Search Results

Search found 815 results on 33 pages for 'claims'.

Page 1/33 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Identity Claims Encoding for SharePoint

  - by Shawn Cicoria

  Just to remind myself, the list of claim types and their encodings are listed here at the bottom. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg481769.aspx Where for example: i:0#.w|contoso\scicoria ‘i’ = identity, could be ‘c’ for others # == SPClaimTypes.UserLogonName . == Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.String Table for reference: Table 1. Claim types encoding Character Claim Type ! SPClaimTypes.IdentityProvider ” SPClaimTypes.UserIdentifier # SPClaimTypes.UserLogonName $ SPClaimTypes.DistributionListClaimType % SPClaimTypes.FarmId & SPClaimTypes.ProcessIdentitySID ‘ SPClaimTypes.ProcessIdentityLogonName ( SPClaimTypes.IsAuthenticated ) Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.PrimarySid * Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.PrimaryGroupSid + Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.GroupSid - Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Role . System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Anonymous / System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Authentication 0 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.AuthorizationDecision 1 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Country 2 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.DateOfBirth 3 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.DenyOnlySid 4 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Dns 5 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Email 6 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Gender 7 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.GivenName 8 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Hash 9 System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.HomePhone < System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Locality = System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.MobilePhone > System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Name ? System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier @ System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.OtherPhone [ System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.PostalCode \ System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.PPID ] System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Rsa ^ System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Sid _ System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Spn ` System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.StateOrProvince a System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.StreetAddress b System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Surname c System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.System d System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Thumbprint e System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Upn f System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Uri g System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Webpage Table 2. Claim value types encoding Character Claim Type ! Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Base64Binary “ Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Boolean # Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Date $ Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Datetime % Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.DaytimeDuration & Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Double ‘ Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.DsaKeyValue ( Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.HexBinary ) Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Integer * Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.KeyInfo + Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Rfc822Name - Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.RsaKeyValue . Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.String / Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.Time 0 Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.X500Name 1 Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimValueTypes.YearMonthDuration

  Read the article

• Spotlight on Claims: Serving Customers Under Extreme Conditions

  - by [email protected]

