Search Results

Search found 90 results on 4 pages for 'wif'.

Page 3/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • Federated Identity- Windows Identity Server - disable cookies in the browser

    - by vinoj
    Hello, I see that Federated Identity stores Security token to a cookie, after its first request to the STS(Secure Token Service). In that case if I disable cookie in my browser, how does it work. Does the authentication module again connects to the STS to retrieve the user information or will it throw any error ? Is there any way that I can use federated authentication cookieless ?

    Read the article

  • WCF service consuming passively issued SAML token

    - by Neillyboy
    What is the best way to pass an existing SAML token from a website already authenticated via a passive STS? We have built an Identity Provider which is issuing passive claims to the website for authentication. We have this working. Now we would like to add some WCF services into the mix - calling them from the context of the already authenticated web application. Ideally we would just like to pass the SAML token on without doing anything to it (i.e. adding new claims / re-signing). All of the examples I have seen require the ActAs sts implementation - but is this really necessary? This seems a bit bloated for what we want to achieve. I would have thought a simple implementation passing the bootstrap token into the channel - using the CreateChannelActingAs or CreateChannelWithIssuedToken mechanism (and setting ChannelFactory.Credentials.SupportInteractive = false) to call the WCF service with the correct binding (what would that be?) would have been enough. We are using the Fabrikam example code as reference, but as I say, think the ActAs functionality here is overkill for what we are trying to achieve.

    Read the article

  • How can I make a security token automatically expire in a passive STS setup?

    - by Rising Star
    I have a passive STS set up for a new application I'm working on. I've noticed that when a user's session expires, the user is still authenticated. I would have thought that when the session expires, the user would no longer be authenticated. My boss discussed this with me as I am currently charged with setting up the authentication. He says that it would be good if we could make the user's log on expire after a certain period of inactivity similar to how the session expires. I am familiar with how to sign a user out with a few lines of code. How can I make it so that the user is automatically signed out after a specified period of inactivity? Currently, I have some code in the global.asax file that programmatically checks when the last request was and compares it to the current time; it then signs the user out if a certain period of time has expired.

    Read the article

  • Adding roles from a DB Table

    - by Sunil Ramu
    Can anyone expalin me how to dynamically ger the Role from a DB table instead of hard coding it in the code. ClaimsIdentity outputIdentity = new ClaimsIdentity(); outputIdentity.Claims.Add(new Claim(System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.Name, principal.Identity.Name)); outputIdentity.Claims.Add(new Claim(ClaimTypes.Role, "Manager")); outputIdentity.Claims.Add(new Claim(ClaimTypes.Country, HttpUtilities.GetProgramIdentifierFromUrl())); return outputIdentity;

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Mixing Forms and Token Authentication in a single ASP.NET Application

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I recently had the task to find out how to mix ASP.NET Forms Authentication with WIF’s WS-Federation. The FormsAuth app did already exist, and a new sub-directory of this application should use ADFS for authentication. Minimum changes to the existing application code would be a plus ;) Since the application is using ASP.NET MVC this was quite easy to accomplish – WebForms would be a little harder, but still doable. I will discuss the MVC solution here. To solve this problem, I made the following changes to the standard MVC internet application template: Added WIF’s WSFederationAuthenticationModule and SessionAuthenticationModule to the modules section. Add a WIF configuration section to configure the trust with ADFS. Added a new authorization attribute. This attribute will go on controller that demand ADFS (or STS in general) authentication. The attribute logic is quite simple – it checks for authenticated users – and additionally that the authentication type is set to Federation. If that’s the case all is good, if not, the redirect to the STS will be triggered. public class RequireTokenAuthenticationAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute {     protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)     {         if (httpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated &&             httpContext.User.Identity.AuthenticationType.Equals( WIF.AuthenticationTypes.Federation, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))         {             return true;         }                     return false;     }     protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(AuthorizationContext filterContext)     {                    // do the redirect to the STS         var message = FederatedAuthentication.WSFederationAuthenticationModule.CreateSignInRequest( "passive", filterContext.HttpContext.Request.RawUrl, false);         filterContext.Result = new RedirectResult(message.RequestUrl);     } } That’s it ;) If you want to know why this works (and a possible gotcha) – read my next post.

