I am developing with Spring Social and Thymeleaf from the quick start example, but I realised that it only supports one Facebook object per controller. This means the sample can't provide support for multiple users and I am guessing it has to do with the #Scope of the variable. Its runs in a Spring boot container and I wonder how I can configure this so that each session has its own Facebook object.
As you suggested, the Facebook object should be configured with request scope. If you're using the configuration support and/or Spring Boot, then it will be request scoped. Therefore, even though the controller is injected once with a Facebook instance, that instance is really a proxy that will delegate to a real FacebookTemplate instance that is created at request time for the authenticated user.
I can only assume that you're referring to the getting started guide example at http://spring.io/guides/gs/accessing-facebook/. In that case, it's using the most simple Spring Boot autoconfiguration possible for Spring Social, which includes a basic (yet not intended for production) implementation of UserIdSource which always returns "anonymous" as the user ID. Therefore, after you create the first Facebook connection, the second browser tries to find a connection for "anonymous", finds it, and gives you an authorized Facebook object.
This may seem peculiar, but it is an example app intended to get you started...and it does that. All you need to do to get a real UserIdSource is to add Spring Security to the project. That will tell Spring Social autoconfiguration to configure a UserIdSource that fetches the current user ID from the security context. This reflects a more real-world use of Spring Social, albeit obviously more involved and beyond the scope of the getting started guide.
But you can look at https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-social-samples/tree/master/spring-social-showcase-boot for a more complete example of Spring Social within Spring Boot.
Spring Boot autoconfigures a lot of things behind the scenes. It does autoconfigure the Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter properties and sets up the connection factories for social providers.
However, the implementation of UserIdSource always returns “anonymous” as the user ID. Once the first Facebook connection is established the second browser will try to find a connection for “anonymous” which it finds and gives you an authorised Facebook object.
#Configuration
#EnableSocial
#ConditionalOnWebApplication
#ConditionalOnMissingClass("org.springframework.security.core.context.SecurityContextHolder")
protected static class AnonymousUserIdSourceConfig extends SocialConfigurerAdapter {
#Override
public UserIdSource getUserIdSource() {
return new UserIdSource() {
#Override
public String getUserId() {
return "anonymous";
}
};
}
}
Solution
The solution is to override the “anonymous” as the UserId for each new user/session. So for each session, we can simply return a SessionID, however, it may not be unique enough to identify users, especially if it’s being cached or stored somewhere in a connection database.
#Override
public String getUserId() {
RequestAttributes request = RequestContextHolder.currentRequestAttributes();
String uuid = (String) request.getAttribute("_socialUserUUID", RequestAttributes.SCOPE_SESSION);
if (uuid == null) {
uuid = UUID.randomUUID().toString();
request.setAttribute("_socialUserUUID", uuid, RequestAttributes.SCOPE_SESSION);
}
return uuid;
}
The solution for above problem has been talked about in detail over here
Related
I'm trying to make a Spring Boot app that will connect to Fitbit's api using spring-social. I've (half-way) implemented a ConnectionFactory and it's dependencies for Fitbit, and am trying to consume it from my app. Part of this involves starting up a ConnectController to handle the OAuth2 "dance".
When I try to hit the ConnectController through my browser at http://localhost:8080/connect or http://localhost:8080/connect/fitbit I get redirected to the whitelable error page with the message:
There was an unexpected error (type=Method Not Allowed, status=405).
Request method 'GET' not supported
I don't really understand what I'm seeing, but when I set DEBUG level logging and use some breakpoints it looks like hitting /connect from the browser results in Spring trying to find something called connect/status and hitting /connect/fitbit result in spring trying to find something named /connect/fitbitConnect and then trying to internally make a GET request to /connect/connect/fitbitConnect.
In both cases it looks like the methods on ConnectController corresponding to /connect and /connect/{providerId} get called fine, and then Spring bombs when it goes looking for all that other stuff.
