I want to provide controlled access to data which is stored in multiple tables. The access is decided based on certain run-time attributes associated with the user. I am looking for a solution which is extensible, performant as well as highly secured.
ILLUSTRATION:
There is a framework level module which stores authorization/access related data for multiple other modules. Then there are n numbers of modules which manage their own life cycle objects. e.g. module Test1 has 1000 instances which are created and stored in its base table. As framework solution I want to protect access to this data by users hence I created a notion of privileges and stored their mapping to user in my own table. Now to provide controlled access to data, my aim is that a user is shown only the objects to which he/she has access to.
Approaches in my mind:
I use oracle database and currently we are using VPD (virtual private database) so here we add a policy on each of the base table of above mentioned modules which firstly evaluates the access of currently logged in user from the privileges given to him and then that data is appended into all the query to each of the base tables of other modules (by default by database itself).
PROS: very efficient and highly secured solution.
CONS: Can not work if the base tables and our current table are in two different schema. May be two different schema in the same database instance can be overcome but some of my integrator systems might be in separate databases altogether.
Design at java layer:
We connect to our DB's through JPA data sources. So I can write a thin layer basically a wrapper of sorts over EntityManager and then replicate what VPD does for me that is firstly get the access related data from my tables then use a monitored query on the table of my integrator and then may be cache the data into a caching server(optimization).
CONS: I want to use it in production system hence want to get it done in the first shot. Want to know any patterns which are already implemented in the industry.
I do not think your solution are flexible enough to work well in a complex scenario like yours. If you have very simple queries, then yes, you can design something like SQL screener at database or "java" level and then just pass all your queries through.
But this is not flexible. As soon as your queries will start to grow complex, improving this query screener will become tremendously difficult since it is not a part of bussiness logic and cannot know the details of your permission system.
I suggest you implement some access checks in your service layer. Service must know for which user it generates or processes the data. Move query generation logic to repositories and have your services call different repository methods depending on user permissions for example. Or just customize repository calls with parameters depending on user permissions.
We would like to give some of our customers the option to read data from our central database. The data is live and new records are being added every few seconds. Our database is MySQL running on Amazon RDS.
I was wondering what is the common practice for doing so.
One option would be to give them select right from specific tables, in that case they would be able to access other customers' data as well.
I have tried searching for database, interface, and API key words and some other key words, but I couldn't find a good answer.
Thanks!
Use REST for exposing specific tables to do CRUD operations. You can control the access on it too.
I have 4 new data entry users who are using a particular GUI to create/update/delete entries in our main database. The "GUI" client allows them to see database records on a map and make modifications there, which is fine and preferred way of doing it.
But lately lot of guys have been accessing local database directly using PGAdmin and running bulk queries (i.e. update, insert, delete,etc) which introduces lot of problems like people updating lot of records without knowing or making mistakes while setting values. It also effects our logging procedures as we are calculating averages and time stamps for reporting purposes which are quite crucial to us.
So is there a way to prevent users from using PGAdmin (please remember lot of these guys are working from home and we do not have access to their machines) and running SQL queries directly in the database.
We still have to give them access to certain tables and allow them to execute sql as long as it's coming through a certain client but deny access to same user when he/she tries to execute a query directly in the db.
The only sane way to control access to your database is converting your db access methods to 3-tier structure. You should build a middleware (maybe some rest API or something alike) and use this API from your app. Database should be hidden behind this middleware, so no direct access is possible. From DB point of view, there are no ways to tell if one database connection is from your app, or from some other tool (pgadmin, simple psql or some custom build client). Your database should be accessible only from trusted hosts and clients should not have access to those hosts.
This is only possible if you use a trick (which might get exploited, too, but maybe your users are not smart enought).
In your client app set some harmless parameter like geqo_pool_size=1001 (if it is 1000 normally).
Now write a trigger that checks if this parameter is set and outputs "No access through PGAdmin" if this parameter is not set like from your app (and the username is not your admin username).
Alternatives: Create a temporary table and check for its existance.
I believe you should block direct access to the database, and set an application to which your clients (humans and software ones) will be able to connect.
Let this application filter and pass only allowed commands.
A great care should be taken in the filtering - I would carefully think whether raw SQL would be allowed at all. Personally, I would design some simplified API, which would make me sure that a hypothetical client-attacker (In God we trust, all others we monitor) would not find a way to sneak with some dangerous modification.
I suppose that from security standpoint your current approach is very unsafe.
You should study advanced pg_hba.conf settings.
this file is the key point for use authorization. Basic settings imply only simple authentification methods like passwords and lists of IP, but you can have some more advanced solution.
GSSAPI
kerberos
SSPI
Radius server
any pam method
So your official client can use a more advanced method, like somthing with a third tier API, some really complex authentification mechanism. Then without using the application it will at least becomes difficult to redo these tasks. If the kerberos key is encrypted in your client, for example.
What you want to do is to REVOKE your users write access, then create a new role with write access, then as this role you CREATE FUNCTION defined as SECURITY DEFINER, which updates the table in a way you allow with integrity checks, then GRANT EXECUTE access to this function for your users.
