I spent a long time yesterday to configure for my CouchDB instance in order to create a little app and letting CouchDB manage authentication and authorizations for me.
So I ended up with something like that :
On top of everything I've got a server admin, who basically is god on my CouchBD instance.
Then I created a database named "mydatabase" (for example) and added the role "mydatabase_dba" as admin and also the role "mydatabase_user" as reader.
I also created a database named "_users" which contains all the database admins and users with their roles and also a design document named "_auth" which manages authorizations.
Only the server admin is admin of this database, and I added users with role "mydatabase_dba" as readers. Then, for those of you who knows about it, I modified the "validate_doc_update" field o the "_auth" document so that users with role "mydatabase_dba" can only deals with users with role "mydatabase_user".
So, to summarize at this point :
server admin is still god
users with role "mydatabase_user" can connect to "mydatabase" but they are just readers
users with role "mydatabase_dba" are admins of "mydatabase"
users with role "mydatabase_dba" can connect to database "_users" where they are readers
users with role "mydatabase_dba" can only manage users of role "mydatabase_user" in "_users"
Hope this is clear :D
What I can do now is create an application that will not manage users itself, but let users connect to CouchDB directly (transparently).
The problem come when it deals with users creation/update/deletion.
Because only users with role "mydatabase_dba" can access to the "_users" database and work on users with roles "mydatabase_user", I need at some point to connect to CouchDB as this db admin.
I have two solutions :
Create a user interface into my app that will let the admin connect and do what he has to do
or
Make some more code and let the app do it automatically, this is the solution I prefer, but the problem is : I have to store the admin credentials...
Sorry for the long introduction but I had to describe the landscape first :)
I created a post yesterday about how I could secure the connection between my app and the CouchDB instance : here
The solution I was given is to use HTTP over SSL (/TLS) to secure the communication. I'm okay with that, but now I have another concern, maybe I'm paranoid, but because my app will need to connect as "mydatabase_dba", I have to store its credential somewhere.
But how to store them securely ? As said in my previous post, even if I store the hashed password instead of the plain text password, if an attacker access my app source code, he'll have my admin credentials...
An application should never have an administrative rights. It should only be given the bare minim rights it needs to function. If the application needs some administrative rights, make sure it has as few as possible. Other than that, most of the time these credentials are stored in plain text in some file that only your application can access.
Never commit this text file into your source code manager (Subversion, Git, etc.)! Placing the file into a running system must be a step in the installation procedure.
Related
I have a specific problem to which I couldn't find any answer online.
The situation is the following:
We created a Canvas app that connects to the Azure SQL database. We set the connection type to be AAD integrated.
Users that are members of the AD can see the data in the app, but guest users, even though we gave them all the rights and PowerApps plan, cannot see the data. they recieve the same authorization window as members, but when they click on allow, the app starts but no data is being pulled from the SQL database.
When we try to connect directly to the Azure SQL database with the guest user email and credentials (via SQL server management studio), everything works as expected and the guest can see all the tables.
When we use implicitly shared connection (with SQL server authentification), guests can see the data, but we need to use AAD integrated due to its security.
So far we tried:
Changing PA environment from sandbox to production
Adding special permissions in SQL database like database owner etc
Trying out different AAD guest user settings, eq- setting that guest users have the same privileges as members (picture below).
Nothing seems to work. I would be more than happy if you could tell me how to make this work or even push me in the right direction.
I've reproduced your problem in my side. Here's my experience.
After assigning powerapp license(I use O365 E5 here) to guest account and share the app to this account, I can visit the app but can't see the data in the table. I assume that it resulted from the connector hasn't been shared, but it's true that this connector can't be shared because of no 'share button'.
Then I tried to add access policy to my guest account with these two sql:
CREATE USER [tiny-wa_outlook.com#EXT##xx.onmicrosoft.com] FROM EXTERNAL PROVIDER;
GRANT SELECT ON dbo.tinyTest TO [tiny-wa_outlook.com#EXT##xx.onmicrosoft.com];
Pls note here, I used the User Principal Name here(can find the principal name in azure ad->users), I also tested to use 'tiny-wa#outlook.com' in the sql but after executing successfully, it didn't work.
So I think you can try to use the sql above to add your guests accounts and make them can access the powerapp.
Here's some related docs:
create contained users mapped to azure ad identities
Share app resources
add table permission to user
==========================UPDATE==========================
Share my experience of this troubleshot.