  Oracle Insurance's director of marketing for EMEA, John Sinclair, recently attended the CII Spotlight on Claims event in London. Bad weather and its implications for the insurance industry have become very topical as the frequency and diversity of natural disasters - including rains, wind and snow - has surged across Europe this winter. On England's wettest day on record, the county of Cumbria was flooded with 12 inches of rain within 24 hours. Freezing temperatures wreaked havoc on European travel, causing high speed TVG trains to break down and stranding hundreds of passengers under the English Chanel in a tunnel all night long without heat or electricity. A storm named Xynthia thrashed France and surrounding countries with hurricane force, flooding ports and killing 51 people. After the Spring Equinox, insurers may have thought the worst had past. Then came along Eyjafjallajökull, spewing out vast quantities of volcanic ash in what is turning out to be one of most costly natural disasters in history. Such extreme events challenge insurance companies' ability to service their customers just when customers need their help most. When you add economic downturn and competitive pressures to the mix, insurers are further stretched and required to continually learn and innovate to meet high customer expectations with reduced budgets. These and other issues were hot topics of discussion at the recent "Spotlight on Claims" seminar in London, focused on how weather is affecting claims and the insurance industry. The event was organized by the CII (Chartered Insurance Institute), a group with 90,000 members. CII has been at the forefront in setting professional standards for the insurance industry for over a century. Insurers came to the conference to hear how they could better serve their customers under extreme weather conditions, learn from the experience of their peers, and hear about technological breakthroughs in climate modeling, geographic intelligence and IT. Customer case studies at the conference highlighted the importance of effective and constant communication in handling the overflow of catastrophe related claims. First and foremost is the need to rapidly establish initial communication with claimants to build their confidence in a positive outcome. Ongoing communication then needs to be continued throughout the claims cycle to mange expectations and maintain ownership of the process from start to finish. Strong internal communication to support frontline staff was also deemed critical to successful crisis management, as was communication with the broader insurance ecosystem to tap into extended resources and business intelligence. Advances in technology - such web based systems to access policies and enter first notice of loss in the field - as well as customer-focused self-service portals and multichannel alerts, are instrumental in improving customer satisfaction and helping insurers to deal with the claims surge, which often can reach four or more times normal workloads. Dynamic models of the global climate system can now be used to better understand weather-related risks, and as these models mature it is hoped that they will soon become more accurate in predicting the timing of catastrophic events. Geographic intelligence is also being used within a claims environment to better assess loss reserves and detect fraud. Despite these advances in dealing with catastrophes and predicting their occurrence, there will never be a substitute for qualified front line staff to deal with customers. In light of pressures to streamline efficiency, there was debate as to whether outsourcing was the solution, or whether it was better to build on the people you have. In the final analysis, nearly everybody agreed that in the future insurance companies would have to work better and smarter to keep on top. An appeal was also made for greater collaboration amongst industry participants in dealing with the extreme conditions and systematic stress brought on by natural disasters. It was pointed out that the public oftentimes judged the industry as a whole rather than the individual carriers when it comes to freakish events, and that all would benefit at such times from the pooling of limited resources and professional skills rather than competing in silos for competitive advantage - especially the end customer. One case study that stood out was on how The Motorists Insurance Group was able to power through one of the most devastating catastrophes in recent years - Hurricane Ike. The keys to Motorists' success were superior people, processes and technology. They did a lot of upfront planning and invested in their people, creating a healthy team environment that delivered "max service" even when they were experiencing the same level of devastation as the rest of the population. Processes were rapidly adapted to meet the challenge of the catastrophe and continually adapted to Ike's specific conditions as they evolved. Technology was fundamental to the execution of their strategy, enabling them anywhere access, on the fly reassigning of resources and rapid training to augment the work force. You can learn more about the Motorists experience by watching this video. John Sinclair is marketing director for Oracle Insurance in EMEA. He has more than 20 years of experience in insurance and financial services.

  Read the article

• Claims-based Authentication: Are strings the essence of claims?

  - by Rising Star

  I've been programming with claims-based authentication for some time now with Windows Identity Foundation. It appears to me that in Windows Identity Foundation, once a user is logged in, the claims are basically strings of information that describe the user. With the old role-based authentication, I could say that a user is or is not a member of a given group, but with claims-based authentication, I can now have strings of information that describe a user. "This user is female". This user was born on "July 6, 1975". "This user logged in using a USB key". Is it the essence of claims-based authentication,that I have strings of information about the user given to the application by the framework?

  Read the article

• Claims-based Identity in .NET 4.5 and Windows 8

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  There was not a ton of new information about WIF and related technologies at Build, but Samuel Devasahayam did a great talk about claims-based access control that contained some very interesting bits of information with regards to future directions. From his slides: Windows 8 Bring existing identity claims model into the Windows platform Domain controller issues groups & claims Claims (user and device) sourced from identity attributes in AD Claims delivered in Kerberos PAC NT Token has a new claims section Enhanced SDDL API’s to work with claims Enhanced user mode CheckAccess API’s to work with claims New ACL-UX Target audits with claims-based expressions WIF & .NET 4.5 WIF is in the box with .NET Framework 4.5 Every principal in .NET 4.5 is a ClaimsPrincipal ADFS 2.1 ADFS 2.1 is available now as a in-box server role in Windows 8 Adds support for issuing device claims from Kerberos ticket

  Read the article

• Identity in .NET 4.5&ndash;Part 2: Claims Transformation in ASP.NET (Beta 1)

