I have an Intranet based ADFS website that uses a standard logon page.
Is it possible to change this in the claims language so that it will automatically accept the user based on the authenticated user currently logged on.
I have looked at using the claim rules language but so far all I have got is
c:[Type != ""] => issue (claim = c);
which I got from a video.
I am assuming that I can add a claim to ADFS which can be tested for the website and grant or deny access.
Any help on the claim, or the claims language would help.
Yes you can.
In the claims-rules wizard, use the middle tab - "Issuance Authorisation Rules".
Refer : Create a Rule to Permit or Deny Users Based on an Incoming Claim.
Related
I'm looking for some guidance and have had a hard time finding a straight answer via Google.
I am building a web app using Google Cloud Platform and Firebase and would like to grant users access to only their own subdomain. So for example, if user 1 is part of the organization Lakers, I would like the domain they use to be lakers.myapp.com. If user 2 is part of Bucks, their app would be hosted at bucks.myapp.com. When somebody who is not authorized visits one of these domains, they should not be able to view anything since they are not authorized under that subdomain (just like any normal web app). I have the login all set up and can redirect the user to their subdomain, but what is the process of checking that the user is authorized to view that subdomain?
If the answer has many parts, I would be happy to receive some links to resources on how to do this; I wanna be sure it's done right.
For the first part: (Can we restrict users ( Identity ) based on the GCP domains ?) , then answer is yes. The Resource Manager provides a domain restriction constraint that can be used in organization policies to limit resource sharing based on domain. This constraint allows you to restrict the set of identities that are allowed to be used in Identity and Access Management policies.
Organization policies can use this constraint to limit resource sharing to a specified set of one or more Google Workspace domains, and exceptions can be granted on a per-folder or per-project basis. For more information about adding exceptions, see Override the organization policy for a project.
For the second part:(How do I lock down Firebase Database to any user from a specific email domain ?). If you're using the new Firebase this is now possible, since the email is available in the security rules.
In the security rules you can access both the email address and whether it is verified, which makes some great use-cases possible. With these rules for example only an authenticated, verified gmail user can write their profile, please see the Stackoverflow Link for more details.
Toolbar SF informs client that user is authenticated. Despite being disconnected, the toolbar still represents a user authenticated (authenticated => yes).
Any one help me?
I would suggest reading the Symfony documentation for the Security Component. It clearly states that when you allow anonymous access that the authentication => yes is merely stating that an anonymous user is being used.
In fact, if you go to the homepage right now, you'll have access and you'll see that you're "authenticated" as anon.. Don't be fooled by the "Yes" next to Authenticated, you're just an anonymous user (Quoted 5/27/2018)
If you follow the rest of the documentation you should be able to figure out how to only allow legitimate non-anonymous users to access the page.
I've got the Firebase Web Authentication pretty much setup and working for oAuth as well as local username/pwds (email addresses).
My question is: Does anyone have an idea as to how to introduce an additional step in there such that new accounts must be approved by a site administrator prior to being fully validated? I was thinking of tweaking/utilizing the user.emailVerified property but I'm thinking that won't work for oAuth users.
Is there an easy way to do this - to add an admin approval step? Or, is there a property in the Firebase Authentication subsystem that I could easily toggle?
Creating a user via Firebase Authentication only provides them with a unique user id. This doesn't allow them any access to your apps or "register" them in any way. That's entirely your purview. It's nothing more than a map of unique credentials (e.g. Facebook IDs or email/password hashes) to unique Firebase IDs.
You can "register" users by having any access privileges you want, and any workflow to get the user added into your Database (or any other appropriate mechanism).
Assuming database, you would write the user profile/meta data into a path, such as /users/$uid, and base your security rules on whether /users/<user id> exists.
To enforce admin approval, the simplest answer would be to maintain a separate path, such as /registered/<user id>/true that's only accessible by admins (and of course by security rules).
Now you can write rules like the following:
{
"...some path...": {
".read": "root.child("registered/" + auth.uid).val() === true"
}
}
Essentially enforcing a registration process.
I have an Asp.Net application that communicate with ADFS(on some other Windows Server) for authentication purpose. Currently, when we navigate to application, it redirects to ADFS SSO authentication page. I followed this blog to implement SSO and have some questions here:
Can we change implementation so that it may redirect to authentication page only when I press login button ?
Can we change implementation so that only one page/URL of my application can be accessed without any authentication ?
What parameters are returned when user is authenticated and redirected back to landing page. How do we get all available parameters ?
In this blog returning things are are Value, ValueType, Subject Name, Claim Issuer and Claim Issuer type. Can I get email or username ? so that I may link that person to a client in my application.
If anyone of above is possible, how I can get it ?
The login button is part of the ADFS screen. That's by design. The sample uses WIF so you are outsourcing authentication to ADFS.
Yes - Use the "location" annotation in the web.config. refer Location Element.
The parameters that are returned are the claims configured in the claims rules. The article show "Display-Name" and UPN. If you want email, just add another row and select it from the dropdown.
I just don't still get Claim Based Authentication/Authorization workflow.
The application allows authentication via Facebook.com
After the user is authenticated, an admin can give her/him a claim of having the role of Manager, which creates another claim (where?)
Of course, this claim won't be on the facebook.com server, question 1: where should that claim be stored?
When the user log in again later, I get the claim of facebook.com and I should get the claim from the application. and merge them?
How is the workflow? Trying to understand claims in practical usage.
Basically, Facebook tells me that I'm john#doe.com, and 'field in the blanks' adds a claim that I'm also a manager of domain.com
then I pass those claims to domain.com?
How should I configure in asp.net the application at domain.com to trust Facebook and 'filled in the blank piece' and request claims from both?
I guess I'm using external providers for Authentication and my own provider for Authorization, how this is created on ASP.NET (web API / MVC)?
UPDATE (for clarification)
Let's get backwards. I create a web application where users can register.
'Somehow' there's an trusted ClaimsBased authority somewhere (this should be another application??) where I request the claims for a particular user to see if have particular rights on my application.
So I imagine something like :
/authserver/claims
and my validation checks if X claim is met to do certain operations.
later I add to Facebook. now I have
/facebook/claims
which tells me the user is X
and
/authserver/claims to see if can do operation X on resource Y.
how this is managed on ASP.NET? and where my own claims should be created/exposed/developed.
I think I'm missing something fundamental here.
I think the important thing to understand is the difference between authentication and authorization.
Authentication - the act of confirming the truth of an attribute of a datum or entity.
Authorization - the function of specifying access rights to resources, which is related to information security and computer security in general and to access control in particular.
So, typically for secured system, the workflow starts with Authentication. When a user first connects/uses a system, then are not authenticated (lets say this user is of a type/group Anonymous). The act of the system determining the user is not authenticated is an Authentication in and of it self. Based on being Anonymous, then the act of the system determining what that type of user anonymous has access too is now authorizing what the user can do. For very secure system, the only access anonymous has is to the login screen/page. Once logged in the user is assigned a unique identity and assigned some type of group policy/role (if not already created).
with a web-based application and having a website (#1) authenticate for another website(#2) it becomes a bit more complicated. When I log into StackOverflow(#1), I use my Gmail(#2) account. I get redirected to Google with some special way for Google to know that the page I came from/to go back to. This could be a special key/url combination or for less restrictive access, usually has to do with return url (after I say, yes, where I go back too). Google will create a special authentication token that is specific to the url I am returning to. It is tied to the URL because that means that my token on StackOverflow won't allow me or anyone else to log into say NewEgg for example (in other words someone at StackOverflow with access to the database can't use my token to authenticate as me on some other website, but technically they could log in as me on StackOverflow, but they own the website, so that doesn't really matter). Now I am authenticated on StackOverflow (but technically StackOverflow doesn't even need to know any information about me, just my Token).
On StackOverflow as a new user, a new account is created. This account probably has a one to many relationship to my unique account on Stack Overflow and multiple of logins (and type of logins, OAuth, OpenID or SO Login). Once the account is created, I have whatever access they have setup by default. If I need more or some trigger (lets say based on my Reputation points :) I now have access to Administrative functionality (given some role). That role is tied to my account and indirectly tied to my authentication. This means that I can create additional logins (say a Local SO Login) but keep my Account.
As for each Authentication resource (Google, Facebook, etc) there will be difference schemes for Authentication, but there will always be at least a token (or more than one token) for a website to say who I am (in a generic way).
So website #1 (Stack Overflow) has requested website #2 (Google) to Authenticate me. But only website #1 knows what am I Authorized for.
For role specific functionality, there are a good number of answer on SO dealing with ASP.Net Identity and the Role Manager:
Creating Roles in Asp.net Identity MVC 5
mvc 5 check user role
A much more Indepth look into Identity with MVC - Extending Identity Accounts and Implementing Role-Based Authentication in ASP.NET MVC 5
If you're using ASPNET.Identity (http://www.asp.net/identity/overview/getting-started/introduction-to-aspnet-identity), you can add a Role claim type to the user. It'll be associated with the userlogin, so when the user authenticates with Facebook, these user claims will be added and available in MVC.
See the following code fragment:
var acRes = await UserManager.AddClaimAsync(userId, new Claim(ClaimTypes.Role, "MyRole"));