Here is the SocialConfigurer implementation I'm using which creates the ConnectController bean:
#Configuration
#EnableSocial
#PropertySource("${properties.path}/fitbot-service.properties")
public class SpringSocialConfig implements SocialConfigurer{
#Override
public void addConnectionFactories(ConnectionFactoryConfigurer connectionFactoryConfigurer, Environment environment) {
connectionFactoryConfigurer.addConnectionFactory(new FitbitConnectionFactory(
environment.getProperty("fitbit.clientId"),
environment.getProperty("fitbit.clientSecret")
));
}
#Override
public UserIdSource getUserIdSource() {
return new SessionUserIdSource();
}
#Override
public UsersConnectionRepository getUsersConnectionRepository(ConnectionFactoryLocator connectionFactoryLocator) {
return new InMemoryUsersConnectionRepository(connectionFactoryLocator);
}
#Bean
public ConnectController connectController(ConnectionFactoryLocator connectionFactoryLocator, ConnectionRepository connectionRepository) {
return new ConnectController(connectionFactoryLocator, connectionRepository);
}
}
What on earth is going on here? What am I doing wrong?
I believe this to be related to your question regarding GET vs. POST in ConnectController, so you may have already answered this for yourself. Nonetheless, let me clarify why it's looking for connect/status and connect/fitbitConnect.
Those are view names. When you do a GET for /connect, you're asking ConnectController to fetch connection status for all providers and to place it in the model, after which it will forward that model to a view whose logical name is "connect/status". Usually this is a JSP at the path "/connect/status.jsp" or maybe a Thymeleaf template at "/connect/status.html", but it can be any view following the rules of whatever Spring MVC view resolvers are in play.
Likewise, a GET request for /connect/fitbit is asking ConnectController to fetch connection status for the "fitbit" provider and to place that information in the model and forward it on to a view whose name is "/connect/fitbitConnect" (if there isn't a connection) or "/connect/fitbitConnected" (if there is a connection).
Aside from answering your question, may I also request that you tell me more about your FitBit Spring Social provider project? Is it modeled after other community-led Spring Social projects? In other words, is it a standalone extension to Spring Social that others may use? If so, tell me where it is in GitHub and I'll be happy to add it to the "Community Projects" section at http://projects.spring.io/spring-social/.
I have an Spring MVC application which using the classic three layer: controller service and dao.
And the related models in the application contains User Department Project.
One user will belong to a department, and there may be a lot of projects belong to a certain department, and the departments are organized as a tree like structure, for example:
dep1
dep1-1
dep1-1-1
dep1-1-2
...
...
...
Now I have a controller to list the projects:
class ProjectController{
private ProjectService projectService;
#RequestMapping("/list")
public String list(#RequestParameter("depId") String depId){
projectService.list(depId);
return "list";
}
}
ProjectServiceImpl implements ProjectService{
ProjectDao projectDao;
public List<Department> list(String depId){
}
}
It seems that this is rather simple, however we have two problems:
1 The result filter.
According to the configuration, the department of the current user maybe(or not) be under consideration during the query operation, for example, when the parameter depId is dep1-1-1, and the current user belongs to dep1-1-2, then we should return null.
As said, this feature maybe closed at all at some situation.
2 The authentication.
The user authentication and management is served in another application which will deployed at the same domain with my application, you can think they are two different folder inside the /tomcat/webapps. We use cookie to share the user information:save a token for a user.
Which means for every request, I will have to get the token of the current user(if they have login) from the cookie, and then call the service provided by the other application to get the information like department and etc.
So where to do the department check, in controller or service? I am not sure if inject the HttpRequest to service is a good idea or not.
Also Since there are too many controllers and services related to this kind of operation, I want to avoid the duplicate codes everywhere.
Is there any better choices?
It may be overkill, but what you are asking for make me think to spring-security :
authentication : spring security could do it directly, but you can also implement a custom PreauthenticatedAuthenticationFilter that would use the cookie to get the user info and populates a Spring Security Authentication token. This part is easy and highly configurable.
result filter : extract from the spring security reference manual :
Spring Security supports filtering of collections and arrays and this can now be achieved using expressions. This is most commonly performed on the return value of a method. For example:
#PreAuthorize("hasRole('ROLE_USER')")
#PostFilter("hasPermission(filterObject, 'read') or hasPermission(filterObject, 'admin')")
public List<Contact> getAll();
When using the #PostFilter annotation, Spring Security iterates through the returned collection and removes any elements for which the supplied expression is false
All this is implemented through Spring AOP so it is easy to add those annotations on service methods.
Spring Security integrates nicely in a Spring MVC application. The only problem is that a full configuration including domain object security is not really trivial ...