    Read the article

  • Programming Windows Identity Foundation - ISBN 978-0-7356-2718-5

    - by TATWORTH
    This book introduces a new technology that promises a considerable improvement on the ASP.NET membership system. If you ever had to write an extranet, system you should be aware of the problems in setting up membership for your site. The Windows Identity Foundation promises to be an excellent replacement. Therefore the book Programming Windows Identity Foundation - ISBN 978-0-7356-2718-5 at  http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780735627185, is breaking new ground. I recommend this book to all ASP.NET development teams. You should reckon on 3 to 5 man-days to study it and try out the sample programs and see if it can replace your bespoke solution. Rember this is version 1 of WIF and give yourself adequete time to read this book and familiarise yourself with the new software. Some URLs for more information: WIF home page at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/aa570351.aspx The Identity Training Kit at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=c3e315fa-94e2-4028-99cb-904369f177c0 The author's blog at http://www.cloudidentity.net/

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET WebAPI Security 3: Extensible Authentication Framework

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In my last post, I described the identity architecture of ASP.NET Web API. The short version was, that Web API (beta 1) does not really have an authentication system on its own, but inherits the client security context from its host. This is fine in many situations (e.g. AJAX style callbacks with an already established logon session). But there are many cases where you don’t use the containing web application for authentication, but need to do it yourself. Examples of that would be token based authentication and clients that don’t run in the context of the web application (e.g. desktop clients / mobile). Since Web API provides a nice extensibility model, it is easy to implement whatever security framework you want on top of it. My design goals were: Easy to use. Extensible. Claims-based. ..and of course, this should always behave the same, regardless of the hosting environment. In the rest of the post I am outlining some of the bits and pieces, So you know what you are dealing with, in case you want to try the code. At the very heart… is a so called message handler. This is a Web API extensibility point that gets to see (and modify if needed) all incoming and outgoing requests. Handlers run after the conversion from host to Web API, which means that handler code deals with HttpRequestMessage and HttpResponseMessage. See Pedro’s post for more information on the processing pipeline. This handler requires a configuration object for initialization. Currently this is very simple, it contains: Settings for the various authentication and credential types Settings for claims transformation Ability to block identity inheritance from host The most important part here is the credential type support, but I will come back to that later. The logic of the message handler is simple: Look at the incoming request. If the request contains an authorization header, try to authenticate the client. If this is successful, create a claims principal and populate the usual places. If not, return a 401 status code and set the Www-Authenticate header. Look at outgoing response, if the status code is 401, set the Www-Authenticate header. Credential type support Under the covers I use the WIF security token handler infrastructure to validate credentials and to turn security tokens into claims. The idea is simple: an authorization header consists of two pieces: the schema and the actual “token”. My configuration object allows to associate a security token handler with a scheme. This way you only need to implement support for a specific credential type, and map that to the incoming scheme value. The current version supports HTTP Basic Authentication as well as SAML and SWT tokens. (I needed to do some surgery on the standard security token handlers, since WIF does not directly support string-ified tokens. The next version of .NET will fix that, and the code should become simpler then). You can e.g. use this code to hook up a username/password handler to the Basic scheme (the default scheme name for Basic Authentication). config.Handler.AddBasicAuthenticationHandler( (username, password) => username == password); You simply have to provide a password validation function which could of course point back to your existing password library or e.g. membership. The following code maps a token handler for Simple Web Tokens (SWT) to the Bearer scheme (the currently favoured scheme name for OAuth2). You simply have to specify the issuer name, realm and shared signature key: config.Handler.AddSimpleWebTokenHandler(     "Bearer",     http://identity.thinktecture.com/trust,     Constants.Realm,     "Dc9Mpi3jaaaUpBQpa/4R7XtUsa3D/ALSjTVvK8IUZbg="); For certain integration scenarios it is very useful if your Web API can consume SAML tokens. This is also easily accomplishable. The following code uses the standard WIF API to configure the usual SAMLisms like issuer, audience, service certificate and certificate validation. Both SAML 1.1 and 2.0 are supported. 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(Constants.Realm)); adfsConfig.IssuerNameRegistry = registry; adfsConfig.CertificateValidator = X509CertificateValidator.None; // token decryption (read from configuration section) adfsConfig.ServiceTokenResolver = FederatedAuthentication.ServiceConfiguration.CreateAggregateTokenResolver(); config.Handler.AddSaml11SecurityTokenHandler("SAML", adfsConfig); Claims Transformation After successful authentication, if configured, the standard WIF ClaimsAuthenticationManager is called to run claims transformation and validation logic. This stage is used to transform the “technical” claims from the security token into application claims. You can either have a separate transformation logic, or share on e.g. with the containing web application. That’s just a matter of configuration. Adding the authentication handler to a Web API application In the spirit of Web API this is done in code, e.g. global.asax for web hosting: protected void Application_Start() {     AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();     ConfigureApis(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration);     RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters);     RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);     BundleTable.Bundles.RegisterTemplateBundles(); } private void ConfigureApis(HttpConfiguration configuration) {     configuration.MessageHandlers.Add( new AuthenticationHandler(ConfigureAuthentication())); } private AuthenticationConfiguration ConfigureAuthentication() {     var config = new AuthenticationConfiguration     {         // sample claims transformation for consultants sample, comment out to see raw claims         ClaimsAuthenticationManager = new ApiClaimsTransformer(),         // value of the www-authenticate header, // if not set, the first scheme added to the handler collection is used         DefaultAuthenticationScheme = "Basic"     };     // add token handlers - see above     return config; } You can find the full source code and some samples here. In the next post I will describe some of the samples in the download, and then move on to authorization. HTH

