Search Results

Search found 9545 results on 382 pages for 'least privilege'.

Page 11/382 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Thinktecture.IdentityModel: WIF Support for WCF REST Services and OData

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    The latest drop of Thinktecture.IdentityModel includes plumbing and support for WIF, claims and tokens for WCF REST services and Data Services (aka OData). Cibrax has an alternative implementation that uses the WCF Rest Starter Kit. His recent post reminded me that I should finally “document” that part of our library. Features include: generic plumbing for all WebServiceHost derived WCF services support for SAML and SWT tokens support for ClaimsAuthenticationManager and ClaimsAuthorizationManager based solely on native WCF extensibility points (and WIF) This post walks you through the setup of an OData / WCF DataServices endpoint with token authentication and claims support. This sample is also included in the codeplex download along a similar sample for plain WCF REST services. Setting up the Data Service To prove the point I have created a simple WCF Data Service that renders the claims of the current client as an OData set. public class ClaimsData {     public IQueryable<ViewClaim> Claims     {         get { return GetClaims().AsQueryable(); }     }       private List<ViewClaim> GetClaims()     {         var claims = new List<ViewClaim>();         var identity = Thread.CurrentPrincipal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity;           int id = 0;         identity.Claims.ToList().ForEach(claim =>             {                 claims.Add(new ViewClaim                 {                    Id = ++id,                    ClaimType = claim.ClaimType,                    Value = claim.Value,                    Issuer = claim.Issuer                 });             });           return claims;     } } …and hooked that up with a read only data service: public class ClaimsDataService : DataService<ClaimsData> {     public static void InitializeService(IDataServiceConfiguration config)     {         config.SetEntitySetAccessRule("*", EntitySetRights.AllRead);     } } Enabling WIF Before you enable WIF, you should generate your client proxies. Afterwards the service will only accept requests with an access token – and svcutil does not support that. All the WIF magic is done in a special service authorization manager called the FederatedWebServiceAuthorizationManager. This code checks incoming calls to see if the Authorization HTTP header (or X-Authorization for environments where you are not allowed to set the authorization header) contains a token. This header must either start with SAML access_token= or WRAP access_token= (for SAML or SWT tokens respectively). For SAML validation, the plumbing uses the normal WIF configuration. For SWT you can either pass in a SimpleWebTokenRequirement or the SwtIssuer, SwtAudience and SwtSigningKey app settings are checked.If the token can be successfully validated, ClaimsAuthenticationManager and ClaimsAuthorizationManager are invoked and the IClaimsPrincipal gets established. The service authorization manager gets wired up by the FederatedWebServiceHostFactory: public class FederatedWebServiceHostFactory : WebServiceHostFactory {     protected override ServiceHost CreateServiceHost(       Type serviceType, Uri[] baseAddresses)     {         var host = base.CreateServiceHost(serviceType, baseAddresses);           host.Authorization.ServiceAuthorizationManager =           new FederatedWebServiceAuthorizationManager();         host.Authorization.PrincipalPermissionMode = PrincipalPermissionMode.Custom;           return host;     } } The last step is to set up the .svc file to use the service host factory (see the sample download). Calling the Service To call the service you need to somehow get a token. This is up to you. You can either use WSTrustChannelFactory (for the full CLR), WSTrustClient (Silverlight) or some other way to obtain a token. The sample also includes code to generate SWT tokens for testing – but the whole WRAP/SWT support will be subject of a separate post. I created some extensions methods for the most common web clients (WebClient, HttpWebRequest, DataServiceContext) that allow easy setting of the token, e.g.: public static void SetAccessToken(this DataServiceContext context,   string token, string type, string headerName) {     context.SendingRequest += (s, e) =>     {         e.RequestHeaders[headerName] = GetHeader(token, type);     }; } Making a query against the Data Service could look like this: static void CallService(string token, string type) {     var data = new ClaimsData(new Uri("https://server/odata.svc/"));     data.SetAccessToken(token, type);       data.Claims.ToList().ForEach(c =>         Console.WriteLine("{0}\n {1}\n ({2})\n", c.ClaimType, c.Value, c.Issuer)); } HTH

    Read the article

  • TechDays 2011 Sweden Videos

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    All the videos from the excellent Örebro event are now online. Dominick Baier: A Technical Introduction to the Windows Identity Foundation (watch) Dominick Baier & Christian Weyer: Securing REST-Services and Web APIs on the Windows Azure Platform (watch) Christian Weyer: Real World Azure - Elasticity from on-premise to the cloud and back (watch) Our interview with Robert (watch)