First I need to create a power app but I found that after creating the connector with sql server azure ad authentication, it can't connect to the sql server, the error message is like 'Credentials are missing or not valid. inner exception: The credentials provided for the SQL source are invalid', solution is add my admin account as sql server instance Active Directory Admin.
Then I choose a table and successfully create a sample app. With the creating account, I can visit the app but other accounts can't. Here needs to share the app and it's related connectors to other users. But other accounts still can't reach the app because of no license. Because sql server connector is premium connector, so I assign O365 E3 license here. I met an error when assign license, the user's 'Usage location' can't be null or it can't assign license in M365 admin center.
Then I met similar error with Op, the difference is that both member account and guest account can't see the data in app. I try to find the way to share the connector to these uses but failed, I haven't made sure if those connectors without share button can be shared to others. So I have no options to study if this kind of connectors are authenticated in other ways so they don't need to be shared at all.
Next actions is using the account which used to create the sql server and database to sign in database and execute the sqls above.
Then the member account can see data in the power app while the guest account can't see. The reason is I used xx#outlook.com as the parameter in the sql, when I used xx_outlook.com#EXT##xx.onmicrosoft.com, it worked finally.
Hope this can also help you.
===================================================
For creating my demo app: First, I'm sure my environment isn't a sandbox(the environment in the screenshot below). And I think it's easy to create a demo app, and my app is simple, just choose to create an app from data and then select sql server as the connector, next I choose auzre ad auth and click the connector, enter server name and database name then choose a table, after that my app has created. That table has one row of data so when I signed in the app with the creating account, I see it in the screen while other accounts(member or guests) can't.
My sql server instance and database are created long time ago, but I'm sure I followed this tutorial to create them.
This appears to still be a limitation to access to Azure SQL via PA connector for guest users:
https://powerusers.microsoft.com/t5/Power-Apps-Ideas/Azure-SQL-to-PowerApps-Connector-AAD-doesn-t-work-for-guest/idi-p/1637817
If the "guest" does NOT have a PowerApps Per-App/Per-User plan, they cannot use your PowerApps with SQL data source (Note: SQL is a premium connector).
Determine exactly which type of license the guest has. Then, either your organization or the guest (or guest's org) must purchase one of these licenses. $5/$10/$20 per month depending on your use case.
REF
At first there is no authentication in mongodb, so I created one for one database with readWrite role.
Now I want to create more users for other databases but as this user doesn't have the privileges to create other users I'm stuck.
The documentation clearly says:
With access control enabled, ensure you have a user with userAdmin or userAdminAnyDatabase role in the admin database. This user can administrate user and roles such as: create users, grant or revoke roles from users, and create or modify customs roles.
If you haven't created such user, you cannot create it now with authentication and access rights enabled. I gues you need to restart the MongoDB server without authentication enabled, create that admin user, and restart the MongoDB server again with authentication enabled.
I highly recommend you read to complete documentation how to enable authentication first to understand the complete concept, before you follow it step by step. Otherwise it might be confusing and creating such state you are currently locked in and cannot continue with all actions.
I have been searching for articles and SQL script examples that would demonstrate how to securely and conveniently solve one of the most common scenarios - connecting from a .Net Core Entity Framework based web application to an SQL database.
But somehow I could not find any coherent step-by-step guide from a reputable source.
Let's assume the following:
I cannot use integrated Windows auth in the connection string and must use username and password based auth (because hosting on a Linux server and the DB is on a different Windows server)
the web service will need your usual minimum set of permissions - connect to the database, read data, write data, delete data, execute stored procedures
While reading many tutorials, I find there are multiple ways to manage the connection permissions. To avoid this question being too broad, I'll list my current choices as I understand them (please correct me if I'm missing something).
Users and logins:
create a login and a user for the database
create a database-only user without a login (not sure if this is applicable to a web app and connection string, but still it's a feature that I've seen being used)
Assigning permissions:
assign the user to some fixed SQL role (db_datareader, db_datawriter AND also will have to grant EXECUTE permission)
grant all fixed permissions
create a custom role (let's say, db_web_apps) with required permissions
Which choices are better (more secure and easier to manage in general) and recommended by SQL DBAs?
I think every database administrator should have a template script handy for quickly adding a new user with minimum required permissions every time when developers ask for a new connection for their shiny new web app.
If you know a good, reliable tutorial or GitHub / Gist example that explains what and why is being done that way or a script that you yourself have used for years without any issues in production environments, I'll really appreciate if you could share it.
