I've got IdentityServer3 running as a standalone identity server.
I have a separate MVC client that uses Cookies and OpenIdConnect for authentication. I'm trying to set up claims transformations amongst other things, and would like to reference the different claims types like so:
var givenName = id.FindFirst(Constants.ClaimTypes.GivenName);
var familyName = id.FindFirst(Constants.ClaimTypes.FamilyName);
var sub = id.FindFirst(Constants.ClaimTypes.Subject);
var roles = id.FindAll(Constants.ClaimTypes.Role);
On the IdentityServer3, I reference these using Thinktecture.IdentityServer.Core.Constants however on my MVC client I don't think I should need to reference Thinktecture.IdentityServer3 just for these string constants? Is there a client library that is recommended to be used in this case? I've tried Thinktecture.IdentityModel and some .NET references but none seem to replicate the ClaimTypes in Thinktecture.IdentityServer.Core.Constants. The best I've found is System.Security.Claims.ClaimTypes but that seems to have several missing e.g. FamilyName.
The first placed I looked was Thinktecture.IdentityModel but was surprised these aren't there.
So what's the magic reference? Or is it appropriate to load Thinktecture.IdentityServer3 just for these strings?
Thanks
EDIT: So I've found Thinktecture.IdentityModel.Client which contains a JwtClaimTypes that seems to mirror ClaimTypes. Why is this named with a Jwt prefix though?
The IdentityServer ClaimType constants are just a map of the OpenID Connect standard claims.
You'd be best off making your own class for these constants, as you said there's no point pulling in the full Identity Server 3 package and I don't think they are available in any other packages...
Do note that the claims come across via JSON in the JWT as snake case. For example FamilyName will be family_name.
You can install the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer package. It includes the JwtRegisteredClaimNames struct which you can use like:
using static Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens.JwtRegisteredClaimNames;
⋮
var userId = User.FindFirstValue(Sub);
Agree with Scott Brady, the best way to go about this is to create your constants class. We have created a shared library for this purpose, which contains claim type constants and have used them both in the server and the client projects.
NB: Apart from 'id_token' and 'sub' claim types, you can use your custom claim types in the implementation of 'IUserService'. This gives better clarity to claim type names also as you can use specific names based on your implementation.
Use IdentityModel
I've seen people use bare strings like "sub", but why, when the constants exist?
namespace IdentityModel
{
/// <summary>Commonly used claim types</summary>
public static class JwtClaimTypes
{
/// <summary>Unique Identifier for the End-User at the Issuer.</summary>
public const string Subject = "sub";
/// <summary>End-User's full name in displayable form including all name parts, possibly including titles and suffixes, ordered according to the End-User's locale and preferences.</summary>
public const string Name = "name";
/// <summary>Given name(s) or first name(s) of the End-User. Note that in some cultures, people can have multiple given names; all can be present, with the names being separated by space characters.</summary>
public const string GivenName = "given_name";
/// <summary>Surname(s) or last name(s) of the End-User. Note that in some cultures, people can have multiple family names or no family name; all can be present, with the names being separated by space characters.</summary>
public const string FamilyName = "family_name";
Related
I have a simple API that return Something for a given ID and it must be used without any kind of authentication, the URL should be permanent and yet I want to avoid as much as possible it to be botted.
The Url is something like this:
https://url/{SomeId}/doSomething
The problem is that this is very predicable and a bot could easily try all the ID and get everything associated to it.
I'm looking for a way to make the URL non predictable like for example:
https://url/{SomeId}/doSomething?Key=SomeVeryLongCryptographicKey
In this way except if you run a supercalculator you shouldn't be able to deduce all the URLs
I know that there is probably a lot of ways to do that, like using a DB which I want to avoid.
I guess I'm looking for a kind a JWT associated to the ID without expiration but maybe there is better solution.
Edit: to give a better example i'm looking to do a bit like did Zoom for permanent invitation Links. They had predictable room Ids and they added a password making it unpredictable lie so:
https://us05web.zoom.us/j/132465789?pwd=SUxIU0pLankyhTRtWmlGbFlNZ21Ndz08
What would be the best/light/"secure" way to achieve that ?
Also I'm using .Net if there is a library doing that, it would be great.
I think your idea of using a JWT makes the most sense. Better to use something standard from a cryptographic point of view, and the JSON format allows for encoding whatever you need to provide to the receiving endpoint (user names, entity names, entity IDs, other things).
There are standard Microsoft libraries for building and validating JWTs, but I prefer the library Jwt.Net (https://www.nuget.org/packages/JWT). It lets you do something like this quite easily:
var token = JwtBuilder()
.WithAlgorithm(new RS256Algorithm(publicKey,privateKey))
.AddClaim("uri", String.Format("https://example.com/api/{0}/{1}", entityName, entityId))
.Encode();
Just add whatever claims you like, and the JWT will then contain what you want to transfer (I've used an example of the URI that you want to give to the entity) and a signature with your private key. You could even just give a URL like https://example.com/from_token/eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9.eyJ1cmkiOiJodHRwczovL2V4YW1wbGUuY29tL2FwaS90ZXN0RW50aXR5LzEyMzQifQ.K2P4wSF6g1Kt-IHMzlklWTV09_MIkoiNHQztSIYOohmOWe7aBfFSQLIKSbdTECj9XPjNNG_AjH9fdjFglkPuYfr2G9rtl2eh5vTjwdM-Uc0X6RkBu0Z2j7KyMKjkaI3zfkIwhtL1mH873xEBtNOGOW18fuBpgnm8zhMAj1oD3PlDW8-fYBrfLb6VK97DGh_DyxapbksgUeHst7cAGg3Nz97InDPtYcWDi6lDuVQsj3t4iaJBRL8IM785Q8xjlHHhzdfcX3xU4IhflyNHHXxP56_8ahNNMOZKWdwgbTSIxEEB98b3naY3XknC-ea7Nc1y4_5fszrYdy3LaQWV43jpaA
and have the handler decode the entity name and ID you want to retrieve directly from the URI while verifying the signature. Decoding with the library is just as easy:
var json = JwtBuilder.Create()
.WithAlgorithm(new RS256Algorithm(_key))
.MustVerifySignature()
.Decode(token);
I'm curious what is the best way of returning the same resource but using different DTOs.
For example, I have a user class:
public class User {
private String name;
private String surname;
private String age;
}
The list of users is available under url:
/users
Some other view needs list of users but without age, so, I would like to return list of UserDTO.
public class UserDTO {
private String name;
private String surname;
}
What is the proper way of defining url?
/userDtos - this is bad, because I can have more than one DTOs for representing users,
/users/dto - this is also bad
/users?name=true,surname=true - this one is also bad, it indicates that we are filtering the result, but we are not; we're just filtering fields.
For sure someone already had this problem before, but I couldn't find anything on the Internet.
A similar concept is called partial response which provide an option to let client to specify which fields to include in the response using the query parameters like:
:
/user?fields=name,surename
Basically you define a syntax for you own query language to represent a selection of fields. Here and Google Cloud API are some examples.
By taking this concept to a more coarse-grained level , you can use query parameter "view" to define different predefined combination of fields such as:
/users //default view if no "view" query parameter is specified
/users?view=admin //maybe this view will not show age field
/users?view=hr //maybe this view only show the fields that are accessible to HR
I am currently programming a REST service and a website that mostly uses this REST service.
Model:
public class User {
private String realname;
private String username;
private String emailAddress;
private String password;
private Role role;
..
}
View:
One form to update
realname
email address
username
Another form to update the role
And a third form to change the password
.
Focussing on the first view, which pattern would be a good practice?
PUT /user/{userId}
imho not because the form contains only partial data (not role, not password). So it cannot send a whole user object.
PATCH /user/{userId}
may be ok. Is a good way to implement it like:
1) read current user entity
2)
if(source.getRealname() != null) // Check if field was set (partial update)
dest.setRealname(source.getRealname());
.. for all available fields
3) save dest
POST /user/{userId}/generalInformation
as summary for realname, email, username
.
Thank you!
One problem with this approach is that user cannot nullify optional fields since code is not applying the value if (input is empty and value) is null.
This might be ok for password or other required entity field but for example if you have an optional Note field then the user cannot "clean" the field.
Also, if you are using a plain FORM you cannot use PATCH method, only GET or POST.
If you are using Ajax you might be interested in JSON Merge Patch (easier) and/or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch (most complete); for an overview of the problems that one can find in partial updates and in using PATCH see also this page.
A point is that a form can only send empty or filled value, while a JSON object property can have three states: value (update), null (set null) and no-property (ignore).
An implementation I used with success is ZJSONPATCH
Focussing on the first view, which pattern would be a good practice?
My suggestion starts from a simple idea: how would you do this as web pages in HTML?
You probably start from a page that offers a view of the user, with hyperlinks like "Update profile", "Update role", "Change password". Clicking on update profile would load an html form, maybe with a bunch of default values already filled in. The operator would make changes, then submit the form, which would send a message to an endpoint that knows how to decode the message body and update the model.
The first two steps are "safe" -- the operator isn't proposing any changes. In the last step, the operator is proposing a change, so safe methods would not be appropriate.
HTML, as a hypermedia format, is limited to two methods (GET, POST), so we might see the browser do something like
GET /user/:id
GET /forms/updateGeneralInformation?:id
POST /updates/generalInformation/:id
There are lots of different spellings you can use, depending on how to prefer to organize your resources. The browser doesn't care, because it's just following links.
You have that same flexibility in your API. The first trick in the kit should always be "can I solve this with a new resource?".
Ian S Robinson observed: specialization and innovation depend on an open set. If you restrict yourself to a closed vocabulary of HTTP methods, then the open set you need to innovate needs to lie elsewhere: the RESTful approach is to use an open set of resources.
Update of a profile really does sound like an operation that should be idempotent, so you'd like to use PUT if you can. Is there anything wrong with:
GET /user/:id/generalInformation
PUT /user/:id/generalInformation
It's a write, it's idempotent, it's a complete replacement of the generalInformation resource, so the HTTP spec is happy.
Yes, changing the current representation of multiple resources with a single request is valid HTTP. In fact, this is one of the approaches described by RFC 7231
Partial content updates are possible by targeting a separately identified resource with state that overlaps a portion of the larger resource
If you don't like supporting multiple views of a resource and supporting PUT on each, you can apply the same heuristic ("add more resources") by introducing a command queue to handle changes to the underlying model.
GET /user/:id/generalInformation
PUT /changeRequests/:uuid
Up to you whether you want to represent all change requests as entries in the same collection, or having specialized collections of change requests for subsets of operations. Tomato, tomahto.
I've an entity with an ID of
public string ID {get;set;}
activities/1
(which comes from RavenDB).
I'm registering the following routes in my ServiceStack AppHost
Routes
.Add<Activity>("/activities")
.Add<Activity("/activities/{id}");
I'm using a backbone app to POST and PUT to my REST Service.
What happens out-of-the-box:
id property is serialized into the json as "activities/1"
id property is encoded into route as "activities%2F1"
ServiceStack gives precedence to the URL based id property, so my string gets the encoded value which is no use to RavenDb directly.
The options I'm aware of:
Change backbone to post to "/activities" and let the JSON Serialiser kick in
Change RavenDb ID generation to use hyphens rather than slashes
Make my Id property parse for the encoded %2F on set and convert to a slash
Both have disadvantages in that I either lose RESTfulness in my API, which is undesirable, or I don't follow RavenDb conventions, which are usually sensible out-of-the-fox. Also, I've a personal preference for having slashes.
So I'm wondering if there are any other options in servicestack that I could use to sort this issue that involve less compromise? Either Serialiser customisation or wildcard routing are in my head....
I have the same problem with ASP.Net WebAPI, so I don't think this is so much a ServiceStack issue, but just a general concern with dealing with Raven style id's on a REST URL.
For example, let's say I query GET: /api/users and return a result like:
[{
Id:"users/1",
Name:"John"
},
{
Id:"users/2",
Name:"Mary"
}]
Now I want to get a specific user. If I follow pure REST approach, the Id would be gathered from this document, and then I would pass it in the id part of the url. The problem here is that this ends up looking like GET: /api/users/users/1 which is not just confusing, but the slash gets in the way of how WebAPI (and ServiceStack) route url parameters to action methods.
The compromise I made was to treat the id as an integer from the URL's perspective only. So the client calls GET: /api/users/1, and I define my method as public User Get(int id).
The cool part is that Raven's session.Load(id) has overloads that take either the full string form, or the integer form, so you don't have to translate most of the time.
If you DO find yourself needing to translate the id, you can use this extension method:
public static string GetStringIdFor<T>(this IDocumentSession session, int id)
{
var c = session.Advanced.DocumentStore.Conventions;
return c.FindFullDocumentKeyFromNonStringIdentifier(id, typeof (T), false);
}
Calling it is simple as session.GetStringIdFor<User>(id). I usually only have to translate manually if I'm doing something with the id other than immediately loading a document.
I understand that by translating the ids like this, that I'm breaking some REST purist conventions, but I think this is reasonable given the circumstances. I'd be interested in any alternative approaches anyone comes up with.
I had this problem when trying out Durandal JS with RavenDB.
My workaround was to change the URL very slightly to get it to work. So in your example:
GET /api/users/users/1
Became
GET /api/users/?id=users/1
From jQuery, this becomes:
var vm = {};
vm.users = [];
$.get("/api/users/?" + $.param( { id: "users/1" })
.done(function(data) {
vm.users = data;
});
There is an excellent article describing a way to embed GWT RPC payload into the host page. A key element is missing there is how to know Strong Name of RPC serialization policy at run time.
Strong Name is computed at the compile time, put into the client and obfurscated. Strong name is sent to the server with RPC request as described here. What would you suggest to make this parameter available at the time of host page generation?
I have integrated GWT with spring with a custom SerializationPolicyProvider where I always had to rename <strong name>.gwt.rpc file and hard code the name in my custom SerializationPolicyProvider class. I got work around by looking at GWT docs. Strong Name is MD5 hash with length of 32. Each time RPC call is made to Spring based Controller's method: public String processCall(String payload), I parse the payload using following code to get strong name:
String strongName = null;
if(payload!=null){
StringTokenizer tokens = new StringTokenizer(payload,String.valueOf(AbstractSerializationStream.RPC_SEPARATOR_CHAR));
while(tokens.hasMoreTokens()){
String s = tokens.nextToken();
if(s.length() == 32){
strongName = s;
break;
}
}
}
Then in your SerializationPolicyProvider impl class use following:
to get SerializationPolicy:
return SerializationPolicyLoader.loadFromStream(servletContext.getResourceAsStream(moduleBaseURL+"/"+strongName+"gwt.rpc");
One solution seems to be using compiler -gen option. Get _Proxy.java from compiler output and extract SERIALIZATION_POLICY from it.