There is an answer on this topic on ServerFault which references the following blog entry with detailed description.
I believe that using middleware as other answers suggest is an unnecessary overkill in your situation. The above solution does not require for the users to change the way they access the database, just restricts their right to modify the data only through the predefined server side methods.
I'd like to have a single instance of Solr, protected by some sort of authentication, that operated against different indexes based on the credentials used for that authentication. The type of authentication is flexible, although I'd prefer to work with open standards (existing or emerging), if possible.
The core problem I'm attempting to solve is that different users of the application (potentially) have access to different data stored in it, and a user should not be able to search over inaccessible data. Building an index for each user seems the easiest way to guarantee that one user doesn't see forbidden data. Is there, perhaps, an easier way? One that would obviate the need for Solr to have a way to map users to indexes?
Thanks.
The Solr guys have a pretty exhaustive overview of what is possible, see http://wiki.apache.org/solr/MultipleIndexes
My previous job involved maintenance and programming for a very large database with massive amounts of data. Users viewed this data primarily through an intranet web interface. Instead of having a table of user accounts, each user account was a real first-class account in the RDBMS, which permitted them to connect with their own query tools, etc., as well as permitting us to control access through the RDBMS itself instead of using our own application logic.
Is this a good setup, assuming you're not on the public intranet and dealing with potentially millions of (potentially malicious) users or something? Or is it always better to define your own means of handling user accounts, your own permissions, your own application security logic, and only hand out RDBMS accounts to power users with special needs?
I don't agree that using the database for user access control is as dangerous others are making it out to be. I come from the Oracle Forms Development realm, where this type of user access control is the norm. Just like any design decision, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.
One of the advantages is that I could control select/insert/update/delete privileges for EACH table from a single setting in the database. On one system we had 4 different applications (managed by different teams and in different languages) hitting the same database tables. We were able to declare that only users with the Manager role were able to insert/update/delete data in a specific table. If we didn't manage it through the database, then each application team would have to correctly implement (duplicate) that logic throughout their application. If one application got it wrong, then the other apps would suffer. Plus you would have duplicate code to manage if you ever wanted to change the permissions on a single resource.
Another advantage is that we did not need to worry about storing user passwords in a database table (and all the restrictions that come with it).
I don't agree that "Database user accounts are inherently more dangerous than anything in an account defined by your application". The privileges required to change database-specific privileges are normally MUCH tougher than the privileges required to update/delete a single row in a "PERSONS" table.
And "scaling" was not a problem because we assigned privileges to Oracle roles and then assigned roles to users. With a single Oracle statement we could change the privilege for millions of users (not that we had that many users).
Application authorization is not a trivial problem. Many custom solutions have holes that hackers can easily exploit. The big names like Oracle have put a lot of thought and code into providing a robust application authorization system. I agree that using Oracle security doesn't work for every application. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it in favor of a custom solution.
Edit: I should clarify that despite anything in the OP, what you're doing is logically defining an application even if no code exists. Otherwise it's just a public database with all the dangers that entails by itself.
Maybe I'll get flamed to death for this post, but I think this is an extraordinarily dangerous anti-pattern in security and design terms.
A user object should be defined by the system it's running in. If you're actually defining these in another application (the database) you have a loss of control.
It makes no sense from a design point of view because if you wanted to extend those accounts with any kind of data at all (email address, employee number, MyTheme...) you're not going to be able to extend the DB user and you're going to need to build that users table anyway.
Database user accounts are inherently more dangerous than anything in an account defined by your application because they could be promoted, deleted, accessed or otherwise manipulated by not only the database and any passing DBA, but anything else connected to the database. You've exposed a critical system element as public.
Scaling is out of the question. Imagine an abstraction where you're going to have tens or hundreds of thousands of users. That's just not going to manageable as DB accounts, but as records in a table it's just data. The age old argument of "well there's onyl ever going to be X users" doesn't hold any water with me because I've seen very limited internal apps become publicly exposed when the business feels it's could add value to the customer or the company just got bought by a giant partner who now needs access. You must plan for reasonable extensibility.
You're not going to be able to share conn pooling, you're not going to be any more secure than if you just created a handful of e.g. role accounts, and you're not necessarily going to be able to affect mass changes when you need to, or backup effectively.
All in there seems to be numerous serious problems to me, and I imagine other more experienced SOers could list more.
I think generally. In your traditional database application they shouldnt be. For all the reason already given. In a traditional database application there is a business layer that handles all the security and this is because there is such a strong line between people who interact with the application, and people who interact with the database.
In this situation is is generally better to manage these users and roles yourself. You can decide what information you need to store about them, and what you log and audit. And most importantly you define access based on pure business rules rather than database rules. Its got nothing to do with which tables they access and everything to do with whether they can insert business action here. However these are not technical issues. These are design issues. If that is what you are required to control then it makes sense to manage your users yourself.
You have described a system where you allow users to query the database directly. In this case why not use DB accounts. They will do the job far better than you will if you attempt to analyse the querys that users write and vet them against some rules that you have designed. That to me sounds like a nightmare system to write and maintain.