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  In my last post I described how every identity in .NET 4.5 is now claims-based. If you are coming from WIF you might think, great – how do I transform those claims? Sidebar: What is claims transformation? One of the most essential features of WIF (and .NET 4.5) is the ability to transform credentials (or tokens) to claims. During that process the “low level” token details are turned into claims. An example would be a Windows token – it contains things like the name of the user and to which groups he belongs to. That information will be surfaced as claims of type Name and GroupSid. Forms users will be represented as a Name claim (all the other claims that WIF provided for FormsIdentity are gone in 4.5). The issue here is, that your applications typically don’t care about those low level details, but rather about “what’s the purchase limit of alice”. The process of turning the low level claims into application specific ones is called claims transformation. In pre-claims times this would have been done by a combination of Forms Authentication extensibility, role manager and maybe ASP.NET profile. With claims transformation all your identity gathering code is in one place (and the outcome can be cached in a single place as opposed to multiple ones). The structural class to do claims transformation is called ClaimsAuthenticationManager. This class has two purposes – first looking at the incoming (low level) principal and making sure all required information about the user is present. This is your first chance to reject a request. And second – modeling identity information in a way it is relevant for the application (see also here). This class gets called (when present) during the pipeline when using WS-Federation. But not when using the standard .NET principals. I am not sure why – maybe because it is beta 1. Anyhow, a number of people asked me about it, and the following is a little HTTP module that brings that feature back in 4.5. public class ClaimsTransformationHttpModule : IHttpModule {     public void Dispose()     { }     public void Init(HttpApplication context)     {         context.PostAuthenticateRequest += Context_PostAuthenticateRequest;     }     void Context_PostAuthenticateRequest(object sender, EventArgs e)     {         var context = ((HttpApplication)sender).Context;         // no need to call transformation if session already exists         if (FederatedAuthentication.SessionAuthenticationModule != null &&             FederatedAuthentication.SessionAuthenticationModule.ContainsSessionTokenCookie(context.Request.Cookies))         {             return;         }         var transformer = FederatedAuthentication.FederationConfiguration.IdentityConfiguration.ClaimsAuthenticationManager;         if (transformer != null)         {             var transformedPrincipal = transformer.Authenticate(context.Request.RawUrl, context.User as ClaimsPrincipal);             context.User = transformedPrincipal;             Thread.CurrentPrincipal = transformedPrincipal;         }     } } HTH

  Read the article

• Difference between Claims vs OAuth

  - by Venki

  What is the difference between Claims based authentication vs What is provided by OAuth. I am looking for conceptual difference and not technical difference. When do I choose Claims over OAuth and vice versa. Claims based authentication is proposed by Microsoft and build on top of WS-Security. But OAuth is more a open source protocol that is being proposed to allow fetching resources from different portals based on a security token. Claims also has this concept of token (SAML encoded or X509 certificates). I am trying to understand when do I choose Claims over OAuth and vice versa. Thanks

  Read the article

• Claims-based Identity Terminology

  - by kaleidoscope

  There are several terms commonly used to describe claims-based identity, and it is important to clearly define these terms. · Identity In terms of Access Control, the term identity will be used to refer to a set of claims made by a trusted issuer about the user. · Claim You can think of a claim as a bit of identity information, such as name, email address, age, and so on. The more claims your service receives, the more you’ll know about the user who is making the request. · Security Token The user delivers a set of claims to your service piggybacked along with his or her request. In a REST Web service, these claims are carried in the Authorization header of the HTTP(S) request. Regardless of how they arrive, claims must somehow be serialized, and this is managed by security tokens. A security token is a serialized set of claims that is signed by the issuing authority. · Issuing Authority & Identity Provider An issuing authority has two main features. The first and most obvious is that it issues security tokens. The second feature is the logic that determines which claims to issue. This is based on the user’s identity, the resource to which the request applies, and possibly other contextual data such as time of day. This type of logic is often referred to as policy[1]. There are many issuing authorities, including Windows Live ID, ADFS, PingFederate from Ping Identity (a product that exposes user identities from the Java world), Facebook Connect, and more. Their job is to validate some credential from the user and issue a token with an identifier for the user's account and  possibly other identity attributes. These types of authorities are called identity providers (sometimes shortened as IdP). It’s ultimately their responsibility to answer the question, “who are you?” and ensure that the user knows his or her password, is in possession of a smart card, knows the PIN code, has a matching retinal scan, and so on. · Security Token Service (STS) A security token service (STS) is a technical term for the Web interface in an issuing authority that allows clients to request and receive a security token according to interoperable protocols that are discussed in the following section. This term comes from the WS-Trust standard, and is often used in the literature to refer to an issuing authority. STS when used from developer point of view indicates the URL to use to request a token from an issuer. For more details please refer to the link http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/developers/dotnetservices/ Geeta, G