    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

  • Requesting Delegation (ActAs) Tokens using WSTrustChannel (as opposed to Configuration Madness)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Delegation using the ActAs approach has some interesting security features A security token service can make authorization and validation checks before issuing the ActAs token. Combined with proof keys you get non-repudiation features. The ultimate receiver sees the original caller as direct caller and can optionally traverse the delegation chain. Encryption and audience restriction can be tied down Most samples out there (including the SDK sample) use the CreateChannelActingAs extension method from WIF to request ActAs tokens. This method builds on top of the WCF binding configuration which may not always be suitable for your situation. You can also use the WSTrustChannel to request ActAs tokens. This allows direct and programmatic control over bindings and configuration and is my preferred approach. The below method requests an ActAs token based on a bootstrap token. The returned token can then directly be used with the CreateChannelWithIssued token extension method. private SecurityToken GetActAsToken(SecurityToken bootstrapToken) {     var factory = new WSTrustChannelFactory(         new UserNameWSTrustBinding(SecurityMode.TransportWithMessageCredential),         new EndpointAddress(_stsAddress));     factory.TrustVersion = TrustVersion.WSTrust13;     factory.Credentials.UserName.UserName = "middletier";     factory.Credentials.UserName.Password = "abc!123";     var rst = new RequestSecurityToken     {         AppliesTo = new EndpointAddress(_serviceAddress),         RequestType = RequestTypes.Issue,         KeyType = KeyTypes.Symmetric,         ActAs = new SecurityTokenElement(bootstrapToken)     };     var channel = factory.CreateChannel();     var delegationToken = channel.Issue(rst);     return delegationToken; }   HTH

    Read the article

  • Windows Security Videos auf Channel 9

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Ich habe vor ein paar Wochen mit Lori drei Videos zum Thema Windows Security für Entwickler aufgenommen – die sind nun Online. Der erste Teil beschäftigt sich mit den absoluten Grundlagen der Windows Sicherheit. Was ist ein Konto? Was ist eine SID? Was ist ein Windows Token? Weiterhin wird gezeigt, wie sich diese grundlegenden Windows Einrichtungen über Managed Code anprogrammieren lassen. Der Vortrag endet mit einem kleinen Einblick in die Vorgehensweise von UAC, und wie dieses programmatisch verwendet werden kann. http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Lori/Windows-Security-fr-Developers-Teil-1 Teil zwei beschäfitgt sich mit Zugriffs-Kontrolllisten, und wie diese mit .NET Code gelesen und geschrieben werden können. Weiterhin werden die beiden verwandten Konzepte Logon Session und Impersonierung besprochen. Beide Einrichtungen erzeugen einen neuen Token, sind aber grundlegend verschieden in ihren Einsatzgebieten. http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Lori/Windows-Security-fr-Developers-Teil-2 Teil drei stellt das Kerberos Netzwerk-Authentifizierungsprotokoll vor. Da dieses Protokoll standardmäßig in Active Directory verwendet wird, sollten man es in den Grundzügen kennen. Natürlich kann auch Kerberos aus Managed Code verwendet werden – die abschließende Demo zeigt wie dies funktioniert. http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Lori/Windows-Security-fr-Developers-Teil-3 …und noch ein kleines Interview http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Lori/Interview-mit-Dominick-Baier Viel Spaß ;)

    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

  • Access Control Service: Passive/Active Transition Sample

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Here you can find my updated ACS2 sample. In addition to the existing front ends (web [WS-Federation], console [SOAP & REST], Silverlight [REST]) and error handling, it now also includes a WPF client that shows the passive/active transition with a SOAP service as illustrated here. All the ACS interaction is encapsulated in a WPF user control that: retrieves the JSON feed displays a list of supported identity providers triggers the sign in via a browser control retrieves the token response packages the token as a GenericXmlSecurityToken (to be used directly with the WIF ChannelFactory extensions methods) All you need to supply is the ACS namespace and the realm. Have fun!

    Read the article

  • Token based Authentication for WCF HTTP/REST Services: The Client

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    If you wondered how a client would have to look like to work with the authentication framework, it is pretty straightfoward: Request a token Put that token on the authorization header (along with a registered scheme) and make the service call e.g.: var oauth2 = new OAuth2Client(_oauth2Address); var swt = oauth2.RequestAccessToken( "username", "password", _baseAddress.AbsoluteUri);   var client = new HttpClient { BaseAddress = _baseAddress }; client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Bearer", swt); var response = client.Get("identity"); response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode(); HTH

    Read the article

  • Thinktecture.IdentityModel: Comparing Strings without leaking Timinig Information

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Paul Hill commented on a recent post where I was comparing HMACSHA256 signatures. In a nutshell his complaint was that I am leaking timing information while doing so – or in other words, my code returned faster with wrong (or partially wrong) signatures than with the correct signature. This can be potentially used for timing attacks like this one. I think he got a point here, especially in the era of cloud computing where you can potentially run attack code on the same physical machine as your target to do high resolution timing analysis (see here for an example). It turns out that it is not that easy to write a time-constant string comparer due to all sort of (unexpected) clever optimization mechanisms in the CLR. With the help and feedback of Paul and Shawn I came up with this: Structure the code in a way that the CLR will not try to optimize it In addition turn off optimization (just in case a future version will come up with new optimization methods) Add a random sleep when the comparison fails (using Shawn’s and Stephen’s nice Random wrapper for RNGCryptoServiceProvider). You can find the full code in the Thinktecture.IdentityModel download. [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoOptimization)] public static bool IsEqual(string s1, string s2) {     if (s1 == null && s2 == null)     {         return true;     }       if (s1 == null || s2 == null)     {         return false;     }       if (s1.Length != s2.Length)     {         return false;     }       var s1chars = s1.ToCharArray();     var s2chars = s2.ToCharArray();       int hits = 0;     for (int i = 0; i < s1.Length; i++)     {         if (s1chars[i].Equals(s2chars[i]))         {             hits += 2;         }         else         {             hits += 1;         }     }       bool same = (hits == s1.Length * 2);       if (!same)     {         var rnd = new CryptoRandom();         Thread.Sleep(rnd.Next(0, 10));     }       return same; }

