The basic architecture of my application is React front-end consuming a RESTful API sitting on top of a polyglot storage layer.
Front-end:
React consuming APIs
Back-end:
Python
Flask
Authentication
Auth0+OKTA
Everything is working great. However, I need to have different roles for the users. In other words, I need to control the actions that a user can perform on a resource based on the role.
Example:
-User A wants to add a new user
-He has a token in his request, so I know User A is Authenticated
-Now I need to make sure he can in fact add users base on his role.
I don't want to hard-code the user roles as suggested in other solutions, and I would like to allow for custom roles to be added.
Also, I want to be respectful of people's time, so if there is a resource that addresses my concern, please feel free to point me to it.
These are my questions:
1. Are there any best practices for implementing what I am trying to accomplish?
2. Could you point me to examples or tutorials discussing authorization(not authentication)?
3. Do I check at each service call if the authenticated user can also perform the action or do I provide the roles in some form after authorization, so a service request contains both the authentication and authorization token?(this seems pretty easy to hack so I am guessing no...)
If I sound confused on the topic of authorization, it is because I am. Please feel free to point me to any resource that have been helpful to you.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to help! I really appreciate it.
You can use a framework like Yosai that is based on Apache Shiro.
These are some features:
Enables Role-Based Access Control policies through permission-level and role-level access control
Two-Factor Authentication, featuring Time-based One-Time Passwords
Native Support for Caching and Serialization
Event-driven Processing
Ready for Web Integration
Related
I have an application where right now a user could work in different context : in the same client application he could switch his context and work either for a company1 as "Administrator" or if he switch to the second context , he could work as "Editor" for the company2…
This was done by using a custom homemade authorization module, but we are trying to use openid-connect now so we are trying to find some solutions with KeyCloack.
Is it possible to assure the same kind of thing in Keycloack ?
It's possible. BUT it's not something that anyone who doesn't know the internal of your custom implementation could give you a solution.
Authorization services provided by Keycloak is quite flexible and of course complex. I suggest you to take a look at the following link and see which of of authorization solution can answer your requirements and would also be possible to adopt your system to use it (e.g. RBAC, ABAC, CBAC, etc.).
As an example, one solution could be to consider each company a resource and then each user of the application, can have different roles/permissions on each resource. So in Keycloak you define who has what roles on which resources (companies) and then in your app, you check those to see if user is authorized or not. But I'm pretty sure when you get a better overview of the Authorization Services in Keycloak, you would come up with a much better idea.
Keycloak Authorization Services
I'm just starting a new project. The result will be an API server and a progressive web app. The API server is implemented with TypeScript and the NestJS framework, the client with Angular 6.
I've been flirting with keycloak for some time. Still, I'm not quite sure it's right for me yet. But I don't want to worry about things like token renewal anymore and find it sexy that Keycloak tells me how to create user roles.
What bothers me, is the following - integration. For my use case it is necessary that the login and all features like password reset and so on are part of my application. That means I want to create forms myself in order to be able to do this perfectly in my own design and not have a second translation process, etc. Keycloak themes are not an option. So is it possible to hide keycloak in such a way, or is it so complex that I shouldn't use Keyloak in the first place? Afaik there is already an issue with password resets - I can't request it from the user side but have to make an REST call to the admin endpoint - which is okay but not ideal since it requires me to do more server side logic ( and that is not why I want to use Keycloak).
In addition, Keycloak is too much about the GUI - which makes it difficult for me, especially during development. Because I also want to provide my team with a local instance of keycloak during development. But what is the concept to import the initial data into realms, apps and also users into Keycloak? I found some JSON imports - but so far only for realms and apps. Is there also a function to import a whole dumb?
So that my team builds on a pre-built setup and has a user for each role. A reproducible setup with Vagrant or Docker which contains the import of initial data - that would be the goal.
So in short my questions:
Is it still worth the effort using Keycloak if I want to use everything via the API or should I simply use Passport and JWT?
Can I have a reproducible setup during my development that includes realms, apps, users, user roles, etc?
So, the question asked few months ago, but I also faces with that question, and I want to answer on it.
I think that you don't need Keycloak, it is fairly enough for you to use OAuth2 and JWT.
Let's justify my answer:
You have just one client - Angular application. Keycloak useful, when you have many clients (web-js, mobile platforms) and you want to create and manage them dynamically. But, I think that, in your case, you create your client once without modification in the future.
Also, Keycloak very useful, when you have a lot of integration with third part systems (Google, Fb, Twitter and etc) because Keycloak has them out-of-box. Or you need to integrate with some SAML or LDAP provider.
You may use Keycloak, if you need some Identity and User management platform, and when you have complicated user access flow.
In the end, you could consider Keycloak, if you need SSO (Single Sign On) feature. Once logged-in to Keycloak, users don't have to login again to access a different application. But, by your description, you have just one application.
Keycloak offers features such as Single-Sign-On (SSO), Identity Brokering and Social Login, User Federation, Client Adapters, an Admin Console, and an Account Management Console.
It's an out of box solution for rapid security layer development of application.You could have single common security layer for multiple application .
You can implement you security mechanism without using keycloak.
My task is to implement a resource server(RS) for IdentityServer4(IS4). The RS should fetch data from a database and send the necessary information as a json object back to the caller (client). This is needed because we have to return complex objects.
I already setup IS4 succesfully and its already running in Docker for testing purpose. I also setup the needed database.
My understanding of the flow would be, the user requests data from the RS sending the access-token, the RS then validates the token, checking if the caller is allowed to access the api using the IS4, if everything is okay the RS returns the data to the caller.
My problem is, as I'm new to this subject, how would I implement a RS? Do I create an API which is added as a scope to the user? Or is there a RS already implemented in IS4?
So yes you'll need to write your own API to serve your own resources, IdentityServer will only manage your identities for you (as well as handling external logins if that's what you need). I'd recommend going to the IdentityServer docs and working through the quick starts in order as shown below:
This will give you a good start but you'll then need to go away and research APIs more generally, there's a tonne of good info online about building (RESTful) APIs. You may find it useful to sign up to something like PluralSight and work through a couple of their courses, they're often very good.
One other thing to bear in mind is that IdentityServer is for identity, in other words Authentication and not specifically for Authorisation so you may need to add something for this. You can of course use a users identity for authorisation purposes but in most cases you'll probably need to augment the info you store about their identity to authorise them for access. See this link for more info around this topic.
We are looking to take an approach where there are service accounts in MarkLogic, but not accounts for all actual users. We would use a custom authentication token, JSWT in this case, and then via xdmp:login, elevate the calling user to the appropriate roles.
This is all fine if we create a custom HTTP server with our own rewriter to our modules. If we want to leverage the already built out REST API, is the only option to essentially create a wrapper around each of the XQuery modules that get dispatched to from the REST rewriter, in order to call the xdmp:login flow prior to fulfilling the rest of the REST api workflow? I did not see any way with the enhanced HTTP rewriter configuration to run arbitrary XQuery code before the dispatch flow.
Is this a feasible idea, or just a bad idea?
Best practice with the REST API is to use a middle tier. Exposing the REST API directly to your end users is analogous to doing so with an ODBC connection -- something you generally wouldn't do.
My suggestion is to set up a middle tier and use that gather credentials, then login as needed.
You can modify the out-of-the-box REST API endpoints to perform an xdmp:login, but of course that creates complexity when performing an upgrade, and when deploying an app. That's really a worst-case scenario.
Are you able to map all of your users to a much smaller set of ML users, perhaps on the order of dozens? Then a middle tier can do something similar to xdmp:login - it can look at the user's profile and determine which ML user to connect to ML with. That's not quite as flexible as xdmp:login, which lets you pick any roles you want without creating a user as a holder for them, but it may do the trick.
I'm new to OAuth and I would really appreciate if someone could give me a hand with my problem. I need to create a simple web application for track expenses, with some basic actions (user must be able to create an account and log in, list expenses, edit them, etc) with a REST API for each one, and the trick is that I need to be able to pass credentials to both the webpage and the API. So, after some research I've found some examples using Digest Authentication and HMAC Authentication but lot of posts also mentioned OAuth as an alternative approach, so my question is, given this scenario, would be proper to use OAuth? I mean, as far as I understand OAuth is suitable when you want to share resources with other application, which I'm not doing for this project; besides that, when you try to access the shared resource it appears a page requesting permission for the foreign application, would that page appear at some point in my application? (maybe after the login?)
Thanks in advance guys
In your current scenario it does not make sense to use OAuth. It's not what OAuth is designed for.
If your application ecosystem is going to have multiple webapps running on a single SSO (like google) then it is very helpful to have OAuth.
Suggestion: Decide based on your business/operation plan and implement accordingly.
Note: If you plan to have 10 apps in the span of the next 5 years but only have one app now it does not make sense to spend time to implement complex protocols like OAuth right now. Scale as you grow.