  Read the article

• Invoking a WCF service using claims based authentication

  - by ashwnacharya

  I have a WCF service deployed in a server machine. We are using claims based authentication to authenticate the WCF service caller. The WCF service is restricted by using IIS Authorization rules. How do I programmatically invoke the WCF service using .NET? The client app uses a proxy generated using SVCUtil. calling the service reads the credentials from a configuration file (not the app.config file, in fact the client application does not have a *.config file).

  Read the article

• Token based Authentication and Claims for Restful Services

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  WIF as it exists today is optimized for web applications (passive/WS-Federation) and SOAP based services (active/WS-Trust). While there is limited support for WCF WebServiceHost based services (for standard credential types like Windows and Basic), there is no ready to use plumbing for RESTful services that do authentication based on tokens. This is not an oversight from the WIF team, but the REST services security world is currently rapidly changing – and that’s by design. There are a number of intermediate solutions, emerging protocols and token types, as well as some already deprecated ones. So it didn’t make sense to bake that into the core feature set of WIF. But after all, the F in WIF stands for Foundation. So just like the WIF APIs integrate tokens and claims into other hosts, this is also (easily) possible with RESTful services. Here’s how. HTTP Services and Authentication Unlike SOAP services, in the REST world there is no (over) specified security framework like WS-Security. Instead standard HTTP means are used to transmit credentials and SSL is used to secure the transport and data in transit. For most cases the HTTP Authorize header is used to transmit the security token (this can be as simple as a username/password up to issued tokens of some sort). The Authorize header consists of the actual credential (consider this opaque from a transport perspective) as well as a scheme. The scheme is some string that gives the service a hint what type of credential was used (e.g. Basic for basic authentication credentials). HTTP also includes a way to advertise the right credential type back to the client, for this the WWW-Authenticate response header is used. So for token based authentication, the service would simply need to read the incoming Authorization header, extract the token, parse and validate it. After the token has been validated, you also typically want some sort of client identity representation based on the incoming token. This is regardless of how technology-wise the actual service was built. In ASP.NET (MVC) you could use an HttpModule or an ActionFilter. In (todays) WCF, you would use the ServiceAuthorizationManager infrastructure. The nice thing about using WCF’ native extensibility points is that you get self-hosting for free. This is where WIF comes into play. WIF has ready to use infrastructure built-in that just need to be plugged into the corresponding hosting environment: Representation of identity based on claims. This is a very natural way of translating a security token (and again I mean this in the widest sense – could be also a username/password) into something our applications can work with. Infrastructure to convert tokens into claims (called security token handler) Claims transformation Claims-based authorization So much for the theory. In the next post I will show you how to implement that for WCF – including full source code and samples. (Wanna learn more about federation, WIF, claims, tokens etc.? Click here.)

  Read the article

• Custom fine-grained claims based authorization system in ASP.NET MVC - wheres and hows

  - by BuzzBubba

  So, I'd like to implement my own custom authorization system in MVC2. If I'd have to create a global class, where do I instantiate it? Can HttpContext be extended with my own additions and where do I do that? Should I use Authorization filters for rights validation or ActionFilters or do it within an action? Can ActionFilter pass any data to the action itself? Previously (in WebForms) I was using a Session object where I would put a serialized object containing essential user data (account id and a list of roles and rights) and I'd extend my own Page class.