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET WebAPI Security 2: Identity Architecture

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Pedro has beaten me to the punch with a detailed post (and diagram) about the WebAPI hosting architecture. So go read his post first, then come back so we can have a closer look at what that means for security. The first important takeaway is that WebAPI is hosting independent-  currently it ships with two host integration implementations – one for ASP.NET (aka web host) and WCF (aka self host). Pedro nicely shows the integration into the web host. Self hosting is not done yet so we will mainly focus on the web hosting case and I will point out security related differences when they exist. The interesting part for security (amongst other things of course) is the HttpControllerHandler (see Pedro’s diagram) – this is where the host specific representation of an HTTP request gets converted to the WebAPI abstraction (called HttpRequestMessage). The ConvertRequest method does the following: Create a new HttpRequestMessage. Copy URI, method and headers from the HttpContext. Copies HttpContext.User to the Properties<string, object> dictionary on the HttpRequestMessage. The key used for that can be found on HttpPropertyKeys.UserPrincipalKey (which resolves to “MS_UserPrincipal”). So the consequence is that WebAPI receives whatever IPrincipal has been set by the ASP.NET pipeline (in the web hosting case). Common questions are: Are there situations where is property does not get set? Not in ASP.NET – the DefaultAuthenticationModule in the HTTP pipeline makes sure HttpContext.User (and Thread.CurrentPrincipal – more on that later) are always set. Either to some authenticated user – or to an anonymous principal. This may be different in other hosting environments (again more on that later). Why so generic? Keep in mind that WebAPI is hosting independent and may run on a host that materializes identity completely different compared to ASP.NET (or .NET in general). This gives them a way to evolve the system in the future. How does WebAPI code retrieve the current client identity? HttpRequestMessage has an extension method called GetUserPrincipal() which returns the property as an IPrincipal. A quick look at self hosting shows that the moral equivalent of HttpControllerHandler.ConvertRequest() is HttpSelfHostServer.ProcessRequestContext(). Here the principal property gets only set when the host is configured for Windows authentication (inconsisteny). Do I like that? Well – yes and no. Here are my thoughts: I like that it is very straightforward to let WebAPI inherit the client identity context of the host. This might not always be what you want – think of an ASP.NET app that consists of UI and APIs – the UI might use Forms authentication, the APIs token based authentication. So it would be good if the two parts would live in a separate security world. It makes total sense to have this generic hand off point for identity between the host and WebAPI. It also makes total sense for WebAPI plumbing code (especially handlers) to use the WebAPI specific identity abstraction. But – c’mon we are running on .NET. And the way .NET represents identity is via IPrincipal/IIdentity. That’s what every .NET developer on this planet is used to. So I would like to see a User property of type IPrincipal on ApiController. I don’t like the fact that Thread.CurrentPrincipal is not populated. T.CP is a well established pattern as a one stop shop to retrieve client identity on .NET.  That makes a lot of sense – even if the name is misleading at best. There might be existing library code you want to call from WebAPI that makes use of T.CP (e.g. PrincipalPermission, or a simple .Name or .IsInRole()). Having the client identity as an ambient property is useful for code that does not have access to the current HTTP request (for calling GetUserPrincipal()). I don’t like the fact that that the client identity conversion from host to WebAPI is inconsistent. This makes writing security plumbing code harder. I think the logic should always be: If the host has a client identity representation, copy it. If not, set an anonymous principal on the request message. Btw – please don’t annoy me with the “but T.CP is static, and static is bad for testing” chant. T.CP is a getter/setter and, in fact I find it beneficial to be able to set different security contexts in unit tests before calling in some logic. And, in case you have wondered – T.CP is indeed thread static (and the name comes from a time where a logical operation was bound to a thread – which is not true anymore). But all thread creation APIs in .NET actually copy T.CP to the new thread they create. This is the case since .NET 2.0 and is certainly an improvement compared to how Win32 does things. So to sum it up: The host plumbing copies the host client identity to WebAPI (this is not perfect yet, but will surely be improved). or in other words: The current WebAPI bits don’t ship with any authentication plumbing, but solely use whatever authentication (and thus client identity) is set up by the host. WebAPI developers can retrieve the client identity from the HttpRequestMessage. Hopefully my proposed changes around T.CP and the User property on ApiController will be added. In the next post, I will detail how to add WebAPI specific authentication support, e.g. for Basic Authentication and tokens. This includes integrating the notion of claims based identity. After that we will look at the built-in authorization bits and how to improve them as well. Stay tuned.

