work and intended, and only verify that user is authenticated before allowing the code to procede...
As some of you may have noticed the app has a react frontend that I haven't touched, feel free to point any problems that may be related with that.
PPS: Sorry if the formatting is not up to standard, but it's my first question
After some more tests with this app, an exception pointed to Azure being the culprit for this.
On the app properties in Azure there is an option asking "User assignment required?". That particular setting was set to yes for this app.
Changing it to no solved the problem.
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 am building a REST API for a DotNetNuke 6 website, making use of DNN's MVC-based Services Framework. However, I don't have any background in authentication, so I'm not even sure where to start.
Basically, we want our clients to be able to make GET requests for their portal's data, and we want some clients (but not all) to be able to POST simple updates to their user data.
I've been trying to search for information, but the trouble is I'm not sure what I'm searching for. DNN has different logins and roles, but I'm not sure if or how they factor in. I've heard of things like oAuth but my understanding of it is at the most basic level. I don't know if it's what I need or not and if or how it applies to DNN. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
UPDATE:
Based on the answer below about tying it with a module and further research, here is what I have done:
I created a module just for this service, and I added two special permissions for it: "APIGET" and "APIPOST." I assigned these to some test roles/test accounts in DNN. I wrote a custom authorize attribute that, given the module ID, checks if the current user has the necessary permission (either through roles or directly). As far as I can tell, tab ID is irrelevant in my case.
It appears to be working both with a web browser (based on the DNN account I'm logged into) and with a php script that sends an HTTP request with an account username/password.
The authorize attribute:
using DotNetNuke.Entities.Modules;
using DotNetNuke.Entities.Portals;
using DotNetNuke.Security;
using DotNetNuke.Security.Permissions;
using System.Web;
public class MyAuthorize : DotNetNuke.Web.Services.AuthorizeAttributeBase
{
public const string AuthModuleFriendlyName = "MyAuthModule";
public const string GETPermission = "APIGET";
public const string POSTPermission = "APIPOST";
public string Permission { get; set; }
protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase context)
{
ModuleController mc = new ModuleController();
ModuleInfo mi = mc.GetModuleByDefinition(PortalController.GetCurrentPortalSettings().PortalId, AuthModuleFriendlyName);
ModulePermissionCollection permCollection = mi.ModulePermissions;
return ModulePermissionController.HasModulePermission(permCollection, Permission);
}
}
The controller:
("mytest" is the endpoint for both GET and POST)
public class MyController : DnnController
{
[ActionName("mytest")]
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Get)]
[DnnAuthorize(AllowAnonymous = true)]
[MyAuthorize(Permission = MyAuthorize.GETPermission)]
public string myget(string id = "")
{
return "You have my permission to GET";
}
[ActionName("mytest")]
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
[DnnAuthorize(AllowAnonymous = true)]
[MyAuthorize(Permission = MyAuthorize.POSTPermission)]
public string mypost(string id = "")
{
return "You have my permission to POST";
}
}
The main way that you tie a service in the DNN Services Framework into DNN permissions is to associate the permissions with a module instance. That is, you'll require users of your service to identify which module they're calling from/about (by sending ModuleId and TabId in the request [headers, query-string, cookies, form]), then you can indicate what permissions they need on that module to take a particular action on the service.
You can use the SupportedModules attribute on your service, and pass in a comma-delimited list of module names, to ensure that only your own modules are being allowed. Then, add the DnnModuleAuthorize attribute at the service or individual action level to say what permission the user needs on that module. In your instance, you can also add the AllowAnonymous attribute on the GET actions, and have one DnnModuleAuthorize on the service, for the POST methods (and anything else). Note that you cannot put the AllowAnonymous attribute on the controller; it will override authorizations put at the action, making it impossible to make actions more restrictive.
You'll also want to add the ValidateAntiForgeryToken attribute on the POST actions, to protect against CSRF attacks.
If you don't have a module that naturally associates its permissions with your service, you can create one just for that purpose, solely to expose itself as a permissions management utility.
Once you've figured out the authorization piece above, DNN will take care of authentication using your forms cookie (i.e. AJAX scenarios are taken care of automatically), or via basic or digest authentication (for non-AJAX scenarios). That said, if you're doing non-AJAX, you'll need to figure out a way to validate the anti-forgery token only when it applies.