  Read the article

• Enable Claims based Auth on a SP2010 website, after it has been provisioned

  - by Sahil Malik

  Ad:: SharePoint 2007 Training in .NET 3.5 technologies (more information). When you provision a web app in SP2010, you can choose it to use Claims Based Auth or Classic Auth right through the GUI.  However, after you have provisioned a web app, there is no GUI to switch from Classic to Claims based. So the below powershell script will let you convert a SP2010 website to claims based auth after it has been provisioned. 1: $w = Get-SPWebApplication "http://sp2010" 2: $w.UseClaimsAuthentication = "True"; 3: $w.Update() The user running the above script should be a member of the SharePoint_Shell_Access role on the config DB, and a member of the WSS_ADMIN_WPG local group. Comment on the article ....

  Read the article

• Use C2WTS to get a classic windows identity from a claims identity

  - by Sahil Malik

  SharePoint, WCF and Azure Trainings: more information I know you’re going to find this useful at some point. A lot of backend systems still demand classic windows identities, but everything we do now has moved to claims. So sometimes (albeit rare), we have to translate a claims identity into a classic windows identity. This is where the “Claims to Windows Token Service” comes into play. SharePoint 2010 and 2013 make use of this but you can use this in any .NET application. First of all, there are some basic requirements for this to work, First, you will need the string value of a UPN claim. Just a string value, really! This means you can also use FBA or anything else. The “proper” way to do this of course is that you must originate this from a AD backed claim. So a user authenticated using ADFS or similar would be perfect. Just remember that you must issue the UPN claim. Read full article ....

  Read the article

• What I like about WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  In “traditional” .NET with its IPrincipal interface and IsInRole method, developers were encouraged to write code like this: public void AddCustomer(Customer customer) {     if (Thread.CurrentPrincipal.IsInRole("Sales"))     {         // add customer     } } In code reviews I’ve seen tons of code like this. What I don’t like about this is, that two concerns in your application get tightly coupled: business and security logic. But what happens when the security requirements change – and they will (e.g. members of the sales role and some other people from different roles need to create customers)? Well – since your security logic is sprinkled across your project you need to change the security checks in all relevant places (and make sure you don’t forget one) and you need to re-test, re-stage and re-deploy the complete app. This is clearly not what we want. WIF’s claims-based authorization encourages developers to separate business code and authorization policy evaluation. This is a good thing. So the same security check with WIF’s out-of-the box APIs would look like this: public void AddCustomer(Customer customer) {     try     {         ClaimsPrincipalPermission.CheckAccess("Customer", "Add");           // add customer     }     catch (SecurityException ex)     {         // access denied     } } You notice the fundamental difference? The security check only describes what the code is doing (represented by a resource/action pair) – and does not state who is allowed to invoke the code. As I mentioned earlier – the who is most probably changing over time – the what most probably not. The call to ClaimsPrincipalPermission hands off to another class called the ClaimsAuthorizationManager. This class handles the evaluation of your security policy and is ideally in a separate assembly to allow updating the security logic independently from the application logic (and vice versa). The claims authorization manager features a method called CheckAccess that retrieves three values (wrapped inside an AuthorizationContext instance) – action (“add”), resource (“customer”) and the principal (including its claims) in question. CheckAccess then evaluates those three values and returns true/false. I really like the separation of concerns part here. Unfortunately there is not much support from Microsoft beyond that point. And without further tooling and abstractions the CheckAccess method quickly becomes *very* complex. But still I think that is the way to go. In the next post I will tell you what I don’t like about it (and how to fix it).

  Read the article

• Anobit Claims Enterprise SSD Performance from MLC

  Anobit claims a breakthrough in low-cost solid state drives that has eluded other SSD makers.

