Let's say I want to create simple database, for a simple book store application. I think i should have minimum two users: admin, which has privileges to create, modify and drop objects and user, having just select and insert privileges.
I am a little confused here. Should I create a user account with normal schema or with empty schema? Should the user has privileges to select and query from admin schema which contains tables or it is a user schema that should contain these tables?
There are many different ways to approach this sort of problem. So a great deal depends on your application architecture.
You would generally create one database account that owns the database objects-- tables, packages, views, etc. Let's call this account BOOKSTORE_OWNER. This account would generally be locked so that no one could log in as BOOKSTORE_OWNER other during periodic builds.
Beyond that starting point, however, there are a host of reasonable ways to deal with authentication and authorization. If you wanted to let the database handle both, you would create two roles-- BOOKSTORE_USER and BOOKSTORE_ADMIN. Those roles would be given appropriate privileges on the objects owned by BOOKSTORE_OWNER. You would then create a database user for every person that can use the application and grant the appropriate role to each new user. So if you're an admin and I'm a user, the database account dygi would be created and granted the BOOKSTORE_ADMIN role while the database account Justin would be created and granted the BOOKSTORE_USER role.
This approach worked quite well when people were building client-server applications. If you are using a three-tier application, on the other hand, you want the middle tier connection pool to use the same credentials to connect to the database rather than having each user have their own database connections. The simplest way to accomplish this is to create a single BOOKSTORE_APP database account, grant that account all the privileges of the BOOKSTORE_ADMIN and BOOKSTORE_USER role, and then let the application implement the logic to figure out which front end user has what privileges. This would generally entail a USER, PRIVILEGE, and USER_PRIVILEGE table in the BOOKSTORE_OWNER schema. This approach can work quite well. The downside, though, is that every application has to build its own logic for managing privileges which can get quite complex over time. It also can make it somewhat difficult to report on what privileges users have or to ensure that a user's privileges are kept up to date when users leave the organization or move to a new role.
Oracle in particular addresses many of these challenges by allowing proxy authentication. This allows you to mix the benefits of the client-server approach where every user has their own database account that leverages Oracle's existing privilege management infrastructure with the connection pooling benefits of using a shared database account. This works very well but only works with Oracle and then only with certain protocols (OCI and JDBC) so it is not terribly popular.
Of course, beyond these basics, you can get into quite a bit of complexity. You may want to have enterprise users where Oracle doesn't maintain the password but instead allows the user to authenticate against an external LDAP directory. You may want to manage privileges with LDAP roles rather than with rows in application-specific tables. You may want to integrate with various middle-tier single sign-on (SSO) solutions.
Related
The Problem
Good Morning! I work on an application team that supports a few applications which utilize SQL Server for data storage. Recently, our Database Support team decided that SQL Authentication was no longer permissible (for security and logging reasons) and so my team was forced to convert all connections to Windows Authentication including several dedicated Service IDs that our applications had been utilizing for data retrieval.
First, let me say there most certainly are advantages to moving to Windows Authentication, I am not trying to dispute that. But this change has raised a huge problem for us... by switching our Service IDs to Windows Authentication we have now opened up our back-end databases to every internal business user with front-end application access.
MS Access is pushed out to every user desktop and a few superusers even have access to SSMS. At this point we are relying entirely on user ignorance to prevent internal users from accessing the back-end database directly. And given that certain roles have elevated DML rights, this presents a possibility for some nasty data consequences.
This new enterprise standard has left my team stuck between a rock and a hard place at this point so we looking for any database, account or architecture solution that would allow us to restrict user access to front-end only.
Questions
Has anyone else run into this problem? Is there an architectural solution we are missing that would allow us to eliminate SQL Authentication without exposing our databases?
Does anyone know of a way to restrict access to a SQL Server database to only certain connection methods? I'm wondering if there is a way to designate a specific ID (or role) as only allowing a connection through a front end (and eliminate ODBC connections entirely).