    Read the article

  • Thinktecture.IdentityModel: WRAP and SWT Support

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    The latest drop of Thinktecture.IdentityModel contains some helpers for the Web Resource Authorization Protocol (WRAP) and Simple Web Tokens (SWT). WRAP The WrapClient class is a helper to request SWT tokens via WRAP. It supports issuer/key, SWT and SAML input credentials, e.g.: var client = new WrapClient(wrapEp); var swt = client.Issue(issuerName, issuerKey, scope); All Issue overrides return a SimpleWebToken type, which brings me to the next helper class. SWT The SimpleWebToken class wraps a SWT token. It combines a number of features: conversion between string format and CLR type representation creation of SWT tokens validation of SWT token projection of SWT token as IClaimsIdentity helpers to embed SWT token in headers and query strings The following sample code generates a SWT token using the helper class: private static string CreateSwtToken() {     var signingKey = "wA…";     var audience = "http://websample";     var issuer = "http://self";       var token = new SimpleWebToken(       issuer, audience, Convert.FromBase64String(signingKey));     token.AddClaim(ClaimTypes.Name, "dominick");     token.AddClaim(ClaimTypes.Role, "Users");     token.AddClaim(ClaimTypes.Role, "Administrators");     token.AddClaim("simple", "test");       return token.ToString(); }

    Read the article

  • WIF, ADFS 2 and WCF&ndash;Part 3: ADFS Setup

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In part 1 of this series I briefly gave an overview of the ADFS / WS-Trust infrastructure. In part 2 we created a basic WCF service that uses ADFS for authentication. This part will walk you through the steps to register the service in ADFS 2. I could provide screenshots for all the wizard pages here – but since this is really easy – I just go through the necessary steps in textual form. Step 1 – Select Data Source Here you can decide if you want to import a federation metadata file that describes the service you want to register. In that case all necessary information is inside the metadata document and you are done. FedUtil (a tool that ships with WIF) can generate such metadata for the most simple cases. Another tool to create metadata can be found here. We choose ‘Manual’ here. Step 2 – Specify Display Name I guess that’s self explaining. Step 3 – Choose Profile Choose ‘ADFS 2 Profile’ here. Step 4 – Configure Certificate Remember that we specified a certificate (or rather a private key) to be used to decrypting incoming tokens in the previous post. Here you specify the corresponding public key that ADFS 2 should use for encrypting the token. Step 5 – Configure URL This page is used to configure WS-Federation and SAML 2.0p support. Since we are using WS-Trust you can leave both boxes unchecked. Step 6 – Configure Identifier Here you specify the identifier (aka the realm, aka the appliesTo) that will be used to request tokens for the service. This value will be used in the token request and is used by ADFS 2 to make a connection to the relying party configuration and claim rules. Step 7 – Configure Issuance Authorization Rules Here you can configure who is allowed to request token for the service. I won’t go into details here how these rules exactly work – that’s for a separate blog post. For now simply use the “Permit all users” option. OK – that’s it. The service is now registered at ADFS 2. In the next part we will finally look at the service client. Stay tuned…

    Read the article

  • Updated IdentityServer Sample Relying Party

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I just uploaded a new version of the sample relying party. The three changes are: Added a session token diagnostics page. This allows to look at cookie sizes, details and the raw contents Sample code to switch to session mode Sample code to implement sliding expiration This was already included since 1.0: WS-Federation example Claims viewer Token viewer Active sign in via WS-Trust Delegation HTH