  Read the article

• Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 2

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  In the last post I showed you how to take control over the invocation of ClaimsAuthorizationManager. Then you have complete freedom over the claim types, the amount of claims and the values. In addition I added two attributes that invoke the authorization manager using an “application claim type”. This way it is very easy to distinguish between authorization calls that originate from WIF’s per-request authorization and the ones from “within” you application. The attribute comes in two flavours: a CAS attribute (invoked by the CLR) and an ASP.NET MVC attribute (for MVC controllers, invoke by the MVC plumbing). Both also feature static methods to easily call them using the application claim types. The CAS attribute is part of Thinktecture.IdentityModel on Codeplex (or via NuGet: Install-Package Thinktecture.IdentityModel). If you really want to see that code ;) There is also a sample included in the Codeplex donwload. The MVC attribute is currently used in Thinktecture.IdentityServer – and I don’t currently plan to make it part of the library project since I don’t want to add a dependency on MVC for now. You can find the code below – and I will write about its usage in a follow-up post. public class ClaimsAuthorize : AuthorizeAttribute {     private string _resource;     private string _action;     private string[] _additionalResources;     /// <summary>     /// Default action claim type.     /// </summary>     public const string ActionType = "http://application/claims/authorization/action";     /// <summary>     /// Default resource claim type     /// </summary>     public const string ResourceType = "http://application/claims/authorization/resource";     /// <summary>     /// Additional resource claim type     /// </summary>     public const string AdditionalResourceType = "http://application/claims/authorization/additionalresource"          public ClaimsAuthorize(string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         _action = action;         _resource = resource;         _additionalResources = additionalResources;     }     public static bool CheckAccess(       string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         return CheckAccess(             Thread.CurrentPrincipal as IClaimsPrincipal,             action,             resource,             additionalResources);     }     public static bool CheckAccess(       IClaimsPrincipal principal, string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         var context = CreateAuthorizationContext(             principal,             action,             resource,             additionalResources);         return ClaimsAuthorization.CheckAccess(context);     }     protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)     {         return CheckAccess(_action, _resource, _additionalResources);     }     private static WIF.AuthorizationContext CreateAuthorizationContext(       IClaimsPrincipal principal, string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         var actionClaims = new Collection<Claim>         {             new Claim(ActionType, action)         };         var resourceClaims = new Collection<Claim>         {             new Claim(ResourceType, resource)         };         if (additionalResources != null && additionalResources.Length > 0)         {             additionalResources.ToList().ForEach(ar => resourceClaims.Add(               new Claim(AdditionalResourceType, ar)));         }         return new WIF.AuthorizationContext(             principal,             resourceClaims,             actionClaims);     } }

  Read the article

• What I don&rsquo;t like about WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  In my last post I wrote about what I like about WIF’s proposed approach to authorization – I also said that I definitely would build upon that infrastructure for my own systems. But implementing such a system is a little harder as it could be. Here’s why (and that’s purely my perspective): First of all WIF’s authorization comes in two “modes” Per-request authorization. When an ASP.NET/WCF request comes in, the registered authorization manager gets called. For SOAP the SOAP action gets passed in. For HTTP requests (ASP.NET, WCF REST) the URL and verb. Imperative authorization This happens when you explicitly call the claims authorization API from within your code. There you have full control over the values for action and resource. In ASP.NET per-request authorization is optional (depends on if you have added the ClaimsAuthorizationHttpModule). In WCF you always get the per-request checks as soon as you register the authorization manager in configuration. I personally prefer the imperative authorization because first of all I don’t believe in URL based authorization. Especially in the times of MVC and routing tables, URLs can be easily changed – but then you also have to adjust your authorization logic every time. Also – you typically need more knowledge than a simple “if user x is allowed to invoke operation x”. One problem I have is, both the per-request calls as well as the standard WIF imperative authorization APIs wrap actions and resources in the same claim type. This makes it hard to distinguish between the two authorization modes in your authorization manager. But you typically need that feature to structure your authorization policy evaluation in a clean way. The second problem (which is somehow related to the first one) is the standard API for interacting with the claims authorization manager. The API comes as an attribute (ClaimsPrincipalPermissionAttribute) as well as a class to use programmatically (ClaimsPrincipalPermission). Both only allow to pass in simple strings (which results in the wrapping with standard claim types mentioned earlier). Both throw a SecurityException when the check fails. The attribute is a code access permission attribute (like PrincipalPermission). That means it will always be invoked regardless how you call the code. This may be exactly what you want, or not. In a unit testing situation (like an MVC controller) you typically want to test the logic in the function – not the security check. The good news is, the WIF API is flexible enough that you can build your own infrastructure around their core. For my own projects I implemented the following extensions: A way to invoke the registered claims authorization manager with more overloads, e.g. with different claim types or a complete AuthorizationContext. A new CAS attribute (with the same calling semantics as the built-in one) with custom claim types. A MVC authorization attribute with custom claim types. A way to use branching – as opposed to catching a SecurityException. I will post the code for these various extensions here – so stay tuned.