Does anyone have any clever workarounds?
-------------EDIT---------------
A couple people brought up a good point about role access so I wanted to clarify our former and current solution... Previously, all role access was managed on the front-end and data retrieval was handled entirely by private system SQL Authenticated IDs to which end users had no visibility.
When we were forced to eliminate these SQL Auth IDs, we created a similar role-based setup on the back-end database as existed on the front end. Active Directory Groups were created to house different groups of users and these groups were assigned specific role privileges in the database. So currently access is limited by role as much as feasible.
The problem is that even the lowest privileged roles have INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE access to some tables (access which is normally controlled through code). So while we were able to mitigate risk somewhat by utilizing database roles, we still have areas where a user can bypass front end protections by logging directly into the database.
EDIT: Question clarification makes this answer obsolete, but leaving it for reference since some comments discuss it.
Assuming you mean that you have to (based on your architecture) allow access to the DB to each windows user account, one options is to use database roles.
You disable public access to your database, then define a set of database roles, depending on your use cases. Each role is granted permissions such that members of that role are able to manipulate the data they need and or work with the objects they need. Users are then mapped into the roles they require. When connecting to your database, the user will be granted permissions according to the roles they are members of.
For example, we have a role in one of our databases named MyAppUser (our name is actually related to the app which uses the db), which is designed for end users to read and insert data only. These can be created simply as follows:
CREATE ROLE [MyAppUser]
The role is granted just the permissions it to the relevant schemas or tables (assume all our "public" tables are in dbo schema for now).
GRANT SELECT ON SCHEMA::[dbo] TO [MyAppUser]
GRANT INSERT ON SCHEMA::[dbo] TO [MyAppUser]
GRANT DELETE ON SCHEMA::[dbo] TO [MyAppUser]
Each user who should have this public read-write access is then mapped into the relevant role.
ALTER ROLE [MyAppUser] ADD MEMBER [UserName]
This separates users and roles / permissions within your database and allows you to have a single point of entry to control who has access to what in your databases.
By having the "View Definition" permission denied by default (to end users), they won't be able to "explore" the database / view table definitions etc using access, or even SSMS.
NB: SSMS provides wizards for managing and viewing permissions and memberships which are very handy for getting things initially setup / tested / fiddled around with.
Microsoft recommends using Windows authentication when connecting a Windows application to an SQL server database.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/89211k9b.aspx
I understand this to mean that the database must have a user with enough permissions to manipulate data and that user links to the currently logged in Windows user. If this is true, how do I prevent the user from bypassing the application and simply modifying data directly in the database?
It seems like I am stuck between using Windows Authentication and potentially allowing users to modify data directly in the database, or attempting to hide the connection string password somewhere so only the app can modify this data.
If you're that concerned about it, you can implement a logon trigger on the server that for certain people (e.g. members of a certain Windows group), they can't log in unless the application name has a certain value. Note that this is weak security since it's pretty easy to set the application name (even in SSMS). It can/will slow down the logon process, though. So keep that in mind if that's a concern for you.
Alternatively, you can have your application authenticate to and interact with an application server, after which the application server connects to and interacts with the database. The application server can run as a service account, to which you'd grant the permissions you need. This way, the end users' accounts aren't in the database to do raw DML against the db.
But I agree with the other answer here: stored procedures are the classic answer to this question.
It is possible to create stored procedures / views etc and only allow the user permission on those. This prevents the user from accessing the database structure directly, and you maintain control over what the user can do (via creating the functionality in the stored procedures / views). If using windows credentials, I think that this would be the best solution.
This site explains how to grant there permission on stored procedures.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345484.aspx
Here is the list of options, for posterity:
Windows authentication only
Pros: simple, No secret to hide.
Cons: user can easily modify data bypassing your app
Password in connection string
Pros: simple, prevents user meddling in your db's.
Cons: have to hide a password yourself, which is always the worst option.
