I try to get the space permissions of the anonymous users. I found the method hasPermission from the SpacePermissionManager, which states that you can use null for the user if you want to get the anonymous rights. This works fine, except the anonymous access is deactivated in the global permissions. Then it always return false. Is there a way to get the anonymous space permissions even if the global access is deactived?
Background: There are still permissions settings for the anonymous in every space, even with the global deactivated. The thing is that authenticated users inherit these rights, so there is a reason to get this.
Related
i have a scenario where i want to restrict the user in keycloak
i have user
user can have access to multiple accounts
in multiple accounts, use can be Admin or agent (reader)
user
|
|
|-------account-1
| |
| |-------admin
|-------account-2
| |
| |-------agent
How can we map this in Keycloak with Policy, Permission, and role?
any reference document any example really helpful
also based from : Resources, scopes, permissions and policies in keycloak
From the answer of Andy, i have created one resource Account and role admin & agent.
created same policies as in example.
i am looking forward to add scopes (auth scope) and roles to JWT token how to map that part so that API gateway or service can verify further.
#changa, I've rewritten my answer based on our discussion. Hope this helps!
Let me first clarify some key areas before I answer. My main focus on the answer that you've linked was really on how to play around the Evaluate tool and I didn't really dive too deeply into some of the concepts - so let's do that :)
In Keycloak, you'll encounter Client and Authorization Scopes. For a formal definition of these terms please check out the Core Concepts and Terms in the Server Administration Guide, but simply put:
Client Scopes are scopes which are granted to clients when they are requested via the scope parameter (once the resource owner permits it). Note that there's also the concept of Default Client Scope but I've chosen to keep things simple. Furthermore, you can leverage protocol and role scope mappers to tailor what claims and assertions are present in the access token.
Authorization Scopes on the other hand are granted to clients after successful evaluation of the policies against a protected resource. These scopes are not granted to clients based on user consent.
The key differences between the two is really when and how a client obtains these scopes. To help you visualize all of this, here's a scenario:
A renowned martial artist called Bob authenticates via Keycloak
Bob get presented with a consent screen where he is asked to share his name, his fighting style and his age.
Bob chooses to give access to his name and fighting style but he declines to share his age.
When we inspect the token now, we would see the following (completely made up) entries for the scope attribute of the access token: name and fighting_style.
Additionally, let's assume that we've set up a couple of protocol mappers (e.g. User Attribute Mapper Type - there are a ton) to display the values for full name and fighting style via the following token claims: fighter_name and martial_arts when the two Client Scopes above are present in the access token. In addition to two previously mentioned scopes, we would also see something like fighter_name: Robert Richards and martial_arts: Freestyle Karate when examining the access token.
Side Note: Given the length of this answer, I've decided to skip this topic but please check out this awesome video at around the 7 minute mark along with the associated GitHub Project for more information. The README is pretty good.
Additionally, let's assume that Bob is mapped to a realm role called Contestant and a client role of Fighter and we did place any restrictions in Keycloak when it comes to sharing this info. So in addition to all the things mentioned above, we would see that information inside the token as well.
Needless to say, this is an oversimplification on my part as I'm simply setting up the stage for demo. purposes and there's much more information inside the access token.
Bob doesn't like how the tournament bracket is laid out as he's eager to fight the world champ as soon as possible, so he attempts to change his placement by sending a request against tournament/tekken6/bracket/{id}. This resource is associated with the scope bracket:modify. Additionally, there is a permission which associates the resource in question with a role based policy named Referee Role Required. If Bob were a Referee then he would be granted the bracket:modify scope but since he isn't, then he is denied that scope.
I've barely touched the surface when it comes to the inner workings of the Authorization process in Keycloak. For more information, check out this practical guide. You can do some pretty cool stuff with UMA.
Ok, so that's enough theory. Let's set up our environment to demo all of this. I'm using the following:
A realm called demo
A client called my-demo-client
A client scope called client_roles
2 users - paul and law
Two realms level roles - Admin and Reader
Two client level roles - demo-admin and demo-reader
Please note that I will using Keycloak 12.0.4 and I will skip almost all the basic setup instructions. I will only share the relevant bits. If you're not sure how to set this all up, please check out the Getting Started Guide or this answer. The answer contains steps for version 8 but the differences are very minor as far as I could tell.
Associating Users And Roles
In order to associate paul with the Admin, Reader, bank-admin and bank-reader roles, please do the following:
Click on Users > View all users > Click on the ID value for paul > Click on Role Mappings > Under Realm Roles move Admin and Reader under Assigned Roles > Select my-demo-client under the Client Roles select box and move demo-admin and demo-reader under Assigned Roles like so
As for law we'll just associate him with Reader and bank-reader.