Don't lock things down because you can. Explain to those in charge what the security implications are but dont attempt to prevent people from doing things because you can. Especially not when they are used to accessing the data directly.
Our job as developers is to enable people to do what they need to do. And in the situation you have described. Specifically connect to the database and query it with their own tools. Then I think that anything other than database accounts is either going to be insecure, or unneccasarily restrictive.
"each user account was a real first-class account in the RDBMS, which permitted them to connect with their own query tools, etc.,"
not a good idea if the RDBMS contains:
any information covered by HIPAA or Sarbanes-Oxley or The Official Secrets Act (UK)
credit card information or other customer credit info (POs, lines of credit etc)
personal information (ssn, dob, etc)
competitive, proprietary, or IP information
because when users can use their own non-managed query tools the company has no way of knowing or auditing what information was queried or where the query results were delivered.
oh and what #annakata said.
I would avoid giving any user database access. Later, when this starts causing problems, taking away their access becomes very dificult.
At the very least, give them access to a read-only replica of the database so they can't kill your whole company with a bad query.
A lot of database query tools are very advanced these days, and it can feel a real shame to reimplement the world just to add restrictions. And as long as the database user permissions are properly locked down it might be okay. However in many cases you can't do this, you should be exposing a high-level API to the database to insert objects over many tables properly, without the user needing specific training that they should "just add an address into that table there, why isn't it working?".
If they only want to use the data to generate reports in Excel, etc, then maybe you could use a reporting front end like BIRT instead.
So basically: if the users are knowledgeable about databases, and resources to implement a proper front-end are low, keep on doing this. However is the resource does come up, it is probably time to get people's requirements in for creating a simpler, task-oriented front-end for them.
This is, in a way, similar to: is sql server/AD good for anything
I don't think it's a bad idea to throw your security model, at least a basic one, in the database itself. You can add restrictions in the application layer for cosmetics, but whichever account the user is accessing the database with, be it based on the application or the user, it's best if that account is restricted to only the operations the user is allowed.
I don't speak for all apps, but there are a large number I have seen where capturing the password is as simple as opening the code in notepad, using an included dll to decrypt the configuration file, or finding a backup file (e.g. web.config.bak in asp.net) that can be accessed from the browser.
*not a good idea if the RDBMS contains:
* any information covered by HIPAA or Sarbanes-Oxley or The Official Secrets Act (UK)
* credit card information or other customer credit info (POs, lines of credit etc)
* personal information (ssn, dob, etc)
* competitive, proprietary, or IP information*
Not true, one can perfectly manage which data a database user can see and which data it can modify. A database (at least Oracle) can also audit all activities, including selects. To have thousands of database users is also perfectly normal.
It is more difficult to build good secure applications because you have to program this security, a database offers this security and you can configure it in a declarative way, no code required.
I know, I am replying to a very old post, but recently came across same situation in my current project. I was also thinking on similar lines, whether "Application users be Database users?".
This is what I analysed:
Definitely it doesn't make sense to create that big number of application users on database(if your application is going to be used by many users).
Let's say you created X(huge number) of users on database. You are opening a clear gateway to your database.
Let's take a scenario for the solution:
There are two types of application users (Managers and Assistant). Both needs access to database for some transactions.
It's obvious you would create two roles, one for each type(Manager and Assistant) in database. But how about database user to connect from application. If you create one account per user then you would end up linearly creating the accounts on the database.
What I suggest:
Create one database account per Role. (Let's say Manager_Role_Account)
Let your application have business logic to map an application user with corresponding role.(User Tom with Manager role to Manager_Role_Account)
Use the database user(Manager_Role_Account) corresponding to identified role in #2 to connect to database and execute your query.
Hope this makes sense!
Updated: As I said, I came across similar situation in my project (with respect to Postgresql database at back end and a Java Web app at front end), I found something very useful called as Proxy Authentication.
This means that you can login to the database as one user but limit or extend your privileges based on the Proxy user.
I found very good links explaining the same.
For Postgresql below Choice of authentication approach for
financial app on PostgreSQL
For Oracle Proxy Authentication
Hope this helps!
It depends (like most things).
Having multiple database users negates connection pooling, since most libraries handle pooling based on connection strings and user accounts.
On the other hand, it's probably a more secure solution than anything you or I will do from scratch. It leaves security up to the OS and Database server, which I trust much more than myself. However, this is only the case if you go to the effort to configure the database permissions well. If you're using a bunch of OS/db users with the same permissions,it won't help much. You'll still get an audit trail, but that's about it.
All that said, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable letting normal users connect directly to the database with their own tools.
I think it's worth highlighting what other answers have touched upon:
A database can only define restrictions based on the data. Ie restrict select/insert/update/delete on particular tables or columns. I'm sure some databases can do somewhat cleverer things, but they'll never be able to implement business-rule based restrictions like an application can. What if a certain user is allowed to update a column only to certain values (say <1000) or only increase prices, or change either of two columns but not both?
I'd say unless you are absolutely sure you'll never need anything but table/column granularity, this is reason enough by itself.
This is not a good idea for any application where you store data for multiple users in the same table and you don't want one user to be able to read or modify another user's data. How would you restrict access in this case?