I'm looking for some guidance on how to implement authorization security for SignalR on a back end service running in a self-hosted (non-IIS) environment, that is called from a Web application. The backend app is basically a monitor that fires SignalR events back to the HTML based client. This all works fine (amazingly well actually).
However, we need to restrict access to the server for authenticated users from the Web site. So basically if a user is authenticated on the Web site, we need to somehow pick up the crendentials (user name is enough) and validation state in the backend app to decide whether to allow the connection as to avoid unauthorized access.
Can anybody point at some strategies or patterns on how to accomplish this sort of auth forwarding?
I am having similar issues here, as in my web app I use a simple cookie authentication system which uses an AoP style approach to check for any controllers with an attribute, then will get the current context (be it from the static HttpContext.Current or from the target invocation object depending on the type of interceptor) and then verify the cookie exists, it contains right data, then finally verify the token with the db or cache etc.
Anyway this approach can also be used for Signalr, although its a bit more long winded and you are using dependency injection. You would basically wrap the hub calls with the desired attribute, then set up your DI/IoC configuration to intercept these calls, then either get the hub instance within your interceptor and get the cookie (or your custom authentication mechanism) from the request, verify it is all valid or not, and if not then throw a new HttpException("403", "Not authenticated"); which should kick the user out and return back before it even hits your hub method, this way you can put the logic in one place (your interceptor, or a class the interceptor consumes) then just wrap any method that needs to use this authentication using your attribute.
I use Ninject and the interception extension, but most major DI frameworks these days have some form of IoC plugin/extensions, such as Autofac, Windsor, Spring etc.
If you were not happy going down the route of introducing DI and/or AOP to your current project, then maybe you could just create a custom hub instance which contains your authentication logic and then just use that in your hubs, so ok you will still be manually calling some authentication logic from within each hub method you want to protect, but its less code, so something like:
public class AuthorisableHub : Hub
{
private ISomeAuthenticationToken GetSomeAuthenticationTokenFromRequest(Request request) // probably a SignalR specific request object
{
// Get your token from the querystring or cookie etc
}
private bool IsAuthenticationTokenValid(ISomeAuthenticationToken token)
{
// Perform some validation, be it simple or db based and return result
}
protected void PerformUserAuthentication()
{
var token = GetSomeAuthenticationTokenFromRequest(Context.Request);
var isRequestValid = IsAuthenticationTokenValid(token);
if(!isRequestValid)
{ throw new HttpException(403, "<Some forbidden message here>"); }
}
}
public class MyFancyPantsHub : AuthorisableHub
{
public void TellAllClientsSomethingSecret(ISecret secret)
{
PerformUserAuthentication();
// Do stuff with the secret as it should have bombed the user out
// before it reaches here if working correctly
}
}
It is not perfect but would work (I think), also I am sure I once read somewhere that Hubs are newly instantiated for each request, and if this is indeed true, you could possibly just put this logic in your constructor if you want to apply the authentication to every action within the hub.
Hope that helps, or gives you ideas... would be interested in knowing how you did solve it in the end.
SignalR does not provide any additional features for authentication. Instead, it is designed to work with the authentication mechanism of your application.
Hubs
You should do authentication as you normally would and then use the Authorize attribute provided by SignalR to enforce the results of the authentication on the Hubs.
The Authorize attribute can be applied to an entire Hub or particular methods in the Hub. Some examples:
[Authorize] – only authenticated users
[Authorize(Roles = "Admin,Manager")] – only authenticated users in the specified .NET roles
[Authorize(Users = "user1,user2")] – only authenticated users with the specified user names
You can also require all Hubs to require authentication by adding the following method in the Application_Start method:
GlobalHost.HubPipeline.RequireAuthentication();
Persistent Connections
You can use the user object in the request to see if the user is authenticated:
request.User.IsAuthenticated
So I know the best practice would be to run my Flex app over ssl along with implementing other forms of security however that isn't an option at this point (for monetary reasons and the app simply doesn't need that much security otherwise my sponsors would pay for it). However, I would like to implement some form of security and I'm wondering whether it's even worth it when I don't have ssl to protect the transactions.
So my setup is that I have a ASP.Net server side with a Flex UI. Right now the UI is the only thing that protects access to the sever: the server doesn't do any sort of verification during each request, it just assumes the person is allowed to do it. Obviously, anybody could write a program to generate posts (even if I could use SSL it would be like swiss cheese). Like I said before, security isn't a big deal, this is an internal app and it's nothing critical, however I do believe in doing things right. Would keeping the user info in session be a viable option and then verifying that the given user has permission, etc. Perhaps some sort of token system?
What would your preferred method of protecting this setup be?
...and no, I won't give you the url :)
ASP.NET Session itself is token based security and yes you can easily implement that by doing
[WebMethod(true)]
and yes, any web method requires login to be done first, it should call User.IsAuthenticated, that verifies the session token.
You can easily implement form authentication (let web.config empty, you can use FormsAuthentication in code).
for example,
[WebMethod(true)]
public string DoLogin(
string username,
string password)
{
//.. do your verification
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(username,false);
return "Login Sucessful";
}
[WebMethod(true)]
public string ChangePassword(
string oldPass,
string newPass)
{
// verify user is logged on or not..
if(!User.IsAuthenticated)
return "Please Login";
// The code below is secure, only
// authenticated user will go through below
// change pass...
return "Password Changed Successfully.";
}
We developed many Flex+ASP.NET sites, we did exactly same thing, but instead of return "string" we usually return a class like following...
public class WSResult<T>{
public bool Successful;
public string Message;
public T Result;
public T[] Results;
}
The convention is simple, if method was successful then you return Success = true, and depending upon whether you want to return an array of items or just single item, you can return either Results or Result. In case if there has been any error or unathorized access you can set Successful=false and set Message as detailed string. As per following example.
[WebMethod(true)]
public WSResult<BusinessUser> DoLogin(
string username,
string password)
{
try{
BusinessUser user = BusinessUser.GetByUsername(username);
if(user==null)
throw new Exception("User not found");
if(user.Password != password)
throw new Exception("Password did not match");
return new WSResult<BusinessUser>{ Result=user };
}catch(Exception ex)
{
// this will even catch any DAL exceptions or any system error as well
// Log Exception... somewhere for tracking...
return new WSResult<BusinessUser>{ Successful=false, Message = ex.Message };
}
}
Unfortunately, I know diddly squat about flex, but I think I can help anyway. I think you have two reasonably good options.
First though, we need to clarify something... Are you saying the server doesn't do any authorization? Does it at least have the ability to authenticate a user? Do you have any control over the server code? If not, I don't think the following suggestions will help. I'm not sure how you're supposed to secure a server with just client side code. Maybe there is a way, but I can't think of it.
1) Use HTTP digest authentication. This requires that the server is configured to understand it and that there is support in the flex api for adding the appropriate auth header to the HTTP request. The server authenticates the user by his password and can check what operations can be performed by said user against some authorization mechanism.
2) Follow the guidelines in this article to implement the authentication scheme that many atom publishing endpoints use. The flex api will have to provide some support for this, maybe there is an existing third party lib though. If you can get access to the HTTP headers you should be able to implement the rest.
Good luck.
How are you commuicating with the server SOAP. REST etc?
If it is SOAP have a look at the answer to this question
General Password Security && Implementation in Actionscript 3
and here's a link how to add the header to the SOAP message
How to add a "flat" message header to a flex web service call?
Hope this helps
Jon
I'm writing a silverlight application that resembles a shopping cart system.
This app can only be launched from the asp.net website after the user is logged in to the site.
Upon first load, the app will send a request to the backend through WCF service to retreive all the existing items in the shopping cart.
Therefore the silverlight app needs to know who the current user is, to find which shopping cart to load.
I found there are a couple of ways so far, but not happy with any of them:
using wcf aspnet compat. silverlight can ask who the current user is by asking the wcf service.
pass parameters from the page to xaml by using xaml.InitParameters and pass in the minimum amount of information to identify a user in a serialized format.
pass parameters through query string to xaml (apparently this is also possible)
Can anyone share the best practice to achieve this?
Thanks
We use the first solution in our projects. You haven't to invent any type of serialization format or so in this case. A disadvantage of this approach - extra async logic at startup.
The example of service:
[AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Required)]
public class UserInfoService : IUserInfoService
{
public UserInfo GetUserInfo()
{
if (HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
return null;
var userInfo = new UserInfo
{
Login = HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name,
Fullname = ...,
};
return userInfo;
}
}
Sending userid via initParams or query string is not good idea I think. Such things should be more hidden.
The real important thing is to verify user on server on each service call because anyone can call your services in similar way as your app.
HTH