Associating a client scope with a client
Create a Client Scope by:
Clicking on the Client Scopes link on the left > Click on Create > Enter custom-client-scope for the Name field and Hit Save. It should look like this
Click on Clients on the left > Select the my-demo-client > Click on the Client Scopes tab at the top > and let's just move it to Assigned Default Client Scopes for convenience.
Inspecting the Access Token
We can easily generate an access token for our setup via Keycloak to see what it looks like. In order to do so:
Click on Evaluate tab under Client Scopes.
Select paul as the user
Click on the blue Evaluate button
Click on Generated Access Token. While inspecting the token, look for:
resource_access to see client level roles associated with paul
realm_access to see paul's realm level roles
scope to see the Client Scope that we created called custom-client-scope
If you generate a token for law, you would see less roles when compared to paul.
Obtaining a Scope After Policy Evaluation
Continuing with our setup:
I've created an account/{id} resource with two Authorization Scopes called account:read and account:modify like so
Additionally, I've created two role based policies called Only Reader Role Policy and Only Admin Role Policy where the former requires the Reader realm role while the latter requires the Admin realm role. Here's an example for reference.
Note that you can further enhance that policy at the client level if you wish but to keep things simple, I chose not to do so.
Furthermore, I've created two scoped based permissions called Read Account Scope Permission and Modify Account Scope Permission.
The Read Account Scope Permission will grant the account:read Authorization Scope if the user is either an Admin or a Reader. One key thing to notice here is the the Decision Strategy has to be set to Affirmative in order to achieve this behavior.
Modify Account Permission on the other hand grants the account:modify Authorization Scope to users with the Admin role.
Now, if you choose the evaluate the user paul (remember he is both Admin and Reader) against the Account Resource, he will be granted both the account:read and account:modify Authorization Scopes. Let's see if this true. Here's our Evaluate screen and notice that I did not associate any roles with paul since this was already done via the Users > Role Mappings tab
And here are the results of that evaluation as predicted
Here is the evaluation result for law. Since he's not an Admin he'll be denied the account:modify scope but he'll be granted the account:read scope.
And finally, we can further confirm this by click on Show Authorization Data which shows the permissions inside the access token for law
Hopefully this helps you see where each piece of the puzzle fits in your architecture. Cheers!
I am trying to read out the list of users, incl the user permissions, using the API call documented at https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/config/mgmt/v3/mgmtReference/management/accountUserLinks/list
I get the list of users as expected, but not the permissions. (Actually, for "some" users the permissions is listed, but not for the most)
The GA setup has a number of properties, and the users have permissions set on property level in most cases.
My guess is that the "property level permissions" is not reported properly through the API response for the users which in the UI/console have their permissions listed as "None (user has permissions on a lower level)"
As the next intended step is not only to read out the user list, incl permissions, but also do scripted CRUD operations I'd like to understand what the "intended way" to deal with this via the API is.
Anyone that is working with CRUD operations of users via the Analytics management API?
Ah, finally I found the API call https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/config/mgmt/v3/mgmtReference/management/webpropertyUserLinks/list which solves the problem.
(Sorry for not RTFM, but it is actually a bit confusing when this API call is at the end of API list, and the other call is in the beginning...)
Context: working in PowerShell, need PSCredential object, have an object of WindowsIdentity type.
Say you obtain WindowsIdentity type using:
"[Security.Principal.WindowsIdentity]::GetCurrent()"
You need PSCredential object to make a network call, e.g., Invoke-RestMethod.
Instead of calling the usual Get-Credential and prompting the user for username and pw, can we actually use the current security context to create a credential object? e.g, can we cast the WindowsIdentity object into the PSCredential (if not directly - then through a sequence of steps?).
If not then any other ideas about creating a PSCredential object from current security context (without specifying username or password - or storing encrypted username and pw as that would also require updating as the passwords change)?
Similar questions have probably been asked before but I could not find an approach of trying to convert WindowsIdentity into PSCredential type - or any definitive answer on why this might be prevented by design. If this is not fundamentally possible - what might be the reason for not supporting it? Do you see any plausible workaround?
(I tried to add a tag: PSCredential but this tag does not already exist and I do not have enough reputation to create it: I would like to add that tag: perhaps someone from the community can add it. Thanks)
I am sure others will have their take on this, but here are a few things as I understand them that would make this a real challenge and not prudent as a operational deal.
[Security.Principal.WindowsIdentity]::GetCurrent(), gives you information about your authenticated identity on the network. It does not contain any info about the user password
(https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.security.principal.windowsidentity(v=vs.110).aspx),
which is needed by System.Management.Automation.PSCredential
(https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.management.automation.pscredential?view=powershellsdk-1.1.0).
Remember, the goal of GetNetworkCredential
(https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.management.automation.pscredential.getnetworkcredential?view=powershellsdk-1.1.0#System_Management_Automation_PSCredential_GetNetworkCredential)
(which of course is a method System.Management.Automation.PSCredential), is to breakdown your user name into separate Domain and UserName strings and hands you the credential password in clear text.