    Read the article

  • Token based Authentication for WCF HTTP/REST Services: Authentication

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    This post shows some of the implementation techniques for adding token and claims based security to HTTP/REST services written with WCF. For the theoretical background, see my previous post. Disclaimer The framework I am using/building here is not the only possible approach to tackle the problem. Based on customer feedback and requirements the code has gone through several iterations to a point where we think it is ready to handle most of the situations. Goals and requirements The framework should be able to handle typical scenarios like username/password based authentication, as well as token based authentication The framework should allow adding new supported token types Should work with WCF web programming model either self-host or IIS hosted Service code can rely on an IClaimsPrincipal on Thread.CurrentPrincipal that describes the client using claims-based identity Implementation overview In WCF the main extensibility point for this kind of security work is the ServiceAuthorizationManager. It gets invoked early enough in the pipeline, has access to the HTTP protocol details of the incoming request and can set Thread.CurrentPrincipal. The job of the SAM is simple: Check the Authorization header of the incoming HTTP request Check if a “registered” token (more on that later) is present If yes, validate the token using a security token handler, create the claims principal (including claims transformation) and set Thread.CurrentPrincipal If no, set an anonymous principal on Thread.CurrentPrincipal. By default, anonymous principals are denied access – so the request ends here with a 401 (more on that later). To wire up the custom authorization manager you need a custom service host – which in turn needs a custom service host factory. The full object model looks like this: Token handling A nice piece of existing WIF infrastructure are security token handlers. Their job is to serialize a received security token into a CLR representation, validate the token and turn the token into claims. The way this works with WS-Security based services is that WIF passes the name/namespace of the incoming token to WIF’s security token handler collection. This in turn finds out which token handler can deal with the token and returns the right instances. For HTTP based services we can do something very similar. The scheme on the Authorization header gives the service a hint how to deal with an incoming token. So the only missing link is a way to associate a token handler (or multiple token handlers) with a scheme and we are (almost) done. WIF already includes token handler for a variety of tokens like username/password or SAML 1.1/2.0. The accompanying sample has a implementation for a Simple Web Token (SWT) token handler, and as soon as JSON Web Token are ready, simply adding a corresponding token handler will add support for this token type, too. All supported schemes/token types are organized in a WebSecurityTokenHandlerCollectionManager and passed into the host factory/host/authorization manager. Adding support for basic authentication against a membership provider would e.g. look like this (in global.asax): var manager = new WebSecurityTokenHandlerCollectionManager(); manager.AddBasicAuthenticationHandler((username, password) => Membership.ValidateUser(username, password));   Adding support for Simple Web Tokens with a scheme of Bearer (the current OAuth2 scheme) requires passing in a issuer, audience and signature verification key: manager.AddSimpleWebTokenHandler(     "Bearer",     "http://identityserver.thinktecture.com/trust/initial",     "https://roadie/webservicesecurity/rest/",     "WFD7i8XRHsrUPEdwSisdHoHy08W3lM16Bk6SCT8ht6A="); In some situations, SAML token may be used as well. The following configures SAML support for a token coming from ADFS2: var registry = new ConfigurationBasedIssuerNameRegistry(); registry.AddTrustedIssuer( "d1 c5 b1 25 97 d0 36 94 65 1c e2 64 fe 48 06 01 35 f7 bd db", "ADFS"); var adfsConfig = new SecurityTokenHandlerConfiguration(); adfsConfig.AudienceRestriction.AllowedAudienceUris.Add( new Uri("https://roadie/webservicesecurity/rest/")); adfsConfig.IssuerNameRegistry = registry; adfsConfig.CertificateValidator = X509CertificateValidator.None; // token decryption (read from config) adfsConfig.ServiceTokenResolver = IdentityModelConfiguration.ServiceConfiguration.CreateAggregateTokenResolver();             manager.AddSaml11SecurityTokenHandler("SAML", adfsConfig);   Transformation The custom authorization manager will also try to invoke a configured claims authentication manager. This means that the standard WIF claims transformation logic can be used here as well. And even better, can be also shared with e.g. a “surrounding” web application. Error handling A WCF error handler takes care of turning “access denied” faults into 401 status codes and a message inspector adds the registered authentication schemes to the outgoing WWW-Authenticate header when a 401 occurs. The next post will conclude with authorization as well as the source code download.   (Wanna learn more about federation, WIF, claims, tokens etc.? Click here.)

    Read the article

  • Access Control Service: Protocol and Token Transition

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    ACS v2 supports a number of protocols (WS-Federation, WS-Trust, OpenId, OAuth 2 / WRAP) and a number of token types (SWT, SAML 1.1/2.0) – see Vittorio’s Infographic here. Some protocols are designed for active client (WS-Trust, OAuth / WRAP) and some are designed for passive clients (WS-Federation, OpenID). One of the most obvious advantages of ACS is that it allows to transition between various protocols and token types. Once example would be using WS-Federation/SAML between your application and ACS to sign in with a Google account. Google is using OpenId and non-SAML tokens, but ACS transitions into WS-Federation and sends back a SAML token. This way you application only needs to understand a single protocol whereas ACS acts as a protocol bridge (see my ACS2 sample here). Another example would be transformation of a SAML token to a SWT. This is achieved by using the WRAP endpoint – you send a SAML token (from a registered identity provider) to ACS, and ACS turns it into a SWT token for the requested relying party, e.g. (using the WrapClient from Thinktecture.IdentityModel): [TestMethod] public void GetClaimsSamlToSwt() {     // get saml token from idp     var samlToken = Helper.GetSamlIdentityTokenForAcs();     // send to ACS for SWT converion     var swtToken = Helper.GetSimpleWebToken(samlToken);     var client = new HttpClient(Constants.BaseUri);     client.SetAccessToken(swtToken, WebClientTokenSchemes.OAuth);     // call REST service with SWT     var response = client.Get("wcf/client");     Assert.AreEqual<HttpStatusCode>(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode); } There are more protocol transitions possible – but they are not so obvious. A popular example would be how to call a REST/SOAP service using e.g. a LiveId login. In the next post I will show you how to approach that scenario.