Create a role in the database and assign the required privileges to the role. Don't use the fixed database roles. Instead grant permissions directly to objects, schemas, or the entire database if necessary. Like this:
create role trusted_app_role
grant select, insert, update, delete, execute
on schema::dbo to trusted_app_role
That will grant the role full DML permissions on all the objects in the default dbo schema. So if you have any tables or procedures you don't want the app to have access to, just create them in a different schema, say, admin. This way you never have to fiddle with permissions as you add objects. The fixed database roles predate schema-based permissions, and aren't really needed any more.
For your application's identity, add Active Directory or Azure Active Directory (Azure SQL) identities to this role, or, if you can't, add SQL Users to the role.
If you are on Azure SQL, you should normally use a database user without a login. On SQL Server you can only add "contained database users" if you enable Partial Database Containment. Which you can do, but is incompatible with Change Tracking and Change Data Capture, so it's a tradeoff.
So normally for SQL Server you still create a login and map the user to the login. EG:
create login web_service_user with password = '5X+jeuAB6kmhw85R/AxAg'
create user web_service_user for login web_service_user
And then add that user to your role
alter role trusted_app_role add member web_service_user
I have created Winforms application which stores some sensitive data like username and password.
The system used by many users. I am using SQL Server Express for storing data.
The application downloads data from a remote server by sync framework. I want to create only one user for that database so I can sync that database.
My problem is that I want to hide the database from all users which are using the application and also from the sa & Windows authentication accounts. So no one can see the other usernames or passwords.
How can I do this?
If I understand well, be best way to do it is :
keep one administrative login (one login that is member of sysadmin). It will be you. You need at least one admin.
disable sa : ALTER LOGIN [sa] DISABLE;
for all other logins, add them as users in the database, but don't give them any permission. They won't be able to see anything
use an application role (which is deprecated) OR create a user without login and use EXECUTE AS (which is the new way to go): you can learn more about it here : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb669062(v=vs.110).aspx and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb669087(v=vs.110).aspx. That will allow you to set other permissions for your users only when the conect through the application.
I believe Windows auth is the best practice to use to connect to SQL DB. I am hear talking about application user account..
Is it true that SQL auth is only great for multiple role apps and window auth is only good for single role app? I never heard that windows auth with muitple role os only good for smaill internal app?
multiple Windows logins = multiple connections = no pooling = poor scaling?
The problem with using Windows auth for a web application is that many web applications store their application users' credentials in the same SQL database that is used for other application data.
So you have a chicken-and-egg problem. You can't authenticate the user before connecting to the database, and you can't connect to the database without authenticating the user.
It should be possible to use Windows authentication, and then also have application-specific attributes of the user stored inside the database. But most people find this cumbersome to administer, and also limiting to portability of the application.
For example, if one of the feature of the application allows users to change their own password, then the process running your web application needs the privilege to alter a Windows password, which may mean that the application needs to run with Administrator privileges.
If you let the application manage user ID for the context of the application, then to change a user's password is just an SQL operation, and your application is in charge of enforcing security for that.
I'm not sure what you mean by single-role and multi-role app. I have built apps before where there are multiple SQL Server Database Roles, each with a Windows Domain Group of users allowed in that role. So user management is completely within Active Directory, with a 1-1 correspondence between the Domain Group and the Database Role.
We typically did not manage the security within the application itself except obviously declaratively during the database creation where each object was granted access by particular roles according to the design. Typically, in a simple case, we relied on db_datareader role being granted for general usage to non-specific groups of users like database and network administrators for troubleshooting or report-writers or business analysts for ad hoc reporting. Actual users of the app would be granted execute on the relevant SPs to be able to modify any data (so all data creation or modification was through SPs and only explicit members of the ThisAppsUsers AD group could do it). Any advanced SPs (say, merging or deleting accounts) would only be accessible by ThisAppsAdmins AD group. And that was usually all we needed for moderate-sized applications. For more complex functionality, it was also possible to interrogate AD directly for custom attributes (user is an admin only for this customer account but for others is just a user)
This same technique can be used with SQL Server logins, but of course the individual SQL Server logins have to be added to the database roles, and you don't have the richness of AD and have to build some kind of directory service into your database.
The ability to even use AD may not be possible for many applications, so in that case, the security architecture would obviously have to cater to that model.
using the integratedSecurity=true option for SQL JDBC , by including the JDBC auth .dll, should give you database connectivity without authenticating...