Sprocs access
Create sprocs to access your data, grant access only to those sprocs. No one but the dbo can alter tables.
Pros: Tightest control over what both the user and the application can do to the data
Cons: Higher coupling of database and application; more expensive than the first 2 options.
Proxy
Create a second executable, whether a web or a windows service, with which your GUI application communicates. The 2nd executable can run with different, securely hidden credentials (IIS, Windows Services).
Pros: Decoupled database and executable, securely hidden secrets.
Cons: By far the most expensive solution.
I have a rich client program installed on users PCs where I want to start storing some user created data on SQL Azure/SQL Server. The potential anonymous-to-me users would key in their name, email account and a password which would get stored on SQL Azure/SQL Server. Then they would start generating their own data. I'm anticipating volumes of maybe 1000 users.
There are times when those users would like to run their own queries against their own data but, obviously, I must ensure that they can never view other users data.
I'm thinking the best way to ensure security of data is for each user to be issued their own SQL Azure account and password. I will setup a SQL Azure user and long password, known only to me, which only has permissions to execute several stored procedures with appropriate parameters being passed to those SPs which will create the SQL Server accounts, logins and add the users to a role which I have created.
Obviously someone running debugging tools could figure out the user name and password but I'm thinking this isn't a big deal. If all that particular SQL Azure account can do is execute a few SPs so what if a malicious individual starts doing that. I will only allow a very limited amount of data to be uploaded before I require payment.
The users can only insert records using stored procedures which use the following:
SELECT #uName=SYSTEM_USER
and only select appropriate parent records. All stored procedures which users can execute would have the above as required to ensure they can only work with their own records.
All views will have embedded with them WHERE clauses such as
WHERE tbLoginName = SYSTEM_USER.
I'm new to SQL Server so I may be missing some fundamental concepts so I'd appreciate any and all comments.
The issue is, as pointed out on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189751.aspx:
In SQL Azure, only the server-level principal login (created by the provisioning process) or members of the loginmanager database role in the master database can create new logins.
Those accounts are also capable of alter and drop logins. So if you embed those accounts in the client application, you’re essentially granting every user permission to alter/drop other users accounts. While an average user won’t do that, a hacker will. So you cannot let a client application manage SQL Azure logins, unless only trusted users (such as your IT administrator) are permitted to use the app.
Best Regards,
Ming Xu.
I would like to point out a potential issue in the approach you mentioned: Your master SQL Azure account need to have privilege to create new accounts and grant them access to particular tables. This means your master account itself need to also have access to all those tables. If you store the master account on the client side, a clever user will get access to all users data.
From my experience, connecting to a database directly from a client side application will almost always make your solution less secure. You can do that for testing purposes, but in a real world solution, I would like to suggest you to use a service. You can host the service in Windows Azure. Then the service will access the database, and client application can only access the service. In this way, you can authenticate clients using any mechanisms you like, such as ASP.NET membership.
Best Regards,
Ming Xu.
You are essentially creating a physical two-tier database connection, allowing a client application to connect directly to the database. This is a problem in many ways, including security and performance. From a security standpoint, not controlling from where your customers will connect, you will need to keep your firewall rule wide open for anyone in the world to try to hack every customer uid/pwd. And instead of having only 1 user id to play with, hackers will have up to 1,000...
The second issue is performance. You applications will be unable to leverage connection pooling, creating undue stress on your database server and possibly hitting throttling issues at some point. Using a web service, with ASP.NET membership to manage logins, and using a service account (i.e. the same uid/pwd) to get data will ensure you will leverage connection pooling correctly if you keep the connection string the same for all your requests.
With a web service layer you also have a whole slew of new options at your fingertips that a two-tier architecture can't offer. This includes centralizing your business and data access logic, adding caching for improved performance, adding auditing in a centralized location, allowing to make updates to parts of your applications without redeploying anything at your customer locations and so much more...
In the cloud, you are much better off leveraging web services.
My 2 cents.
