So i'm working in a big project with symfony 3, But when we wanted to add the users and role managemet and access rights, we had no idea what is the best and optimized procedure to use.
So i have this Management project and i want to add user and roles so that some users can access some actions and the others not. I have more than 10 profiles and each profile has a specific access rights.
So i thought maybe you can help me by telling me what are the methods and bundles avalaibale in symfony, so that i can pick one after a benchmarking. thanks a lot
I think you should read this article about Access Control Lists. It explains how to decide access by user and domain object. As stated in the article, it is not trivial, so an alternative is to use Voters. Here is a snippet on using Voters:
A voter is passed the object being voted on, which you can use to make
complex decisions and effectively implement your own ACL. Enforcing
authorization (e.g. the isGranted() part) will look similar to what
you see in this entry, but your voter class will handle the logic
behind the scenes, instead of the ACL system.
I would urge you to consider this path instead of searching for a bundle as it is fairly easy to set up and gives you a pretty good control over access rights.
Related
I use Symfony 2.8, I have read the cookbook about voters and advanced ACL.
But now, I can't find how to save these config roles(or voters's attributes) to database.
I also don't want hard code the permission in every controller.I want these dynamic via web page.
Symfony permission works through Voter. Whether you use ACL or not, you must integrate voter to work along with permissions.
Your voter class can also have the logic of permission stored, and you can create number of Voter classes as per your need / architecture.
So, As you asked, to store the permission logic in the database. ACL comes into picture. See the document on how to integrate Advanced ACL. Its bit complicated with custom permission mappings as I have used them.
if you too find it complicated to integrate with current requirement, you can build your own permission entities and fetch with the help of cache and use in voter to detect the authentication.
Hope this helps!
So I'm delevoping an application with multiple clients. Users could access more than one client with different roles in each case. For instance, User A has ROLE_XX for Client C1, but ROLE_YY for Client C2.
As far as I know, FosUserBundle stores the roles for a user in the column roles (default table fos_user), so this structure is not suitable for my needs.
I've read the documentation realated with roles management, but there is nothing related, so I guess it's a feature beyond the scope of FosUserBundle?.
So I was thinking about creating an addional table which relates them (client, user, role), but since I'm no FOS expert at all, I really don't know if this is the correct way to go. Or maybe I'm missing something. Any tip is appreciated!
Your requirements exceed what Symfony's security roles system provides. You will need to either maintain an ACL or encapsulate your access control logic in a custom security voter. I recently wrote about the latter approach here:
http://kriswallsmith.net/post/15994931191/symfony2-security-voters
I know this is a question that has been asked over and over but I'm attempting to implement permission based rather than role based authorization in an ASP.NET MVC application. So instead of just having high level roles like Manager, Admin, or User, I need to have permissions like ViewTask, AddTask, DeleteTask. I have read a ton of comments on this and it seems like the easiest solution is to just treat roles as permissions and define "roles" of ViewTask, AddTask, and DeleteTask.
Is such an approach really a good idea? Some of my concerns are that you could end up with over 100 roles depending on the size of the application which would then rule out the ability to do role caching in cookies and thus every call to User.IsInRole hits the database. If every action method is going to be decorated with [Authorize(Roles="XXXX")] am I going to see serious performance issues?
My other issue is that I still want to keep the concept of a role around so that an administrator can simply associate a user with a role that has a predefined set of permissions. Using the approach above my thought was to create a separate entity in my application named Group and that Group would be responsible for keeping track of the ASP.NET roles that are assigned to that Group. So, when a user is associated with a Group, I can retrieve the ASP.NET roles that need to be assigned to the user and add all the roles.
Has anyone implemented a system in such a way? Any opinions or thoughts on this approach would be appreciated.
Thanks
I agree with #jlew about caching the user's data and when the cache expires - just reload it. There's no use trying to force this data to stay persistent. Additionally, if you want to move away from the ASP.net role providers, you could roll your own security as I've described in this reply. This has the advantage of allowing very custom security solutions for roles/individual permissions.
The following is just an idea that I've been toying around with lately (just some food for thought). Why not use the RESTful urls of MVC to define "permissions". For example:
/tasks/add could define the permission for adding tasks. These could somehow be hierarchical so that giving a user permissions on /tasks/add also gives them permissions on /tasks. Then, you could use a global action filter that would build the URL given the route values. This would also allow really interesting approach for individual item security configurable via runtime. For example, /tasks/edit/23 could somehow grant edit permissions on task with id 23. Anyway, this might not even be helpful at at all... but it's just thought I thought you'd like to maybe consider.
Cheers!
We solve the problem by caching the principal on the server side, so that the "permission roles" do not need to be in the cookie and we do not have to re-load on every request. You can actually get around the cookie size limitation by chunking your cookie data into multiple cookies (Windows Identity Framework does this.) But, you may have bandwidth or other concerns with big cookies.
I'm in need of a RoleProvider with the following functionality:
Dynamic Assignment of Roles to Tasks
Authentication / Authorizaiton of IPrincipals based on the dynamically allocated tasks in the system they have privilege to access
Reporting showing who is currently logged in, and other common usage statistics.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to roll my own, but wanted to make sure I didn't miss out on something OSS or even from MS.
I'm also using ASP.NET MVC and so my basic plan is to write a custom attribute like: [Authorize(Task=Tasks.DeleteClient)]
and place it over the methods that need authorization.
Rather than authorizing against the Role, I'll authorize the task against the role based on whatever settings the user has configured in the DB.
Thoughts?
You might want to check out NetSqlAzMan. It allows you to define tasks and assign them to roles and then authenticate and authorise your IPrincipal objects.
You may need to roll your own security attribute but NetSqlAzMan should help make that a reasonably easy task.
We had a similar issue with one of our systems. The first thing I'd do is create more AuthorizeAttribute classes for your specific tasks - e.g. DeleteClientAuthorize etc. You can then add specific logic into your classes.
As long as you can access the routines that trigger the change of roles for the current user you should be OK. Just call Membership.DeleteCookie() and this will force the next authorisation request to re-query your data store. It's at that point that you can determine what roles are required now.
Okay,
I know I'm doing something wrong - but can't figure out a better way.
I am developing a website which is going to allow users to setup their own mini-websites.
Something like Ning.
Also, I have only 1 basic login and access to each mini website is provided (right now) via roles.
So the way I am doing this right now is:
Everytime a new mini website is created - say blah, I create 2 roles in my application.
blah_users and blah_admin
The user creating the mini website is given the role - blah_admin and every other user wanting to join this mini website (or network) is given the role - blah_user.
Anyone can view data from any website. However to add data, one must be a member of that mini site (must have the blah_user role assigned)
The problem that I am facing is that by doing a role based system, I'm having to do loads of stuff manually. Asp.Net 2 controls which work on the User.IsAunthenticated property are basically useless to me now because along with the IsAuthenticated property, I must also check if the user has the proper role.
I'm guessing there is a better way to architect the system but I am not sure how.
Any ideas?
This website is being developed in ASP.Net 2 on IIS 6.
Thanks a tonne!
I afraid standard roles-related stuff of ASP.NET is not what you need. You can try to change authentication module so it will:
Log you in with cookie.
Determine what roles does your visitor have. Perhaps you will use some special table that corresponds user and site.
Make custom principal with user roles enumerated and assign Identity and Principal to the current request.
I also don't think that making special roles for each site is good idea. When you would have hundred sites, you would also have two hundred roles. Pretty unmanageable, I afraid.
When we were solving similar task, we were just not using standard controls. We had single set of roles used on all sites. Membership of concrete user is determined according to current site and his relations to this site.
Addition: Another possibility to investigate is Application that exists in ASP.NET authentication system. Maybe it's possible to isolate each subsite into separate application?
Update: Method that works for our application.
Do not make a lot of cloned roles. Use only two: users and admin. If your sites are public then "users" role could be just global - user on one site doesn't differ from user on another site. If "users" and "everyone" are different roles, then of course "users" should also be bound to a site.
Use standard ASP.NET Membership users, but do not use standard role mechanism.
Make a mechanism for storing relation between site and user. It could be simple table that holds site id, user is and role.
What you have to override is IsInRole method. (Methods to be exact, i'll cover it later). This method is in IPrinciple interface, so you have to make your own principal object. It's quite simple.
Method IsInRole of this type should look take current site (from HttpRequest) look into the site-user table and get roles
Then you have to associate your principal with a request. Do it in PostAuthenticateRequest event.
There is also RoleProvider. Honestly I'm not sure when is it used, but it also have IsInRole method. We can override it in the same way. But other methods of this provider are harder. For example AddUsersToRoles. It accepts array of user names and roles, but to what context (site) should it be added? To current? Not sure, because I don't know when this method is called. So it requires some experiments. I see (Reflector helps) that RopePrincipal by itself uses RoleProvider to fetch list of roles, so maybe it's implement only RoleProvider, using standard principal. For our application this is not a case, so I can't say what problems could be hidden here.