    Read the article

  • Thinktecture.IdentityServer Beta 1

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I just upload beta 1 to codeplex. Please test this version and give me feedback. Some quick notes on setup Watch the intro screencast on the codeplex site. Use the setup tool to set the signing and SSL certificate. You can now also set the ACLs on the private key for your worker pool account. IIS is required . SSL for the IIS site the STS runs in is required. Users of the STS must be in the 'IdentityServerUsers' role. Admins of the STS must be in the 'IdentityServerAdministrators' roles. What’s new? Mainly smaller bits and pieces and some refactoring. The biggest under the cover change is a new authorization model for the STS itself. If, e.g. you don’t like the new roles I introduced, you can easily change the behavior in the claims authorization manager in the STS web site project. What’s missing? The big one is Azure support. Not that I ran into unforeseeable problems here, I just wanted to wait until the on-premise version is more stabilized. Now with B1 I can start adding Azure support back.

    Read the article

  • Thinktecture.IdentityServer RC

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I just uploaded the RC of IdentityServer to Codeplex. This release is feature complete and if I don’t get any bug reports this is also pretty much the final V1. Changes from B1 The configuration data access is now based on EF 4.1 code first. This makes it much easier to use different data stores. For RTM I will also provide a SQL script for SQL Server so you can move the configuration to a separate machine (e.g. for load balancing scenarios). I included the ASP.NET Universal Providers in the download. This adds official support for SQL Azure, SQL Server and SQL Compact for the membership, roles and profile features. Unfortunately the Universal Provider use a different schema than the original ASP.NET providers (that sucks btw!) – so I made them optional. If you want to use them go to web.config and uncomment the new provider. The relying party registration entries now have added fields to add extra data that you want to couple with the RP. One use case could be to give the UI a hint how the login experience should look like per RP. This allows to have a different look and feel for different relying parties. I also included a small helper API that you can use to retrieve the RP record based on the incoming WS-Federation query string. WS-Federation single sign out is now conforming to the spec. Certificate based endpoint identities for SSL endpoints are optional now. Added a initial configuration “wizard”. This sets up the signing certificate, issuer URI and site title on the first run. Installation This is still a “developer” release – that means it ships with source code that you have to build it etc. But from that point it should be a little more straightforward as it used to be: Make sure SSL is configured correctly for IIS Map the WebSite directory to a vdir in IIS Run the web site. This should bring up the initial configuration Make sure the worker process account has access to the signing certificate private key Make sure all your users are in the “IdentityServerUsers” role in your role store. Administrators need the “IdentityServerAdministrators” role That should be it. A proper documentation will be hopefully available soon (any volunteers?). Please provide feedback! thanks!

    Read the article

  • Identity in .NET 4.5&ndash;Part 1: Status Quo (Beta 1)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    .NET 4.5 is a big release for claims-based identity. WIF becomes part of the base class library and structural classes like Claim, ClaimsPrincipal and ClaimsIdentity even go straight into mscorlib. You will be able to access all WIF functionality now from prominent namespaces like ‘System.Security.Claims’ and ‘System.IdentityModel’ (yay!). But it is more than simply merging assemblies; in fact claims are now a first class citizen in the whole .NET Framework. All built-in identity classes, like FormsIdentity for ASP.NET and WindowsIdentity now derive from ClaimsIdentity. Likewise all built-in principal classes like GenericPrincipal and WindowsPrincipal derive from ClaimsPrincipal. In other words, the moment you compile your .NET application against 4.5,  you are claims-based. That’s a big (and excellent) change.   While the classes are designed in a way that you won’t “feel” a difference by default, having the power of claims under the hood (and by default) will change the way how to design security features with the new .NET framework. I am currently doing a number of proof of concepts and will write about that in the future. There are a number of nice “little” features, like FindAll(), FindFirst(), HasClaim() methods on both ClaimsIdentity and ClaimsPrincipal. This makes querying claims much more streamlined. I also had to smile when I saw ClaimsPrincipal.Current (have a look at the code yourself) ;) With all the goodness also comes a number of breaking changes. I will write about that, too. In addition Vittorio announced just today the beta availability of a new wizard/configuration tool that makes it easier to do common things like federating with an IdP or creating a test STS. Go get the Beta and the tools and start writing claims-enabled applications! Interesting times ahead!