I have a question that really feels like I should have an easy answer to, but for one reason or another I haven't been able to totally reason around it.
I'm embarking on development of an ASP.NET MVC3 intranet application, and I'm currently working on designing authentication & authorization. We're forced to use basic authentication in our environment, and we use Active Directory, so the authorization part is generally taken care of. Unfortunately our role/user hierarchy in active directory doesn't mirror what I need for the roles in the application, so I'm going to have to define my own.
I'm using SQL Server, so I was originally thinking of using stored procedures for all DML, and then creating roles and adding users in roles in SQL Server, and then controlling access to the stored procedures via those roles. I was also thinking I could query for those SQL Server database-level users & roles in order to use that as the source of authorization info in the application itself. That originally seemed like a great idea, but it doesn't seem like a popular one (for one, it seems the queries for that are a little long and messy for what they produce). Alternatively, would it be better to have the web app impersonate a user for all queries to the server, and then implement a user/role database with my own schema, and only authorize on the application side?
It originally seemed that authorizing on both the application and database side would be a good thing for security, and using the SQL Server user/role objects means that the user and role data wouldn't need to be stored in two places.
I did see some potentially relevant discussion at Best practice on users/roles on SQL Server for a web application, but I think this is a different question overall.
Thanks!
I recommend creating a sql login that the web application will use to connect to sql server. This way you are not impersonating any specific AD account which may get deleted, disabled in the future and can control the user strickly in SQL Server.
I would then recommend implementing roles based authentication in your application. This will enable you to create users and roles that are custom to your application and then assign users to them. This way if a user tries to access a resource that their role is not allowed it will not do any work. Here is a demo app based on this principle http://www.codeproject.com/KB/web-security/rolesbasedauthentication.aspx.
What is the best option for a windows application that uses SQL server authentication? Should I create a single SQL account and manage the users inside the application (using a users table). Or should I create a SQL server account for each user. What is your experience? Thank you!
Depends on whether the username/password for the SQL server would be exposed to the user, and whether that would be a problem. Generally for internal apps (in smaller organisations), one would trust the users not too log in directly to the sql server. If you have a middleware layer (ie webservices) the password can be hidden from user.
I prefer to use a general login for the DB and manage users in the application. Even if you do create a login to sql for each application user, they could still connect directly, so why not just use a generic sql login that is easier to manage. This is of course assuming all users have the same accesses.
One good practice, if the users potentially can get direct access to the db, would be to grant access only through Stored Procedures and not directly to tables, so that only certain actions can be performed. Steer away from writing business logic or security checks (except basic ones) within the stored procs.
One way I would solve your problem is to write some webservices that check security and does your CRUD (via datasets, etc), but again it depends on the app and environment.
In summary if you have a middle layer or all users have the same access manage the user within the application and use a single user login. Otherwise use a login per user or role.
One option that I have used in the past is to use the ASP.NET Membership Provider. It makes authentication a breeze to use. The only drawback that I saw was that it added a bunch of tables to your database.
The code for using it is very straight-forward.
Here's a blog post about using this in a Windows app. http://msmvps.com/blogs/theproblemsolver/archive/2006/01/12/80905.aspx Here's another article with more details. http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/jmcfet/Provider-basedASP.NET10162006104542AM/Provider-basedASP.NET.aspx
Here's another article that talks about using it with Windows applications: http://www.theproblemsolver.nl/usingthemembershipproviderinwinforms.htm
Google for "ASP.NET 2.0 Membership Provider", and you will get plenty of hits.
What about having SQL accounts based on the level of permissions needed for the task. For example you could have a read only account just used for reporting if your system has a lot of reporting. You would also need an account what has write access for people to change their passwords and other user admin tasks.
If you have situations where certain users are only going to have access to certain data I would have separate accounts for that data. The problem with using 1 account is you are saying that there is no SQL injection anywhere in your application. That is something everyone would strive for but sometimes perfect security is not possible, hence the multi-pronged approach.