  Read the article

• Microsoft Claims Success Versus Autorun Malware

  Microsoft recently used a post on the Threat Research and Response Blog section of its Malware Protection Center to describe how it is winning the battle against autorun malware. Although there is certainly no shortage of malware in the virtual world Microsoft has plenty of statistics to back its claims and it has displayed them with pride.... DNS Configured Correctly? Test Your Internal DNS With Our Free DNS Advisor Tool From Infoblox.

  Read the article

• Hacker Claims To Have Linux Working (Again) On PS3

  <b>Kotaku:</b> "On April 1, Sony removed one of the PlayStation 3&#8217;s original features, the option to install an alternate operating system such as Linux, with its latest firmware (version 3.21). Today, one man claims to have reinstated that feature."

  Read the article

• Guide to Claims-based Identity and Access Control (2nd Edition)

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  This fell through the cracks over the summer holiday time: The 2nd edition of the Patterns & Practices “claims guide” has been released. This is excellent! We added a lot of content around ADFS, Access Control Service, REST and SharePoint. All source code is available as well! Grab it from: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff423674.aspx Or use my vanity URL: http://tinyurl.com/claimsguide

  Read the article

• Asp.net web forms, Asp Identity - how to store claims from Facebook, Twitter, etc

  - by user2959352

  This request is based upon the new Visual Studio 2013 integration of Asp.net Identity stuff. I have seen some of the posts regarding this question for MVC, but for the life of me cannot get it to work for standard Web Forms. What I'm trying to do is populate the AspNetUserClaims table from the claims that I get back from Facebook (or other service). I actually can see the values coming back in the OnAuthenticated below, but cannot for the life of me figure out how to add these claims to the context of the currently logged in user? There are literally hundreds of MVC examples surrounding this, but alas no Web Forms examples. This should be completely straightforward, but for some reason I cannot match up the context of the currently logged in user to the claims and credentials coming back from Facebook. Currently after the OnAuthenticated fires, it obviously returns me to the page (RegisterExternalLogin.aspx) as the built-in example provides. However, the claims are gone, the context of the login to Facebook is gone, and I can't do anything else at this point. So the ultimate question is, HOW does one populate the claims FROM Facebook into the AspNetUserClaims table based upon the context of the currently logged in user WITHOUT using MVC? var fboptions = new FacebookAuthenticationOptions(); fboptions.AppId = "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; fboptions.AppSecret = "yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"; fboptions.Scope.Add("email"); fboptions.Scope.Add("friends_about_me"); fboptions.Scope.Add("friends_photos"); fboptions.Provider = new FacebookAuthenticationProvider() { OnAuthenticated = (context) => { foreach (var v in context.User) { context.Identity.AddClaim(new System.Security.Claims.Claim(v.Key, v.Value.ToString())); } context.Identity.AddClaim(new System.Security.Claims.Claim("FacebookAccessToken", context.AccessToken)); return Task.FromResult(0); }, }; app.UseFacebookAuthentication(fboptions);

  Read the article

• Enable Claims based Auth on a SP2010 website, after it has been provisioned

  Ad:: SharePoint 2007 Training in .NET 3.5 technologies (more information). This feed URL has been discontinued. Please update your reader's URL to : http://feeds.feedburner.com/winsmarts Read full article .... ...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 3 (Usage)