For network, client access, PSCredential will not work without a valid password being provided. Of course, if you personally entered the information, you and only you can reverse it, not some remote person or service.
Think about it for a moment. Can you imagine the risk ramifications of being able to do this unabated?
Being able to just pull, dynamically, all the auth entropy of the current logged on user. This would be an instant ESP (impersonation / escalation of privilege) problem. Password obfuscation, length, complexity, with an approach like this would be meaningless. Think Pth (Pass the Hash -like attacks) situations without ever needing toe grab the hash.
Imagine, firing off a remote session to any remote host (regardless of who is logged on to it), leveraging what you state here, thus impersonating (with all their rights and privileges) the user to do very nefarious things or even just mean things (changing their passwords, desktop settings, ADDS attributes, say if they are allowed to change there Picture, phone number, maiden name, etc. all being recorded in the audit logs as if that user did it). You could log into their personal human resource files, passing the cred object to the HR website, etc. I am sure that is not your intent (at least I hope not), but still.
All that being said, if you are after user impersonation, then there are resources that present approaches on how to do this. Yet, as you look at the code to do it, it's more involved than just what you are asking for in the MS PowerShell Gallery, but even it expects you to pass it a real cred object not a WI object.
Reaching out across a network requires a full identity, user and password. Every time to try and touch a resource you have not yet touched, or who has not in a long while, you KDC (domain controller) will be engaged and without full creds the KDC Kerb TGT will fail.
Update
shivesh suman
As for ---
Thanks. Regarding: "Yet, as you look at the code to do it, it's more
involved than just what you are asking for ..." - Would it be
possible for you to point me to some of the code that you are
referring to in your comment?
Here is the code I was referring to.
Impersonate a User
New-ImpersonateUser uses the LogonUser method from the advapi32.dll to
get a token that can then be used to call the
WindowsIdentity.Impersonate method in order to impersonate another
user without logging off from the current session. You can pass it
either a PSCredential or each field separately. Once impersonation is
done, it is highly recommended that Remove-ImpersonateUser (a function
added to the global scope at runtime) be called to revert back to the
original user.
https://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/scriptcenter/Impersonate-a-User-9bfeff82
I don't see an easy way to grant permissions to another user. It seems to be quite convoluted at the moment, and I wonder if I'm missing something obvious.
Say I want to invite another user to share a Realm. First I would have to ask the other user for their identification, then I would create the permission object, and then finally I would give the other user the address of my realm.
It would be great if I could share some sort of permission token via text message and let the new user register themselves. I suppose I could do that if I created another "User" which represented the shared group, and merely share this abstract user's credentials. It feels a bit hacky that way, but it seems easier to do.
I was hoping the demo application of the shared drawing environment would hold a clue, but after looking at the source code, it turns out both devices are logged in as the same user.
Am I missing something? Given the demo Draw application, how would one user practically invite a second user to join in their shared drawing environment? It seems like there would have to be a whole set of convoluted permissions and url/identification sharing handshakes.
Thanks for asking the question! Today, you will need to create a shared Realm that all users would input their user IDs into and have access to. This way any user can look up an ID and share access to another Realm.
We realize the limitations and are working on offering a number of improvements. The first is pretty close to what you describe, called a PermissionOffer object where you can inform the Realm Object Server you want to grant access to another user for a given Realm(s). The server will then provide a token you can share via any means with the other user. That user can then use the token to create a PermissionOfferResponse object and accept the access grant. This is coming soon, so stay tuned!
Later, we plan to offer a way to lookup user IDs so you don't have to replicate all of them in a shared Realm (see this issue).
I have a small question related to granting access to multiple sites in Sitecore 7.5.
Let's say I have a website named as website_1 and another website named as website_2 in my Sitecore environment. Now I have created two roles. One role named as r_website_1 gives access to website_1 and another role r_website_2 gives access to website_2.
In r_website_1, only access to website_1 is granted and access to website_2 is denied. The same goes for r_website_2 but for
website_2.
Now I want to give read and write access to user_1 for both websites. What I did was went to User Manager>user_1>Edit>Member Of and then assigned both roles.
What I noticed that the user_1 only gets access to one website. it seems that both roles are countering each another. For example, the denied permission for website_2 in r_website_1 is conflicting with allowed permission for website_2 in r_website_2.
May I know what's the fix for this problem?
Thanks in advance,
Vaibhav
Deny permission always has priority. You cannot remove by simply adding another role with allow access rights.
Instead of using deny you should break the inheritance of chosen access right for the role1 for site2 and similarly for the role2 for site1.
Here is a quote from Sitecore Administrator Security Cookbook:
We recommend that you use inheritance whenever possible to limit the access that roles have to the items in Sitecore. Using inheritance instead of directly denying access rights to items makes it easier to manage the security system.
And you can read about breaking inheritance of access rights in Assign access rights to a security account document.