    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

  • Identity in .NET 4.5&ndash;Part 3: (Breaking) changes

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I recently started porting a private build of Thinktecture.IdentityModel to .NET 4.5 and noticed a number of changes. The good news is that I can delete large parts of my library because many features are now in the box. Along the way I found some other nice additions. ClaimsIdentity now has methods to query the claims collection, e.g. HasClaim(), FindFirst(), FindAll(). ClaimsPrincipal has those methods as well. But they work across all contained identities. Nice! ClaimsPrincipal.Current retrieves the ClaimsPrincipal from Thread.CurrentPrincipal. Combined with the above changes, no casting necessary anymore. SecurityTokenHandler now has read and write methods that work directly with strings. This makes it much easier to deal with non-XML tokens like SWT or JWT. A new session security token handler that uses the ASP.NET machine key to protect the cookie. This makes it easier to get started in web farm scenarios. No need for a custom service host factory or the federation behavior anymore. WCF can be switched into “WIF mode” with the useIdentityConfiguration switch (odd name though). Tooling has become better and the new test STS makes it very easy to get started. On the other hand – and that was kind of expected – to bring claims into the core framework, there are also some breaking changes for WIF code. If you want to migrate (and I would recommend that), most changes to your code are mechanical. The following is a brain dump of the changes I encountered. Assembly Microsoft.IdentityModel is gone. The new functionality is now in mscorlib, System.IdentityModel(.Services) and System.ServiceModel. All the namespaces have changed as well. No IClaimsPrincipal and IClaimsIdentity anymore. Configuration section has been split into <system.identityModel /> and <system.identityModel.services />. WCF configuration story has changed as well. Claim.ClaimType is now Claim.Type. ClaimCollection is now IEnumerable<Claim>. IsSessionMode is now IsReferenceMode. Bootstrap token handling is different now. ClaimsPrincipalHttpModule is gone. This is not really needed anymore, apart from maybe claims transformation (see here). Various factory methods on ClaimsPrincipal are gone (e.g. ClaimsPrincipal.CreateFromIdentity()). SecurityTokenHandler.ValidateToken now returns a ReadOnlyCollection<ClaimsIdentity>. Some lower level helper classes are gone or internal now (e.g. KeyGenerator). The WCF WS-Trust bindings are gone. I think this is a pity. They were *really* useful when doing work with WSTrustChannelFactory. Since WIF is part of the Windows operating system and also supported in future versions of .NET, there is no urgent need to migrate to the 4.5 claims model. But obviously, going forward, at some point you want to make the move.