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  In the previous posts I showed off some of the additions I made to WIF’s authorization infrastructure. I now want to show some samples how I actually use these extensions. The following code snippets are from Thinktecture.IdentityServer on Codeplex. The following shows the MVC attribute on the WS-Federation controller: [ClaimsAuthorize(Constants.Actions.Issue, Constants.Resources.WSFederation)] public class WSFederationController : Controller or… [ClaimsAuthorize(Constants.Actions.Administration, Constants.Resources.RelyingParty)] public class RelyingPartiesAdminController : Controller In other places I used the imperative approach (e.g. the WRAP endpoint): if (!ClaimsAuthorize.CheckAccess(principal, Constants.Actions.Issue, Constants.Resources.WRAP)) {     Tracing.Error("User not authorized");     return new UnauthorizedResult("WRAP", true); } For the WCF WS-Trust endpoints I decided to use the per-request approach since the SOAP actions are well defined here. The corresponding authorization manager roughly looks like this: public class AuthorizationManager : ClaimsAuthorizationManager {     public override bool CheckAccess(AuthorizationContext context)     {         var action = context.Action.First();         var id = context.Principal.Identities.First();         // if application authorization request         if (action.ClaimType.Equals(ClaimsAuthorize.ActionType))         {             return AuthorizeCore(action, context.Resource, context.Principal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity);         }         // if ws-trust issue request         if (action.Value.Equals(WSTrust13Constants.Actions.Issue))         {             return AuthorizeTokenIssuance(new Collection<Claim> { new Claim(ClaimsAuthorize.ResourceType, Constants.Resources.WSTrust) }, id);         }         return base.CheckAccess(context);     } } You see that it is really easy now to distinguish between per-request and application authorization which makes the overall design much easier. HTH

  Read the article

• Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 1

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  As mentioned in my last post, I made several additions to WIF’s built-in authorization infrastructure to make it more flexible and easy to use. The foundation for all this work is that you have to be able to directly call the registered ClaimsAuthorizationManager. The following snippet is the universal way to get to the WIF configuration that is currently in effect: public static ServiceConfiguration ServiceConfiguration {     get     {         if (OperationContext.Current == null)         {             // no WCF             return FederatedAuthentication.ServiceConfiguration;         }         // search message property         if (OperationContext.Current.IncomingMessageProperties. ContainsKey("ServiceConfiguration"))         {             var configuration = OperationContext.Current. IncomingMessageProperties["ServiceConfiguration"] as ServiceConfiguration;             if (configuration != null)             {                 return configuration;             }         }         // return configuration from configuration file         return new ServiceConfiguration();     } }   From here you can grab ServiceConfiguration.ClaimsAuthoriationManager which give you direct access to the CheckAccess method (and thus control over claim types and values). I then created the following wrapper methods: public static bool CheckAccess(string resource, string action) {     return CheckAccess(resource, action, Thread.CurrentPrincipal as IClaimsPrincipal); } public static bool CheckAccess(string resource, string action, IClaimsPrincipal principal) {     var context = new AuthorizationContext(principal, resource, action);     return AuthorizationManager.CheckAccess(context); } public static bool CheckAccess(Collection<Claim> actions, Collection<Claim> resources) {     return CheckAccess(new AuthorizationContext(         Thread.CurrentPrincipal.AsClaimsPrincipal(), resources, actions)); } public static bool CheckAccess(AuthorizationContext context) {     return AuthorizationManager.CheckAccess(context); } I also created the same set of methods but called DemandAccess. They internally use CheckAccess and will throw a SecurityException when false is returned. All the code is part of Thinktecture.IdentityModel on Codeplex – or via NuGet (Install-Package Thinktecture.IdentityModel).

  Read the article

• Google Claims Disaster Recovery Edge

  The search giant opens up with more details as to just how its cloud-based Google Apps suite recovers from disaster. Can you say "zero loss of data"?

  Read the article

• Google Claims Disaster Recovery Edge

  The search giant opens up with more details as to just how its cloud-based Google Apps suite recovers from disaster. Can you say "zero loss of data"?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >