In any B2B Web application users has to be provisioned against an entity. For example, Acme company users shall be provisioned for Acme entity only.
I am trying to test my user provisioning APIs with OneLogin "SCIM Provisioner with SAML" connector. But I am not sure how to identify the user's organization entity.
Is there any way to identify user's organization entity other than bearer token?
The most 'user-friendly' (integration admin friendly?) way is to use the bearer token. This way the SCIM URLs that a client talks to will always be the same. Additionally, you're enforcing which entity is being affected.
The other (less common) way I've seen an application implement this is by using a unique URL per entity. i.e. https:// entity_name .ServiceProvider.com/SCIMUrl/
But even if you go with this unique URL mechanism, you're going to have to make sure the bearer token was created for that specific tenant (otherwise I can use my token to access another tenant's data)
So you might as well implement it the first way, in my opinion.
Related
So, when management tells us our website needs to "support SSO through SAML 2.0", with no additional details, what are they thinking?
What will our customers expect?
Note - The is not an open website, where everyone can join. To log in you need to be a configured user in the system. The customer's admins need to create an account in our system for each user.
So we aren't going to let just anyone who has an account with an IdP in to our website. We'll have to have some mechanism for mapping a SAML identity to our users.
How would our customers expect that to work?
Based on hints in your question, I am going to presume that you will be acting as a service provider.
To be what I would call a "good" service provider, I would expect the following:
You sign your AuthnRequests.
You provide a metadata endpoint that is kept up to date with your SP metadata to include current public keys for encrypting attributes (if necessary) to be sent to you as well as validating your AuthnRequest signatures.
You support dynamic consumption of my identity provider's metadata endpoint to keep your side of the connection up to date, especially with concern to my signing certificate.
You expose management of my identity provider configuration inside of your service provider mechanism to my IdP administrators through a web or API interface.
You either support a mechanism to automatically manage my users (like via SCIM or Graph or something else), or you support Just-In-Time provisioning based on an incoming assertion.
You allow me to decide my SAML Name ID format, and that format is per-tenant. As an example, I may want to use email address as the identifier, while another IdP may want to use sAMAccountName. e.g., john.doe#domain.com vs. johndoe.
You support Service-Provider-Initiated SSO. That means that the user shows up to partner1.yourdomain.com and get redirected for authentication to that partner's IdP, and that going to the location partner2.yourdomain.com would redirect to a different IdP.
As a service provider, you should make using your service easy and secure. By shifting to SAML, it allows you to get out of the business of password and user management because you get to put that back on the identity provider. It allows your users to not have to type in a password (or more, if you're doing MFA) to use your service, removing friction caused by security. It allows you to put the onus of authenticating the user back on the organization that owns the identity.
Your customers would expect that if they have an application that uses the SAML 2.0 client-side stack then when the application sends an AuthnRequest, they will see a login page on your site and once authenticated, the application will receive a set of assertions (claims) from your IDP via an AuthnResponse.
One of these assertions is NameID. This is the "primary key" between their system and yours. Normally this is UPN or email.
This mapping is outside of the SAML spec. There needs to be some kind of "on-boarding" for the customers.
I am in the process of expanding our login options on our product to support MS Identity Platform, to be able to use Azure AD login (and gain SSO/MFA with that)
Currently we are using .Net Core + JWT (JwtBearerDefaults.AuthenticationScheme)
The environment is angular clients, .Net Core APA, and a back-end database.
I have the setup working.
My challenge is that in our business model and backend database we have ~2.000 userrights and our own User/Role model granting access.
I am currently getting the IdToken from MSAL and in my proof of concept using the oid to couple the Azure ID with our User model.
But, in our existing JWT solution, our access token holds claims about the User Id, but also the role, and another property (Unit/Vessel) determining access. From these three properties we can verify against the 2.000 userights on API side whether or not a request is allowed or not.
I would like to keep this information (User, Role, Unit) in the token - but have doubts on how.
Constraints:
We cant create/use Azure claims. We have too many, and customers will manage the Azure application - while we create, add, remove rights for each version of our software.
Azure don't know about role/unit data - and these are different for each customer - so that information can't be in Azure either.
My best idea is outlined below - would this approach be correct, and live up to the way ID/Access is separated?
I hope someone can give me some feedback on this.
My idea is, that the Angular client gets the Azure IDToken. I then use the Azure IDToken, call our API, which on server side, validates ID Token, and then grants me an access token, which contains the user, role and unit. This token is not Azure'd at all, just a token generated by our API - which again will be the only one validating it). Pro's on this approach is also I can keep one type of Access Token, no matter which IDToken is supplied by Azure or our own API.
Tried to outline the flow below in this DrawIO diagram.
I hope someone with more experience in the Token field can validate if this would be a viable approach?
Best regards
/Anders
This is a viable approach except for one thing.
Do not use Id token for authorization.
Your front-end should acquire an access token from AAD for your back-end.
This access token contains the user objectId, allowing you to map the user to a user in your database.
An Id token is only meant for the application that requested authentication and tells it metadata on the user like their display name etc., but it is not meant for authorizing anything.
I have a set of REST services on IBM cloud. Ingress is integrated with Appid for authentication. Ingress adds the token id & access id to the authorization header.
Now on the API side (springboot) do I need to validate the user again on every request ? will this be redundant ? If no, which appid api can be used to authorize the user. Any reference to similar example
Already gone through the example on IBM cloud site. One is about ingress & appid integration, but does not talk about REST services layer how to handle the authorization tokens there.
Another is only about spring and Appid, (does not talk about ingress)
Authentication versus Authorization is where the line is drawn. The Ingress integration with App ID does the authentication for you and your REST service (application) can be assured that the request if it comes through is authenticated. Now just because the user exists in your system and has provided the right credential does not mean that he is allowed to access the service he is trying to access or view the data he's trying to view which is where the authorization comes into play - the REST service can use the authorization tokens to figure out if the user has the right access to use the service.
Here's a good article that talks about the use of Roles - https://cloud.ibm.com/docs/services/appid?topic=appid-tutorial-roles
In any application - REST, UI or otherwise - multiple levels of security may be necessary depending on your requirements. Authentication verifies the user is who they claim to be, authorization checks what permissions the user might have. Each application might have its own rules for what the user can access.
In your case, you have authenticated the user facilitated via Ingress with AppID, which supplies a user principal (identity) to your application. However, should every user have access to all of your application endpoints? If the answer is no, then you will need an authorization model, for which a common approach is RBAC (role-based access control).
Even without an RBAC requirement, it is still wise the validate the user's principal in some form for each request. For example, perhaps the user belongs to a domain that you might not expect, or should no longer have access to this specific REST application. Your application server may have features that assist you with a simple authorization feature, or you can custom build your own validation.
At present, as the identity provider, AppID can be the store of the user's role for RBAC. However your application or application server must decide what to do with that role.
If you are looking for a Cloud-centric authorization solution, you may want to consider exploring Istio's authorization policies:
https://istio.io/docs/concepts/security/#authorization-policy
https://cloud.ibm.com/docs/containers?topic=containers-istio
I'm quite new to OpenIdConnect so excuse me if i still miss some basic concept.
I have a SPA-style web application I'm developing for my company (AspNet Core + Aurelia).
I want to use AzureAD via OpenIdConnect for authentication and authorization, everything works very well so far i'm able to obrain a token and sign in.
the problem is that my application needs to provide to the client's browser some app-specific claims like: can read X, can edit Y...
if i add these claims to the JWT token provided by AzureAD obviously it will became invalid, as the signature will not match the content.
if i generate a new token with the new claims, but signed with the app key, obviously it will be a different token valid only in the context of my app (what if I'll later need to access some other resource using the AzureAD token?, is it a good idea to insert the AzureID token as claim of the newly issued token?)
Are there something I'm missing in the OpenConnectId? or is there a way to add claims to a token issued by a 3rd-party provider like AzureAD while keeping the token valid? Maybe a way to ask AzureAd to add claims to the token and re-sign it?
I think a good way to solve this situation may be to obtain an access_token for my own application's api (from my app backend) in exchange of the id_token provided by azure (after its validation)
so the application frontend in the browser will own two tokens and it will be able to use the correct one for each type of request.
there are some standardized flow that are quite similar to this but not exactly the same.