    Read the article

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

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In the previous post I showed how token based authentication can be implemented for WCF HTTP based services. Authentication is the process of finding out who the user is – this includes anonymous users. Then it is up to the service to decide under which circumstances the client has access to the service as a whole or individual operations. This is called authorization. By default – my framework does not allow anonymous users and will deny access right in the service authorization manager. You can however turn anonymous access on – that means technically, that instead of denying access, an anonymous principal is placed on Thread.CurrentPrincipal. You can flip that switch in the configuration class that you can pass into the service host/factory. var configuration = new WebTokenWebServiceHostConfiguration {     AllowAnonymousAccess = true }; But this is not enough, in addition you also need to decorate the individual operations to allow anonymous access as well, e.g.: [AllowAnonymousAccess] public string GetInfo() {     ... } Inside these operations you might have an authenticated or an anonymous principal on Thread.CurrentPrincipal, and it is up to your code to decide what to do. Side note: Being a security guy, I like this opt-in approach to anonymous access much better that all those opt-out approaches out there (like the Authorize attribute – or this.). Claims-based Authorization Since there is a ClaimsPrincipal available, you can use the standard WIF claims authorization manager infrastructure – either declaratively via ClaimsPrincipalPermission or programmatically (see also here). [ClaimsPrincipalPermission(SecurityAction.Demand,     Resource = "Claims",     Operation = "View")] public ViewClaims GetClientIdentity() {     return new ServiceLogic().GetClaims(); }   In addition you can also turn off per-request authorization (see here for background) via the config and just use the “domain specific” instrumentation. While the code is not 100% done – you can download the current solution here. HTH (Wanna learn more about federation, WIF, claims, tokens etc.? Click here.)

    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

  • Access Control Service: Walkthrough Videos of Web Application, SOAP, REST and Silverlight Integration

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Over the weekend I worked a little more on my ACS2 sample. Instead of writing it all down, I decided to quickly record four short videos that cover the relevant features and code. Have fun ;) Part 1 – Overview This video does a quick walkthrough of the solution and shows the web application part. This includes driving the sign in UI via JavaScript (thanks Matias) as well as the registration logic I wrote about here. watch Part 2 – SOAP Service and Client The sample app also exposes a WCF SOAP service. This video shows how to wire up the service to ACS and hows how to create a client that first requests a token from an IdP and then sends this token to ACS. watch Part 3 – REST Service and Client This part shows how to set up a WCF REST service that consumes SWT tokens from ACS. Unfortunately there is currently no standard WIF plumbing for REST. For the service integration I had to combine a lot of code from different sources (kzu, zulfiq) as well as the WIF SDK and OAuth CTPs together. But it is working. watch Part 4 – Silverlight and Web Identity Integration This part took by far the most time to write. The Silverlight Client shows ho to sign in to the application using a registered identity provider (including web identities) and using the resulting SWT token to call our REST service. This is designed to be a desktop (OOB) client application (thanks to Jörg for the UI magic). watch code download

    Read the article

  • Mixing Forms and Token Authentication in a single ASP.NET Application (the Details)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    The scenario described in my last post works because of the design around HTTP modules in ASP.NET. Authentication related modules (like Forms authentication and WIF WS-Fed/Sessions) typically subscribe to three events in the pipeline – AuthenticateRequest/PostAuthenticateRequest for pre-processing and EndRequest for post-processing (like making redirects to a login page). In the pre-processing stage it is the modules’ job to determine the identity of the client based on incoming HTTP details (like a header, cookie, form post) and set HttpContext.User and Thread.CurrentPrincipal. The actual page (in the ExecuteHandler event) “sees” the identity that the last module has set. So in our case there are three modules in effect: FormsAuthenticationModule (AuthenticateRequest, EndRequest) WSFederationAuthenticationModule (AuthenticateRequest, PostAuthenticateRequest, EndRequest) SessionAuthenticationModule (AuthenticateRequest, PostAuthenticateRequest) So let’s have a look at the different scenario we have when mixing Forms auth and WS-Federation. Anoymous request to unprotected resource This is the easiest case. Since there is no WIF session cookie or a FormsAuth cookie, these modules do nothing. The WSFed module creates an anonymous ClaimsPrincipal and calls the registered ClaimsAuthenticationManager (if any) to transform it. The result (by default an anonymous ClaimsPrincipal) gets set. Anonymous request to FormsAuth protected resource This is the scenario where an anonymous user tries to access a FormsAuth protected resource for the first time. The principal is anonymous and before the page gets rendered, the Authorize attribute kicks in. The attribute determines that the user needs authentication and therefor sets a 401 status code and ends the request. Now execution jumps to the EndRequest event, where the FormsAuth module takes over. The module then converts the 401 to a redirect (302) to the forms login page. If authentication is successful, the login page sets the FormsAuth cookie.   FormsAuth authenticated request to a FormsAuth protected resource Now a FormsAuth cookie is present, which gets validated by the FormsAuth module. This cookie gets turned into a GenericPrincipal/FormsIdentity combination. The WS-Fed module turns the principal into a ClaimsPrincipal and calls the registered ClaimsAuthenticationManager. The outcome of that gets set on the context. Anonymous request to STS protected resource This time the anonymous user tries to access an STS protected resource (a controller decorated with the RequireTokenAuthentication attribute). The attribute determines that the user needs STS authentication by checking the authentication type on the current principal. If this is not Federation, the redirect to the STS will be made. After successful authentication at the STS, the STS posts the token back to the application (using WS-Federation syntax). Postback from STS authentication After the postback, the WS-Fed module finds the token response and validates the contained token. If successful, the token gets transformed by the ClaimsAuthenticationManager, and the outcome is a) stored in a session cookie, and b) set on the context. STS authenticated request to an STS protected resource This time the WIF Session authentication module kicks in because it can find the previously issued session cookie. The module re-hydrates the ClaimsPrincipal from the cookie and sets it.     FormsAuth and STS authenticated request to a protected resource This is kind of an odd case – e.g. the user first authenticated using Forms and after that using the STS. This time the FormsAuth module does its work, and then afterwards the session module stomps over the context with the session principal. In other words, the STS identity wins.   What about roles? A common way to set roles in ASP.NET is to use the role manager feature. There is a corresponding HTTP module for that (RoleManagerModule) that handles PostAuthenticateRequest. Does this collide with the above combinations? No it doesn’t! When the WS-Fed module turns existing principals into a ClaimsPrincipal (like it did with the FormsIdentity), it also checks for RolePrincipal (which is the principal type created by role manager), and turns the roles in role claims. Nice! But as you can see in the last scenario above, this might result in unnecessary work, so I would rather recommend consolidating all role work (and other claims transformations) into the ClaimsAuthenticationManager. In there you can check for the authentication type of the incoming principal and act accordingly. HTH