    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

  • ASP.NET WebAPI Security 5: JavaScript Clients

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    All samples I showed in my last post were in C#. Christian contributed another client sample in some strange language that is supposed to work well in browsers ;) JavaScript client scenarios There are two fundamental scenarios when it comes to JavaScript clients. The most common is probably that the JS code is originating from the same web application that also contains the web APIs. Think a web page that does some AJAX style callbacks to an API that belongs to that web app – Validation, data access etc. come to mind. Single page apps often fall in that category. The good news here is that this scenario just works. The typical course of events is that the user first logs on to the web application – which will result in an authentication cookie of some sort. That cookie will get round-tripped with your AJAX calls and ASP.NET does its magic to establish a client identity context. Since WebAPI inherits the security context from its (web) host, the client identity is also available here. The other fundamental scenario is JavaScript code *not* running in the context of the WebAPI hosting application. This is more or less just like a normal desktop client – either running in the browser, or if you think of Windows 8 Metro style apps as “real” desktop apps. In that scenario we do exactly the same as the samples did in my last post – obtain a token, then use it to call the service. Obtaining a token from IdentityServer’s resource owner credential OAuth2 endpoint could look like this: thinktectureIdentityModel.BrokeredAuthentication = function (stsEndpointAddress, scope) {     this.stsEndpointAddress = stsEndpointAddress;     this.scope = scope; }; thinktectureIdentityModel.BrokeredAuthentication.prototype = function () {     getIdpToken = function (un, pw, callback) {         $.ajax({             type: 'POST',             cache: false,             url: this.stsEndpointAddress,             data: { grant_type: "password", username: un, password: pw, scope: this.scope },             success: function (result) {                 callback(result.access_token);             },             error: function (error) {                 if (error.status == 401) {                     alert('Unauthorized');                 }                 else {                     alert('Error calling STS: ' + error.responseText);                 }             }         });     };     createAuthenticationHeader = function (token) {         var tok = 'IdSrv ' + token;         return tok;     };     return {         getIdpToken: getIdpToken,         createAuthenticationHeader: createAuthenticationHeader     }; } (); Calling the service with the requested token could look like this: function getIdentityClaimsFromService() {     authHeader = authN.createAuthenticationHeader(token);     $.ajax({         type: 'GET',         cache: false,         url: serviceEndpoint,         beforeSend: function (req) {             req.setRequestHeader('Authorization', authHeader);         },         success: function (result) {              $.each(result.Claims, function (key, val) {                 $('#claims').append($('<li>' + val.Value + '</li>'))             });         },         error: function (error) {             alert('Error: ' + error.responseText);         }     }); I updated the github repository, you can can play around with the code yourself.

    Read the article

  • WIF, ADFS 2 and WCF&ndash;Part 6: Chaining multiple Token Services

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    See the previous posts first. So far we looked at the (simpler) scenario where a client acquires a token from an identity provider and uses that for authentication against a relying party WCF service. Another common scenario is, that the client first requests a token from an identity provider, and then uses this token to request a new token from a Resource STS or a partner’s federation gateway. This sounds complicated, but is actually very easy to achieve using WIF’s WS-Trust client support. The sequence is like this: Request a token from an identity provider. You use some “bootstrap” credential for that like Windows integrated, UserName or a client certificate. The realm used for this request is the identifier of the Resource STS/federation gateway. Use the resulting token to request a new token from the Resource STS/federation gateway. The realm for this request would be the ultimate service you want to talk to. Use this resulting token to authenticate against the ultimate service. Step 1 is very much the same as the code I have shown in the last post. In the following snippet, I use a client certificate to get a token from my STS: private static SecurityToken GetIdPToken() {     var factory = new WSTrustChannelFactory(         new CertificateWSTrustBinding(SecurityMode.TransportWithMessageCredential,         idpEndpoint);     factory.TrustVersion = TrustVersion.WSTrust13;       factory.Credentials.ClientCertificate.SetCertificate(         StoreLocation.CurrentUser,         StoreName.My,         X509FindType.FindBySubjectDistinguishedName,         "CN=Client");       var rst = new RequestSecurityToken     {         RequestType = RequestTypes.Issue,         AppliesTo = new EndpointAddress(rstsRealm),         KeyType = KeyTypes.Symmetric     };       var channel = factory.CreateChannel();     return channel.Issue(rst); } To use a token to request another token is slightly different. First the IssuedTokenWSTrustBinding is used and second the channel factory extension methods are used to send the identity provider token to the Resource STS: private static SecurityToken GetRSTSToken(SecurityToken idpToken) {     var binding = new IssuedTokenWSTrustBinding();     binding.SecurityMode = SecurityMode.TransportWithMessageCredential;       var factory = new WSTrustChannelFactory(         binding,         rstsEndpoint);     factory.TrustVersion = TrustVersion.WSTrust13;     factory.Credentials.SupportInteractive = false;       var rst = new RequestSecurityToken     {         RequestType = RequestTypes.Issue,         AppliesTo = new EndpointAddress(svcRealm),         KeyType = KeyTypes.Symmetric     };       factory.ConfigureChannelFactory();     var channel = factory.CreateChannelWithIssuedToken(idpToken);     return channel.Issue(rst); } For this particular case I chose an ADFS endpoint for issued token authentication (see part 1 for more background). Calling the service now works exactly like I described in my last post. You may now wonder if the same thing can be also achieved using configuration only – absolutely. But there are some gotchas. First of all the configuration files becomes quite complex. As we discussed in part 4, the bindings must be nested for WCF to unwind the token call-stack. But in this case svcutil cannot resolve the first hop since it cannot use metadata to inspect the identity provider. This binding must be supplied manually. The other issue is around the value for the realm/appliesTo when requesting a token for the R-STS. Using the manual approach you have full control over that parameter and you can simply use the R-STS issuer URI. Using the configuration approach, the exact address of the R-STS endpoint will be used. This means that you may have to register multiple R-STS endpoints in the identity provider. Another issue you will run into is, that ADFS does only accepts its configured issuer URI as a known realm by default. You’d have to manually add more audience URIs for the specific endpoints using the ADFS Powershell commandlets. I prefer the “manual” approach. That’s it. Hope this is useful information.