You could try to use a custom claim mapping policy. This is documented here.
This feature is used by tenant admins to customize the claims emitted in tokens for a specific application in their tenant.
As far as I can understand, this is still in preview stage. So it may require some trial and error verification.
Alternatively, you can define some policy in your application itself. Given that you know client IDs from your application (hence you require to use them for OpenID Connect requests), you may create a simple policy to check tokens and perform verifications.
I'm almost figuring out how the different pieces of an Authentication and Authorization server architecture work. I really think that IdentityServer is a great piece of software.
I'm trying to summarize my discoveries, to settle a base for my questions.
IdentityServer issues tokens using OpenID Connect. Issued tokens are ID Tokens and Access Tokens.
Tokens are requested - as stated by OpenID Connect protocol - to clients by using OAuth 2.0 flows. One flow for each client.
During the flow beginning, client requests a collection of scopes (at least "openid", that's because he has to state that an OpenID Connect flow has been activated)
A client may ask all the scopes that he is authorized to ask. Using the Entity Framework plugin for IdentityServer, this information is contained in the ClientScope table. If the client requests a scope that he isn't authorized to request, the flow is interrupted.
Scopes may "contain" claims. This means that if a scope contains a group of claims, whenever the client is issued a token, this token contains also all the corresponding user's claims. For example: let call "roles" a scope that contains "role" claim. As soon as the client is authorized, the received token will contain all the user's roles (as claims).
Each requested scope, if authorized, is "translated" in a claim with the name "scope". This means that if a client requests, for example, a defined "api" scope, the generated identity will have at least a claim called "scope" with value "api".
If all of what I've written is more and less correct, here are my questions:
how are claims defined on asp.net identity tables (i.e. AspNetUserClaims) connected to the IdentityServer ones. For what I've seen the matching is made on the name. Is this conclusion correct? In other words, if my client has to receive a "role" claims (because he has asked for the "roles" scope), will the "Asp.Net Identity" plugin for IdentityServer just release the "role" claims defined for the authenticated user?
referencing the "EntityFramework" plugin tables, what's the meaning of the "ClientClaims" table? I cannot get how claims can be directly connected to client... What am I missing?
let's suppose that in my resource server I've an action protected with a ResourceAuthorize attribute like this:
[ResourceAuthorize("Read", "Orders")]
In my AuthorizationManager I check for the presence of a claim "order_read" or a claim "api". Those are two different scopes defined in my AuthorizationServer, one just for "order reading" and the last for a complete API access. The first may be asked by third-party clients, while the latter no. Is that a good practice?
I cannot understand what my client should do with the id_token. Should I ignore the problem, as I'm using the js library OIDC Token Manager? Are the security controls performed by this library?
Last question: when my application presents the Access Token, how is the ClaimsIdentity generated? Is right to say that it's generated after validating the token on the Identity Server? Does this means that IdentityServer will get the access token and translate it in a set of claims?
Thanks for your clarifications!
Marco
Yep, you got the gist of it. As for your questions:
how are claims defined on asp.net identity tables
That's up to you. IdentityServer doesn't mandate an identity management library. The IUserService extensibility point is where you bridge that gap. We have a starter version of IUserService, but it's a code-based NuGet so you can change it to really do what you need.
I cannot understand what my client should do with the id_token
It is mainly used to pass back to IdentityServer at signout time (to authenticate the signout request).
when my application presents the Access Token, how is the ClaimsIdentity generated
There is middleware (AccessTokenValidation) to validate the access token. The result is the claims form the token, which are then turned into a ClaimsIdentity and then made available to any processing downstream (such as your Web API code).
what's the meaning of the "ClientClaims" table
The Client configuration has a Claims property if you'd like to issue claims on behalf of the client. Check the docs: https://identityserver.github.io/Documentation/docsv2/configuration/clients.html
let's suppose that in my resource server I've an action protected with a ResourceAuthorize attribute like this
This is unrelated to IdentityServer, and is part of the IdentityModel library. ResourceAuthorize is a framework for using the user, the resource, and the action being performed into account when trying to decide the authorization outcome.