    Read the article

  • Windows Azure Learning Plan - Security

    - by BuckWoody
    This is one in a series of posts on a Windows Azure Learning Plan. You can find the main post here. This one deals with Security for  Windows Azure.   General Security Information Overview and general  information about Windows Azure Security - what it is, how it works, and where you can learn more. General Security Whitepaper – answers most questions http://blogs.msdn.com/b/usisvde/archive/2010/08/10/security-white-paper-on-windows-azure-answers-many-faq.aspx Windows Azure Security Notes from the Patterns and Practices site http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jmeier/archive/2010/08/03/now-available-azure-security-notes-pdf.aspx Overview of Azure Security http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Microsoft-Azure-Security-Cloud.html Azure Security Resources http://reddevnews.com/articles/2010/08/19/microsoft-releases-windows-azure-security-resources.aspx Cloud Computing Security Considerations http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=68fedf9c-1c27-4642-aa5b-0a34472303ea&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MicrosoftDownloadCenter+%28Microsoft+Download+Center Security in Cloud Computing – a Microsoft Perspective http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=7c8507e8-50ca-4693-aa5a-34b7c24f4579&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MicrosoftDownloadCenter+%28Microsoft+Download+Center Physical Security for Microsoft’s Online Computing Information on the Infrastructure and Locations for Azure Physical Security. The Global Foundation Services Group at Microsoft handles physical security http://www.globalfoundationservices.com/security/index.html Microsoft’s Security Response Center http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/ Software Security for Microsoft’s Online Computing Steps we take as a company to develop secure software Windows Azure is developed using the Trustworthy Computing Initiative http://www.microsoft.com/about/twc/en/us/default.aspx and  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995349.aspx Identity and Access in the Cloud http://blogs.msdn.com/b/technology_titbits_by_rajesh_makhija/archive/2010/10/29/identity-and-access-in-the-cloud.aspx Security Steps you should take While Microsoft takes great pains to secure the infrastructure, platform and code for Windows Azure, you have a responsibility to write secure code. These pointers can help you do that. Securing your cloud architecture, step-by-step http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/gg296364.aspx Security Guidelines for Windows Azure http://redmondmag.com/articles/2010/06/15/microsoft-issues-security-guidelines-for-windows-azure.aspx  Best Practices for Windows Azure Security http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vbertocci/archive/2010/06/14/security-best-practices-for-developing-windows-azure-applications.aspx Active Directory and Windows Azure http://blogs.msdn.com/b/plankytronixx/archive/2010/10/22/projecting-your-active-directory-identity-to-the-azure-cloud.aspx Understanding Encryption (great overview and tutorial) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/plankytronixx/archive/2010/10/23/crypto-primer-understanding-encryption-public-private-key-signatures-and-certificates.aspx Securing your Connection Strings (SQL Azure) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlazure/archive/2010/09/07/10058942.aspx Getting started with Windows Identity Foundation (WIF) quickly http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alikl/archive/2010/10/26/windows-identity-foundation-wif-fast-track.aspx