    Read the article

  • WIF, ASP.NET 4.0 and Request Validation

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Since the response of a WS-Federation sign-in request contains XML, the ASP.NET built-in request validation will trigger an exception. To solve this, request validation needs to be turned off for pages receiving such a response message. Starting with ASP.NET 4.0 you can plug in your own request validation logic. This allows letting WS-Federation messages through, while applying all standard request validation to all other requests. The WIF SDK (v4) contains a sample validator that does exactly that: public class WSFedRequestValidator : RequestValidator {     protected override bool IsValidRequestString(       HttpContext context,       string value,       RequestValidationSource requestValidationSource,       string collectionKey,       out int validationFailureIndex)     {         validationFailureIndex = 0;         if ( requestValidationSource == RequestValidationSource.Form &&              collectionKey.Equals(                WSFederationConstants.Parameters.Result,                StringComparison.Ordinal ) )         {             SignInResponseMessage message =               WSFederationMessage.CreateFromFormPost(context.Request)                as SignInResponseMessage;             if (message != null)             {                 return true;             }         }         return base.IsValidRequestString(           context,           value,           requestValidationSource,           collectionKey,           out validationFailureIndex );     } } Register this validator via web.config: <httpRuntime requestValidationType="WSFedRequestValidator" />

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET WebAPI Security 4: Examples for various Authentication Scenarios

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    The Thinktecture.IdentityModel.Http repository includes a number of samples for the various authentication scenarios. All the clients follow a basic pattern: Acquire client credential (a single token, multiple tokens, username/password). Call Service. The service simply enumerates the claims it finds on the request and returns them to the client. I won’t show that part of the code, but rather focus on the step 1 and 2. Basic Authentication This is the most basic (pun inteneded) scenario. My library contains a class that can create the Basic Authentication header value. Simply set username and password and you are good to go. var client = new HttpClient { BaseAddress = _baseAddress }; client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new BasicAuthenticationHeaderValue("alice", "alice"); var response = client.GetAsync("identity").Result; response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();   SAML Authentication To integrate a Web API with an existing enterprise identity provider like ADFS, you can use SAML tokens. This is certainly not the most efficient way of calling a “lightweight service” ;) But very useful if that’s what it takes to get the job done. private static string GetIdentityToken() {     var factory = new WSTrustChannelFactory(         new WindowsWSTrustBinding(SecurityMode.Transport),         _idpEndpoint);     factory.TrustVersion = TrustVersion.WSTrust13;     var rst = new RequestSecurityToken     {         RequestType = RequestTypes.Issue,         KeyType = KeyTypes.Bearer,         AppliesTo = new EndpointAddress(Constants.Realm)     };     var token = factory.CreateChannel().Issue(rst) as GenericXmlSecurityToken;     return token.TokenXml.OuterXml; } private static Identity CallService(string saml) {     var client = new HttpClient { BaseAddress = _baseAddress };     client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("SAML", saml);     var response = client.GetAsync("identity").Result;     response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();     return response.Content.ReadAsAsync<Identity>().Result; }   SAML to SWT conversion using the Azure Access Control Service Another possible options for integrating SAML based identity providers is to use an intermediary service that allows converting the SAML token to the more compact SWT (Simple Web Token) format. This way you only need to roundtrip the SAML once and can use the SWT afterwards. The code for the conversion uses the ACS OAuth2 endpoint. The OAuth2Client class is part of my library. private static string GetServiceTokenOAuth2(string samlToken) {     var client = new OAuth2Client(_acsOAuth2Endpoint);     return client.RequestAccessTokenAssertion(         samlToken,         SecurityTokenTypes.Saml2TokenProfile11,         Constants.Realm).AccessToken; }   SWT Authentication When you have an identity provider that directly supports a (simple) web token, you can acquire the token directly without the conversion step. Thinktecture.IdentityServer e.g. supports the OAuth2 resource owner credential profile to issue SWT tokens. private static string GetIdentityToken() {     var client = new OAuth2Client(_oauth2Address);     var response = client.RequestAccessTokenUserName("bob", "abc!123", Constants.Realm);     return response.AccessToken; } private static Identity CallService(string swt) {     var client = new HttpClient { BaseAddress = _baseAddress };     client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Bearer", swt);     var response = client.GetAsync("identity").Result;     response.EnsureSuccessStatusCode();     return response.Content.ReadAsAsync<Identity>().Result; }   So you can see that it’s pretty straightforward to implement various authentication scenarios using WebAPI and my authentication library. Stay tuned for more client samples!

    Read the article

  • Thinktecture.IdentityModel.Http and the ASP.NET Web API CodePlex bits

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I will keep the github repo in sync with the major releases of Web API (like Beta, RC, RTM). Because of the changes made to Web API after beta, my current bits don’t build against the CodePlex version anymore. Today I installed a build environment for the CodePlex bits, and migrated my code. It turns out the changes are pretty easy: Simply replace Request.GetUserPrincipal() with Thread.CurrentPrincipal ;) I will update the repo when RC comes out.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >