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.
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 would like to know how we can log the generated Refresh & AccessToken in IdentityServer 4.
Currently, we've got the custom implementation about the JwtAccessToken and we writes it + userId/name to the central logging system whenever it generates a new Access token. For Apis (we've more than 10), it always writes all incoming requests + JwtToken to the same logging system. So, we can easily trace what the user had done and see the logs/values at that particular time.
Now, we are going to replace that custom security implementation with IDSV4 and we couldn't find out a way to log the generated token in IDSV4.
We know that we can get the Access Token in .Net App by using await HttpContext.GetAccessTokenAsync(). But we don't want to manually send a log from all our apps (.Net, Spas, Apis (Client Credentials)) which are going to integrate with IDSV. We want to manage that AccessToken logging in a central place as we did before.
I looked at the IDSV4 sourcecode TokenEndpoint.cs Line120, LogTokens()
if (response.IdentityToken != null)
{
_logger.LogTrace("Identity token issued for {clientId} / {subjectId}: {token}", clientId, subjectId, response.IdentityToken);
}
if (response.RefreshToken != null)
{
_logger.LogTrace("Refresh token issued for {clientId} / {subjectId}: {token}", clientId, subjectId, response.RefreshToken);
}
if (response.AccessToken != null)
{
_logger.LogTrace("Access token issued for {clientId} / {subjectId}: {token}", clientId, subjectId, response.AccessToken);
}
Actually, they write the TraceLogs for the actual tokens. But we don't want to update the log level to Trace because it'll flood our logging system.
So, I would like to know whether it's possible to implement a feature to write a generated tokens to a log whenever IDSV4 issues an AccessToken. Is there anyway to intercept these tokens after the generation?
Or do we have to manually log AccessTokens whenever it's generated or refreshed in all our clients?
Update:
Thanks to sellotape for giving me an idea for DI. The following is the correct class to intercept the generated Token:
public class CustomTokenResponseGenerator : TokenResponseGenerator
{
public CustomTokenResponseGenerator(ISystemClock clock, ITokenService tokenService, IRefreshTokenService refreshTokenService, IResourceStore resources, IClientStore clients, ILogger<TokenResponseGenerator> logger) : base(clock, tokenService, refreshTokenService, resources, clients, logger)
{
}
public override async Task<TokenResponse> ProcessAsync(TokenRequestValidationResult request)
{
var result = await base.ProcessAsync(request);
// write custom loggings here
return result;
}
}
After that you can replace default class from IDSV4 with your custom class
services.Replace(ServiceDescriptor.Transient<ITokenResponseGenerator, CustomTokenResponseGenerator>());
There are many places to hook in for this; one is to create your own implementation of ITokenService by deriving from DefaultTokenService.
Override CreateAccessTokenAsync() and have it do:
Token result = await base.CreateAccessTokenAsync(request);
// Your logging goes here...
return result;
Swap in your version in your DI container at Startup (make sure it's after the default one has already been added):
services.Replace<ITokenService, MyTokenService>();
... and you should be ready.
As an aside, you should really log hashes of your tokens and not the tokens themselves. You can still match requests and actions to users based on the hash, but then at least nobody will be able to use the logging data to impersonate any of your users.
I am persisting reference tokens to a db, my users have the ability to change or get a generated password. But if for example a user have forgotten their password and gets a new generated one then i would like to invalidate/remove all current tokens for this subject. Is it a good idea/acceptable to interact directly with the db via efcore or is there a api for this besides the /connect/revocation endpoint?
There is no problem in interacting with the database, but use the existing services to do this.
In IdentityService you can find the stores in the IdentityServer4.Stores namespace.
using IdentityServer4.Stores;
Inject the store in your controller:
private readonly IReferenceTokenStore _referenceTokenStore;
public class MyController : Controller
{
public MyController(IReferenceTokenStore referenceTokenStore)
{
_referenceTokenStore = referenceTokenStore;
}
}
And call it to remove the reference tokens for this user / client combination:
await _referenceTokenStore.RemoveReferenceTokensAsync(subjectId, clientId);
This will effectively remove the records from the database. You shouldn't create your own model of the database and remove the tokens directly.
Since IdentityServer is open source, you can take a look at the code that is used for token revocation.
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 am referencing #MinWan 's awesome answer in this post Google Cloud Endpoints and user's authentication, where he describes a way to add custom headers to a request against App Engine's Cloud Endpoints.
It becomes clear that we can add a custom header and write an authenticator per each service (e.g. Google, Twitter, Facebook) against which we want to authenicate, where each authenticator reads a specific header and authenticates against the service. If the token is valid, a service typically returns a response with an email address or user id, plus some extra information [A], from which we generate a com.google.api.server.spi.auth.common.User, which is later passed into the endpoint method as com.google.appengine.api.users.User.
First question: Why do we have two different User entities, e.g. users with different namespaces? As it seems, these are neither sub/superclasses, so they are possibly explicitly cast behind the scenes.
Second question: The problem that comes with the explicitly cast User entity and that there is no custom field where I could put the extra information [A] returned by the service, is that the extra information is lost. Such extra information may be helpful for matching the oauth2 user of the external service to a local user or to oauth2 users returned by other services.
Any input? What's the suggested way of handling multiple authentication services?
Just tested, and you can definitely subclass User to contain whichever private fields you want. Just use class inheritance polymorphism to return an object of that type from the Authenticator method, without changing the type from default User in the method signature.
import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest;
import com.google.api.server.spi.auth.common.User;
import com.google.api.server.spi.config.Authenticator;
public class BazUser extends User {
private String secret; // extra piece of data held by this User
public BazUser(String email) {
super(email);
this.secret = "notasecret";
}
public BazUser (String email, String secret) {
super (email);
this.secret = secret;
}
}
public class BazAuthenticator implements Authenticator {
public User authenticate(HttpServletRequest req) {
return new BazUser ("userid#baz.com", "secret");
}
}
Functionally, everything works with:
import com.google.api.server.spi.auth.common.User;
even with gradle:
compile 'com.google.endpoints:endpoints-framework:2.0.0-beta.11'
The IDE warning can be cleared by including #SuppressWarnings("ResourceParameter") as follows:
/**
* Adds a new PmpUser.
*
* #param pmpUser pmpUser object
*/
#SuppressWarnings("ResourceParameter")
#ApiMethod(
name = "pmpUser.post",
path = "pmpUser",
httpMethod = ApiMethod.HttpMethod.POST)
...