The Services Framework in DNN is what you are after. It allows you to provide a REST API that plugs directly into DNN security.
Here are some articles to help you get started:
http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Resources/Wiki/Page/Services-Framework-WebAPI.aspx
http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Resources/Blogs/EntryId/3327/Getting-Started-with-DotNetNuke-Services-Framework.aspx
Note, there are some difference in DNN 6 and DNN 7 when using the Services Framework:
http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Resources/Blogs/EntryId/3514/Converting-Services-Framework-MVC-to-WebAPI.aspx
Just wanted to note that the DnnModuleAuthorize attribute takes a PermissionKey parameter for custom permissions so you can do stuff like this:
[DnnModuleAuthorize(PermissionKey = "DELETEDATA")]
[HttpPost]
public HttpResponseMessage DeleteData(FormDataCollection data)
It doesn't look like you can supply your own error message with this so you might to wrap your method body like this instead and leave off the custom permission attribute:
[DnnModuleAuthorize(AccessLevel = SecurityAccessLevel.View)]
[HttpPost]
public HttpResponseMessage DeleteData(FormDataCollection data)
{
var errorMessage = "Could not delete data";
if (ModulePermissionController.HasModulePermission(ActiveModule.ModulePermissions,"DELETEDATA"))
{
// do stuff here
}
else
{
errorMessage = "User does not have delete permission";
}
var error = new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest)
{
Content =
new StringContent(
errorMessage)
};
return error;
}
Just wanted to add to #Richards comment for using the [DnnModuleAuthorize(PermissionKey = "DELETEDATA")] for custom permissions.
The full attribute should be:
[DnnModuleAuthorize(PermissionKey = "DELETEDATA", AccessLevel = SecurityAccessLevel.Edit)]
Leaving it blank does nothing as shown here: https://github.com/dnnsoftware/Dnn.Platform/blob/f4a5924c7cc8226cfe79bbc92357ec1a32165ada/DNN%20Platform/Library/Security/Permissions/PermissionProvider.cs#L810
I guess you require a plugin that allows you to construct GET and POST APIs. you can use this plugin I found on the DNN store. https://store.dnnsoftware.com/dnn-rest-api-custom-api-authentication-authorization.
I have a situation where I am using the following code to verify user membership in AD before executing tasks in my app
using System.Security.Principal;
WindowsIdentity identity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent();
WindowsPrincipal principal = new WindowsPrincipal(identity);
return principal.IsInRole("someGroup");
The above code works fine for machines on my domain, however I do have some machines which are not on my domain on which I have the WINFORM application installed. How can I verify the user membership in AD?
Edit - is there a way to prompt the windows login?
Since your computer is not joined to domain at all, we cannot use WindowsIdentity or WindowsPrincipal and then check its IsInRole() method. The IsInRole() method works only if your computer is joined to the domain and it's using your domain machine account to do S4USelf.
You cannot use LogonUser approach too because your computer won't let you create a logon session from an untrusted forest.
I think we can only query the Active Directory directly to get the information we want. The code in your posted Microsoft KB does not work very well as far as I can tell. It's trying to query from memberOf attribute. The group information is not always available from the memberOf attributes.
I just wrote an IsInRole() function using AccountManagement. I guess this is what you want. The IsInRole() function will call a recursive function IsInGroup() to find out all the groups the user belongs to.
private bool IsInRole(string domain, string username, string password, string role)
{
using (var context = new PrincipalContext(ContextType.Domain, domain, username, password))
{
GroupPrincipal group = GroupPrincipal.FindByIdentity(context, IdentityType.SamAccountName, role);
UserPrincipal user = UserPrincipal.FindByIdentity(context, IdentityType.SamAccountName, username);
return IsInGroup(user, group);
}
}
private bool IsInGroup(Principal principal, GroupPrincipal group )
{
if (principal.IsMemberOf(group))
return true;
foreach (var g in principal.GetGroups())
{
if (IsInGroup(g, group))
return true;
}
return false;
}
To use this IsInRole() function, you need to provide your domain name and domain credentials. If the username and password provided are wrong, you will get an exception.
You need .NET 3.5 SP1 to use AccountManagement API. Also, you may like to pay attention to this hotfix. The AccountManagement API got some bugs if running in some environment. You may need to apply the hotfix.