    Read the article

  • Authenticating clients in the new WCF Http stack

    - by cibrax
    About this time last year, I wrote a couple of posts about how to use the “Interceptors” from the REST starker kit for implementing several authentication mechanisms like “SAML”, “Basic Authentication” or “OAuth” in the WCF Web programming model. The things have changed a lot since then, and Glenn finally put on our hands a new version of the Web programming model that deserves some attention and I believe will help us a lot to build more Http oriented services in the .NET stack. What you can get today from wcf.codeplex.com is a preview with some cool features like Http Processors (which I already discussed here), a new and improved version of the HttpClient library, Dependency injection and better TDD support among others. However, the framework still does not support an standard way of doing client authentication on the services (This is something planned for the upcoming releases I believe). For that reason, moving the existing authentication interceptors to this new programming model was one of the things I did in the last few days. In order to make authentication simple and easy to extend,  I first came up with a model based on what I called “Authentication Interceptors”. An authentication interceptor maps to an existing Http authentication mechanism and implements the following interface, public interface IAuthenticationInterceptor{ string Scheme { get; } bool DoAuthentication(HttpRequestMessage request, HttpResponseMessage response, out IPrincipal principal);} An authentication interceptors basically needs to returns the http authentication schema that implements in the property “Scheme”, and implements the authentication mechanism in the method “DoAuthentication”. As you can see, this last method “DoAuthentication” only relies on the HttpRequestMessage and HttpResponseMessage classes, making the testing of this interceptor very simple (There is no need to do some black magic with the WCF context or messages). After this, I implemented a couple of interceptors for supporting basic authentication and brokered authentication with SAML (using WIF) in my services. The following code illustrates how the basic authentication interceptors looks like. public class BasicAuthenticationInterceptor : IAuthenticationInterceptor{ Func<UsernameAndPassword, bool> userValidation; string realm;  public BasicAuthenticationInterceptor(Func<UsernameAndPassword, bool> userValidation, string realm) { if (userValidation == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("userValidation");  if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(realm)) throw new ArgumentNullException("realm");  this.userValidation = userValidation; this.realm = realm; }  public string Scheme { get { return "Basic"; } }  public bool DoAuthentication(HttpRequestMessage request, HttpResponseMessage response, out IPrincipal principal) { string[] credentials = ExtractCredentials(request); if (credentials.Length == 0 || !AuthenticateUser(credentials[0], credentials[1])) { response.StatusCode = HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized; response.Content = new StringContent("Access denied"); response.Headers.WwwAuthenticate.Add(new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Basic", "realm=" + this.realm));  principal = null;  return false; } else { principal = new GenericPrincipal(new GenericIdentity(credentials[0]), new string[] {});  return true; } }  private string[] ExtractCredentials(HttpRequestMessage request) { if (request.Headers.Authorization != null && request.Headers.Authorization.Scheme.StartsWith("Basic")) { string encodedUserPass = request.Headers.Authorization.Parameter.Trim();  Encoding encoding = Encoding.GetEncoding("iso-8859-1"); string userPass = encoding.GetString(Convert.FromBase64String(encodedUserPass)); int separator = userPass.IndexOf(':');  string[] credentials = new string[2]; credentials[0] = userPass.Substring(0, separator); credentials[1] = userPass.Substring(separator + 1);  return credentials; }  return new string[] { }; }  private bool AuthenticateUser(string username, string password) { var usernameAndPassword = new UsernameAndPassword { Username = username, Password = password };  if (this.userValidation(usernameAndPassword)) { return true; }  return false; }} This interceptor receives in the constructor a callback in the form of a Func delegate for authenticating the user and the “realm”, which is required as part of the implementation. The rest is a general implementation of the basic authentication mechanism using standard http request and response messages. I also implemented another interceptor for authenticating a SAML token with WIF. public class SamlAuthenticationInterceptor : IAuthenticationInterceptor{ SecurityTokenHandlerCollection handlers = null;  public SamlAuthenticationInterceptor(SecurityTokenHandlerCollection handlers) { if (handlers == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("handlers");  this.handlers = handlers; }  public string Scheme { get { return "saml"; } }  public bool DoAuthentication(HttpRequestMessage request, HttpResponseMessage response, out IPrincipal principal) { SecurityToken token = ExtractCredentials(request);  if (token != null) { ClaimsIdentityCollection claims = handlers.ValidateToken(token);  principal = new ClaimsPrincipal(claims);  return true; } else { response.StatusCode = HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized; response.Content = new StringContent("Access denied");  principal = null;  return false; } }  private SecurityToken ExtractCredentials(HttpRequestMessage request) { if (request.Headers.Authorization != null && request.Headers.Authorization.Scheme == "saml") { XmlTextReader xmlReader = new XmlTextReader(new StringReader(request.Headers.Authorization.Parameter));  var col = SecurityTokenHandlerCollection.CreateDefaultSecurityTokenHandlerCollection(); SecurityToken token = col.ReadToken(xmlReader);  return token; }  return null; }}This implementation receives a “SecurityTokenHandlerCollection” instance as part of the constructor. This class is part of WIF, and basically represents a collection of token managers to know how to handle specific xml authentication tokens (SAML is one of them). I also created a set of extension methods for injecting these interceptors as part of a service route when the service is initialized. var basicAuthentication = new BasicAuthenticationInterceptor((u) => true, "ContactManager");var samlAuthentication = new SamlAuthenticationInterceptor(serviceConfiguration.SecurityTokenHandlers); // use MEF for providing instancesvar catalog = new AssemblyCatalog(typeof(Global).Assembly);var container = new CompositionContainer(catalog);var configuration = new ContactManagerConfiguration(container); RouteTable.Routes.AddServiceRoute<ContactResource>("contact", configuration, basicAuthentication, samlAuthentication);RouteTable.Routes.AddServiceRoute<ContactsResource>("contacts", configuration, basicAuthentication, samlAuthentication); In the code above, I am injecting the basic authentication and saml authentication interceptors in the “contact” and “contacts” resource implementations that come as samples in the code preview. I will use another post to discuss more in detail how the brokered authentication with SAML model works with this new WCF Http bits. The code is available to download in this location.

    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

  • Access Control Service v2: Registering Web Identities in your Applications [concepts]

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    ACS v2 support two fundamental types of client identities– I like to call them “enterprise identities” (WS-*) and “web identities” (Google, LiveID, OpenId in general…). I also see two different “mind sets” when it comes to application design using the above identity types: Enterprise identities – often the fact that a client can present a token from a trusted identity provider means he is a legitimate user of the application. Trust relationships and authorization details have been negotiated out of band (often on paper). Web identities – the fact that a user can authenticate with Google et al does not necessarily mean he is a legitimate (or registered) user of an application. Typically additional steps are necessary (like filling out a form, email confirmation etc). Sometimes also a mixture of both approaches exist, for the sake of this post, I will focus on the web identity case. I got a number of questions how to implement the web identity scenario and after some conversations it turns out it is the old authentication vs. authorization problem that gets in the way. Many people use the IsAuthenticated property on IIdentity to make security decisions in their applications (or deny user=”?” in ASP.NET terms). That’s a very natural thing to do, because authentication was done inside the application and we knew exactly when the IsAuthenticated condition is true. Been there, done that. Guilty ;) The fundamental difference between these “old style” apps and federation is, that authentication is not done by the application anymore. It is done by a third party service, and in the case of web identity providers, in services that are not under our control (nor do we have a formal business relationship with these providers). Now the issue is, when you switch to ACS, and someone with a Google account authenticates, indeed IsAuthenticated is true – because that’s what he is! This does not mean, that he is also authorized to use the application. It just proves he was able to authenticate with Google. Now this obviously leads to confusion. How can we solve that? Easy answer: We have to deal with authentication and authorization separately. Job done ;) For many application types I see this general approach: Application uses ACS for authentication (maybe both enterprise and web identities, we focus on web identities but you could easily have a dual approach here) Application offers to authenticate (or sign in) via web identity accounts like LiveID, Google, Facebook etc. Application also maintains a database of its “own” users. Typically you want to store additional information about the user In such an application type it is important to have a unique identifier for your users (think the primary key of your user database). What would that be? Most web identity provider (and all the standard ACS v2 supported ones) emit a NameIdentifier claim. This is a stable ID for the client (scoped to the relying party – more on that later). Furthermore ACS emits a claims identifying the identity provider (like the original issuer concept in WIF). When you combine these two values together, you can be sure to have a unique identifier for the user, e.g.: Facebook-134952459903700\799880347 You can now check on incoming calls, if the user is already registered and if yes, swap the ACS claims with claims coming from your user database. One claims would maybe be a role like “Registered User” which can then be easily used to do authorization checks in the application. The WIF claims authentication manager is a perfect place to do the claims transformation. If the user is not registered, show a register form. Maybe you can use some claims from the identity provider to pre-fill form fields. (see here where I show how to use the Facebook API to fetch additional user properties). After successful registration (which may include other mechanisms like a confirmation email), flip the bit in your database to make the web identity a registered user. This is all very theoretical. In the next post I will show some code and provide a download link for the complete sample. More on NameIdentifier Identity providers “guarantee” that the name identifier for a given user in your application will always be the same. But different applications (in the case of ACS – different ACS namespaces) will see different name identifiers. This is by design to protect the privacy of users because identical name identifiers could be used to create “profiles” of some sort for that user. In technical terms they create the name identifier approximately like this: name identifier = Hash((Provider Internal User ID) + (Relying Party Address)) Why is this important to know? Well – when you change the name of your ACS namespace, the name identifiers will change as well and you will will lose your “connection” to your existing users. Oh an btw – never use any other claims (like email address or name) to form a unique ID – these can often be changed by users.

    Read the article

  • How to configure ADFS 2.0 as SP and CA SiteMinder as IdP

    - by Pravinmenghani
    Hi, We want to configure ADFS 2.0 as SP and CA SiteMinder as IdP using SAML 2.0. In ADFS 2.0 we have a test application which is deployed using WIF. We have configured both the things correctly. However, while testing the federation it gives 2 options of selecting the Identity provider correctly. However, after we enter the credentials we get internal server error as message. Any help would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Pravin

    Read the article

  • Thinktecture IdentityServer v1.0

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    Yeah – it is finally done. I just uploaded the v1 bits to Codeplex and the documentation to our server. Here’s the official blurb… Thinktecture IdentityServer is an open source security token service based on Microsoft .NET, ASP.NET MVC, WCF and WIF. High level features Multiple protocols support (WS-Trust, WS-Federation, OAuth2, WRAP, JSNotify, HTTP GET) Multiple token support (SAML 1.1/2.0, SWT) Out of the box integration with ASP.NET membership, roles and profile Support for username/password and client certificates authentication Support for WS-Federation metadata Support for WS-Trust identity delegation Extensibility points to customize configuration and user management handling Disclaimer I did thorough testing of all features of IdentityServer - but keep in mind that this is an open source project and I am the only architect, developer and tester on the team. IdentityServer also lacks many of the enterprise-level features like configuration services, proxy support, operations integration etc. I only recommend using IdentityServer if you also understand how it works (to be able to support it). I am offering consulting to help you with customization and lock down - contact me. Download. Documentation. Up next is v1 of the Azure version. Have fun!

    Read the article

  • What .NET objects should I use to create a cookie based session in MVC?

    - by makerofthings7
    I'm writing a custom password reset application that uses a validation technique that doesn't fit cleanly with ASP.NET Membership Provider's challenge questions. Namely I need to invoke a workflow and collect information from the end user (backup phone number, email address) after the user logs in using a custom form. The only way I know to create a cookie-based session (without too much "innovation" on my part) is to use WIF. What other standard objects can I use with ASP.NET MVC to create an authenticated session that works with non-windows user stores? Ideally I can store "role" or claim information in the session object such as "admin", "departmentXadmin", "normalUser", or "restrictedUser" The workflow would look like this: User logs in with username and password If the username and pw are correct a (stateless) cookie based session is created The user gets redirected to a HTML form that allows them to enter their backup phone number (for SMS dual factor), or validate it if already set. The user can then change their password using the form provided The "forgot password" would look like this User requests OTP code to be sent to the phone User logs in using username and OTP If the OTP is valid and not expired then create a cookie based session and redirect to a form that allows password reset Show password reset form, and process results.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >