How to design database for authorization and authentication - asp.net

I normally in my projects use such these code:
If user.IsInRole("Admin") Then
deleteButton.Visible = True
else
deleteButton.Visible = False
But I want to control roles, which can see this button in database.
For this purpose how should database design be?
Thanks.

Make the design whatever you want to be, but in ASP.NET side implement your own MembershipProvider. This will translate your DB design into users/roles that .NET can use. After that you can use it as usually - with user.isInRole("Admin") :)

LDAP is the best option for For Authorization and Authentication.
you can use openLDAP API for same purpose.

May be I should be more clear, but I don't know how :). I will try again.
For example I use for my deletebutton this code:
if user.isInRole("Admin") then
deleteButton.visible = true
else
deleteButton.visible = false
Afte a whole, make a decision that, user have role "moderator" should also see delete button. So I should change my code like this:
if user.isInRole("Admin","Moderator") then
deleteButton.visible = true
else
deleteButton.visible = false
If I have a database design to take control this, I didn't need to change my code for it.
Well, How should it be?

Well, one design is to have tables such as:
User(UserID, ...) PK = UserID
Role(RoleID, RoleName, ...) PK = RoleID
UserHasRole(UserHasRoleID, UserID, RoleID) PK=UserHasRoleID ; Unique= (UserID, RoleID)
That's one method. This is a role based system rather than a discretionary, object based authorization system (In a discretionary system, you'd set permissions on each object, say this User x has the DELETE permission for Customers, or something like that).

Code:
public class YourSqlRoleProvider : System.Web.Security.RoleProvider
{
private string ConnectionString { get; set; }
public override void AddUsersToRoles(string[] userNames, string[] roleNames)
{
// logic here
}
public override string ApplicationName
{
get
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
set
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
public override void CreateRole(string roleName)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
public override bool DeleteRole(string roleName, bool throwOnPopulatedRole)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
public override string[] FindUsersInRole(string roleName, string userNameToMatch)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
public override string[] GetAllRoles()
{
// logic here
}
public override string[] GetRolesForUser(string userName)
{
// logic here
}
public override string[] GetUsersInRole(string roleName)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
public override bool IsUserInRole(string userName, string roleName)
{
return GetRolesForUser(userName).Contains(roleName);
}
public override void Initialize(string name, System.Collections.Specialized.NameValueCollection config)
{
this.ConnectionString = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[config["connectionStringName"]].ConnectionString;
base.Initialize(name, config);
}
public override void RemoveUsersFromRoles(string[] userNames, string[] roleNames)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
public override bool RoleExists(string roleName)
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
Web.config:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<configuration>
<connectionStrings>
<clear />
<add name="YourConnectionString" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" connectionString="connection string here" />
</connectionStrings>
<system.web>
<roleManager defaultProvider="YourSqlRoleProvider" enabled="true">
<providers>
<clear />
<add name="YourSqlRoleProvider" type="YourSqlRoleProvider" connectionStringName="YourConnectionString" />
</providers>
</roleManager>
</system.web>
</configuration>

Assuming you're using .NET, one way to do this is to implement your own Role and Membership Providers. Then, you could add functionality by implementing an interface that contained the items you wanted (I've just knocked this sample up off the top of my head, so I apologize if it seems a bit rough):
public interface ICustomRole
{
bool IsInRole(string userName, object[] params roles);
}
public class MyCustomRole : RoleProvider, ICustomRole
{
public IsInRole(MembershipUser user, object[] params roles)
{
if (roles == null || roles.Length == 0)
throw new ArgumentException("roles");
// Put your logic here for accessing the roles
}
}
Then, in your code you would do this:
bool isValid = ((ICustomRole)Roles.Provider).IsInRole(
User, new[] { "Admin", "Moderator", "Validator" });

Related

How to use Roles with Integrated Windows Authentication

I'm working on a Web Application implemented in ASP.NET MVC 5 with Web API 2.
I've implemented Integrated Windows Authentication by adding the following code to web.config:
<system.web>
<authentication mode="Windows" />
</system.web>
<system.webServer>
<security>
<authentication>
<windowsAuthentication enabled="true"/>
</authentication>
</security>
</system.webServer>
and by adding [Authorize] annotation on top of my controllers.
Now, I'm asked to give access to some functionality based on the user's role. I've got a table where I hold the user permissions, but I don't know how I can create those roles, and associate the right permissions with them.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance
[UPDATE]
Based on mason's answer, I've updated the code a bit.
Added the following line to web.config:
<roleManager defaultProvider="MyRoleProvider">
<providers>
<add
name="MyRoleProvider"
type="MyApp.App_Start.MyRoleProvider"
applicationName="My Tool" />
</providers>
</roleManager>
MyRoleProvider.cs:
public class MyRoleProvider : RoleProvider
{
private MyEntities db = new MyEntities();
public override void AddUsersToRoles(string[] usernames, string[] roleNames)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override string ApplicationName
{
get;
set;
}
public override void CreateRole(string roleName)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override bool DeleteRole(string roleName, bool throwOnPopulatedRole)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override string[] FindUsersInRole(string roleName, string usernameToMatch)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override string[] GetAllRoles()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override string[] GetRolesForUser(string username)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override string[] GetUsersInRole(string roleName)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override void RemoveUsersFromRoles(string[] usernames, string[] roleNames)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override bool IsUserInRole(string username, string roleName)
{
vUser user = db.vUsers.Where(u => u.UserName == username).First();
if (roleName == "User")
{
if (user.IsAllowedToView == true)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else if (roleName == "Administrator")
{
if (user.IsAllowedToSubmit == true)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
public override bool RoleExists(string roleName)
{
if (roleName == "User" || roleName == "Administrator")
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
When I use [Authorize] annotation on my controllers, and call HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name it returns the ID that I use to login to my machine. (Part of AD) But, if I use [Authorize(Roles="User")], it keeps asking for my username and password again and again, and doesn't accept anything. I put breakpoints to every single method on MyRoleProvider class, but the program hasn't stopped at any which makes me think maybe it is not even calling the provider.
Over each controller or Even each method inside the controller you can add your own custom authorization role.
[Authorize(Roles="Admin,Doctor")]
public class Investigation : Controller
{
}
NOTE:
The roles must be written the same way it was inserted in the database.(Case senstive)
If you wish to manage the roles from Active Directory you could always create Active Directory user groups for each particular role then use the [Authorize(Roles="{AD_GROUP_NAME}")] annotation on top of your controller.
In your specific situation (based on chat), it sounds like a role based concept is not appropriate for you, since your permissions are stored at the user level instead of the role level, and you're not allowed to change how that works due to company restrictions.
Instead, you should write your own filter that you can apply to your action methods. That filter should probably implement IAuthorizationFilter. That would allow you to do something like:
[RequirePermissions("Save")]
public ActionResult Save(Data date)
{
Database.Save(data);
return View("Success");
}
And probably the logic of verifying the user has that permission should be abstracted out to a common class so that you can also reuse the logic in views.
public override string[] GetRolesForUser(string username)
{
var userrole = from role in db.roles
where username == role.userID
select role.role1;
if (userrole != null)
return userrole.ToArray();
else
return new string[] { };
//throw new NotImplementedException();
}
this function should be edited.

Disable User in ASPNET identity 2.0

I am looking for a way to disable the user instead of deleting them from the system, this is to keep the data integrity of the related data. But seems ASPNET identity only offers Delete Acccount.
There is a new Lockout feature, but it seems to lockout can be controlled to disable user, but only lock the user out after certain number of incorrect password tries.
Any other options?
When you create a site with the Identity bits installed, your site will have a file called "IdentityModels.cs". In this file is a class called ApplicationUser which inherits from IdentityUser.
// You can add profile data for the user by adding more properties to your ApplicationUser class, please visit https://devblogs.microsoft.com/aspnet/customizing-profile-information-in-asp-net-identity-in-vs-2013-templates/ to learn more.
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser
There is a nice link in the comments there, for ease click here
This tutorial tells you exactly what you need to do to add custom properties for your user.
And actually, don't even bother looking at the tutorial.
add a property to the ApplicationUser class, eg:
public bool? IsEnabled { get; set; }
add a column with the same name on the AspNetUsers table in your DB.
boom, that's it!
Now in your AccountController, you have a Register action as follows:
public async Task<ActionResult> Register(RegisterViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var user = new ApplicationUser { UserName = model.Email, Email = model.Email, IsEnabled = true };
var result = await UserManager.CreateAsync(user, model.Password);
if (result.Succeeded)
I've added the IsEnabled = true on the creation of the ApplicationUser object. The value will now be persisted in your new column in the AspNetUsers table.
You would then need to deal with checking for this value as part of the sign in process, by overriding PasswordSignInAsync in ApplicationSignInManager.
I did it as follows:
public override Task<SignInStatus> PasswordSignInAsync(string userName, string password, bool rememberMe, bool shouldLockout)
{
var user = UserManager.FindByEmailAsync(userName).Result;
if ((user.IsEnabled.HasValue && !user.IsEnabled.Value) || !user.IsEnabled.HasValue)
{
return Task.FromResult<SignInStatus>(SignInStatus.LockedOut);
}
return base.PasswordSignInAsync(userName, password, rememberMe, shouldLockout);
}
Your mileage may vary, and you may not want to return that SignInStatus, but you get the idea.
The default LockoutEnabled property for a User is not the property indicating if a user is currently being locked out or not. It's a property indicating if the user should be subject to lockout or not once the AccessFailedCount reaches the MaxFailedAccessAttemptsBeforeLockout value. Even if the user is locked out, its only a temporary measure to bar the user for the duration of LockedoutEnddateUtc property. So, to permanently disable or suspend a user account, you might want to introduce your own flag property.
You don't need to create a custom property. The trick is to set the
LockoutEnabled property on the Identity user AND set the LockoutoutEndDateUtc to a future date from your code to lockout a user. Then, calling the UserManager.IsLockedOutAsync(user.Id) will return false.
Both the LockoutEnabled and LockoutoutEndDateUtc must meet the criteria of true and future date to lockout a user. If, for example, the LockoutoutEndDateUtc value is 2014-01-01 00:00:00.000 and LockoutEnabled is true, calling theUserManager.IsLockedOutAsync(user.Id) will still return true. I can see why Microsoft designed it this way so you can set a time span on how long a user is locked out.
However, I would argue that it should be if LockoutEnabled is true then user should be locked out if LockoutoutEndDateUtc is NULL OR a future date. That way you don't have to worry in your code about setting two properties (LockoutoutEndDateUtc is NULL by default). You could just set LockoutEnabled to true and if LockoutoutEndDateUtc is NULL the user is locked out indefinitely.
You would need to introduce your own flag into a custom IdentityUser-derived class and implement/enforce your own logic about enable/disable and preventing the user from logging in if disabled.
This all I did actually:
var lockoutEndDate = new DateTime(2999,01,01);
UserManager.SetLockoutEnabled(userId,true);
UserManager.SetLockoutEndDate(userId, lockoutEndDate);
Which is basically to enable lock out (if you don't do this by default already, and then set the Lockout End Date to some distant value.
Ozz is correct, however it may be adviseable to look at the base class and see if you can find a method that is checked for all signin angles - I think it might be CanSignIn?
Now that MS is open source you can see their implementation:
https://github.com/aspnet/AspNetCore/blob/master/src/Identity/src/Identity/SignInManager.cs
(Url has changed to:
https://github.com/aspnet/AspNetCore/blob/master/src/Identity/Core/src/SignInManager.cs)
public class CustomSignInManager : SignInManager<ApplicationUser>
{
public CustomSignInManager(UserManager<ApplicationUser> userManager,
IHttpContextAccessor contextAccessor,
IUserClaimsPrincipalFactory<ApplicationUser> claimsFactory,
IOptions<IdentityOptions> optionsAccessor,
ILogger<SignInManager<ApplicationUser>> logger,
IAuthenticationSchemeProvider schemes) : base(userManager, contextAccessor, claimsFactory, optionsAccessor, logger, schemes)
{
}
public override async Task<bool> CanSignInAsync(ApplicationUser user)
{
if (Options.SignIn.RequireConfirmedEmail && !(await UserManager.IsEmailConfirmedAsync(user)))
{
Logger.LogWarning(0, "User {userId} cannot sign in without a confirmed email.", await UserManager.GetUserIdAsync(user));
return false;
}
if (Options.SignIn.RequireConfirmedPhoneNumber && !(await UserManager.IsPhoneNumberConfirmedAsync(user)))
{
Logger.LogWarning(1, "User {userId} cannot sign in without a confirmed phone number.", await UserManager.GetUserIdAsync(user));
return false;
}
if (UserManager.FindByIdAsync(user.Id).Result.IsEnabled == false)
{
Logger.LogWarning(1, "User {userId} cannot sign because it's currently disabled", await UserManager.GetUserIdAsync(user));
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
Also consider overriding PreSignInCheck, which also calls CanSignIn:
protected virtual async Task<SignInResult> PreSignInCheck(TUser user)
{
if (!await CanSignInAsync(user))
{
return SignInResult.NotAllowed;
}
if (await IsLockedOut(user))
{
return await LockedOut(user);
}
return null;
}
You can use these classes... A clean implemantation of ASP.NET Identity...
It's my own code. int is here for primary key if you want different type for primary key you can change it.
IdentityConfig.cs
public class ApplicationUserManager : UserManager<ApplicationUser, int>
{
public ApplicationUserManager(IUserStore<ApplicationUser, int> store)
: base(store)
{
}
public static ApplicationUserManager Create(IdentityFactoryOptions<ApplicationUserManager> options, IOwinContext context)
{
var manager = new ApplicationUserManager(new ApplicationUserStore(context.Get<ApplicationContext>()));
manager.UserValidator = new UserValidator<ApplicationUser, int>(manager)
{
AllowOnlyAlphanumericUserNames = false,
RequireUniqueEmail = true
};
manager.PasswordValidator = new PasswordValidator
{
RequiredLength = 6,
RequireNonLetterOrDigit = true,
RequireDigit = true,
RequireLowercase = true,
RequireUppercase = true,
};
manager.UserLockoutEnabledByDefault = false;
var dataProtectionProvider = options.DataProtectionProvider;
if (dataProtectionProvider != null)
{
manager.UserTokenProvider =
new DataProtectorTokenProvider<ApplicationUser, int>(
dataProtectionProvider.Create("ASP.NET Identity"));
}
return manager;
}
}
public class ApplicationSignInManager : SignInManager<ApplicationUser, int>
{
public ApplicationSignInManager(ApplicationUserManager userManager, IAuthenticationManager authenticationManager) :
base(userManager, authenticationManager) { }
public override Task<ClaimsIdentity> CreateUserIdentityAsync(ApplicationUser user)
{
return user.GenerateUserIdentityAsync((ApplicationUserManager)UserManager);
}
public static ApplicationSignInManager Create(IdentityFactoryOptions<ApplicationSignInManager> options, IOwinContext context)
{
return new ApplicationSignInManager(context.GetUserManager<ApplicationUserManager>(), context.Authentication);
}
}
public class ApplicationRoleManager : RoleManager<ApplicationRole, int>
{
public ApplicationRoleManager(IRoleStore<ApplicationRole, int> store)
: base(store)
{
}
}
public class ApplicationRoleStore : RoleStore<ApplicationRole, int, ApplicationUserRole>
{
public ApplicationRoleStore(ApplicationContext db)
: base(db)
{
}
}
public class ApplicationUserStore : UserStore<ApplicationUser, ApplicationRole, int,
ApplicationLogin, ApplicationUserRole, ApplicationClaim>
{
public ApplicationUserStore(ApplicationContext db)
: base(db)
{
}
}
IdentityModel.cs
public class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser<int, ApplicationLogin, ApplicationUserRole, ApplicationClaim>
{
//your property
//flag for users state (active, deactive or enabled, disabled)
//set it false to disable users
public bool IsActive { get; set; }
public ApplicationUser()
{
}
public async Task<ClaimsIdentity> GenerateUserIdentityAsync(UserManager<ApplicationUser, int> manager)
{
var userIdentity = await manager.CreateIdentityAsync(this, DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie);
return userIdentity;
}
}
public class ApplicationUserRole : IdentityUserRole<int>
{
}
public class ApplicationLogin : IdentityUserLogin<int>
{
public virtual ApplicationUser User { get; set; }
}
public class ApplicationClaim : IdentityUserClaim<int>
{
public virtual ApplicationUser User { get; set; }
}
public class ApplicationRole : IdentityRole<int, ApplicationUserRole>
{
public ApplicationRole()
{
}
}
public class ApplicationContext : IdentityDbContext<ApplicationUser, ApplicationRole, int, ApplicationLogin, ApplicationUserRole, ApplicationClaim>
{
//web config connectionStringName DefaultConnection change it if required
public ApplicationContext()
: base("DefaultConnection")
{
Database.SetInitializer<ApplicationContext>(new CreateDatabaseIfNotExists<ApplicationContext>());
}
public static ApplicationContext Create()
{
return new ApplicationContext();
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<ManyToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
}
}
I upvoted Watson, as there is another public method in SignInManager that accepts TUser user instead of string userName. The accepted answer only suggests overriding the method with the username signature. Both should really be overridden, otherwise there is a means of signing in a disabled user. Here are the two methods in the base implementation:
public virtual async Task<SignInResult> PasswordSignInAsync(string userName, string password, bool isPersistent, bool lockoutOnFailure)
{
var user = await UserManager.FindByNameAsync(userName);
if (user == null)
{
return SignInResult.Failed;
}
return await PasswordSignInAsync(user, password, isPersistent, lockoutOnFailure);
}
public virtual async Task<SignInResult> PasswordSignInAsync(User user, string password, bool isPersistent, bool lockoutOnFailure)
{
if (user == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(user));
}
var attempt = await CheckPasswordSignInAsync(user, password, lockoutOnFailure);
return attempt.Succeeded
? await SignInOrTwoFactorAsync(user, isPersistent)
: attempt;
}
Overriding CanSignIn seems like a better solution to me, as it gets called by PreSignInCheck, which is called in CheckPasswordSignInAsync. From what I can tell from the source, overriding CanSignIn should cover all scenarios. Here is a simple implementation that could be used:
public override async Task<bool> CanSignInAsync(User user)
{
var canSignIn = user.IsEnabled;
if (canSignIn) {
canSignIn = await base.CanSignInAsync(user);
}
return canSignIn;
}
In asp.net Core Identity v3, a new way of preventing a user from signing in has been added. Previously you could require that an account has a confirmed email address or phone number, now you can specify .RequireConfirmedAccount. The default implementation of the IUserConfirmation<> service will behave the same as requiring a confirmed email address, provide your own service to define what confirmation means.
public class User : IdentityUser<string>{
public bool IsEnabled { get; set; }
}
public class UserConfirmation : IUserConfirmation<User>
{
public Task<bool> IsConfirmedAsync(UserManager<User> manager, User user) =>
Task.FromResult(user.IsEnabled);
}
services.AddScoped<IUserConfirmation<User>, UserConfirmation>();
services.AddIdentity<User, IdentityRole>(options => {
options.SignIn.RequireConfirmedAccount = true;
} );
You need to implement your own UserStore to remove the identity.
Also this might help you.

How much of MembershipProvider do I *have* to override in MVC3

Until now I have done all authentication work in my MVC3 app, i.e. validate a member, and create a member, through my MemberRepository class. I would now like to go official, with a custom MembershipProvider. So far I have only gleaned that I really need to override this class's ValidateUser method, and since I am not using a Login control, I'm not even sure I absolutely have to do this.
Overriding methods like GetUser and CreateUser brings uninvited types to my party, like MembershipUser, where I have a finely crafted Member class. Please can someone clear up for me whether or not I really need a custom membership provider, if I'm not going to use any built-in controls or the admin tool, and if I do, should I confine my overrides to the absolutely necessary, which is what?
Here's one I wrote for unit testing. It's about as minimal as can be.
public class MockMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
public IList<MembershipUser> Users { get; private set; }
private string _applicationName;
public override string ApplicationName
{
get
{
return _applicationName;
}
set
{
_applicationName = value;
}
}
public override bool ChangePassword(string username, string oldPassword, string newPassword)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override bool ChangePasswordQuestionAndAnswer(string username, string password, string newPasswordQuestion, string newPasswordAnswer)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override MembershipUser CreateUser(
string username,
string password,
string email,
string passwordQuestion,
string passwordAnswer,
bool isApproved,
object providerUserKey,
out MembershipCreateStatus status)
{
var user = new MembershipUser(ProviderName, username, username, email, passwordQuestion, null, isApproved, false, DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now);
Users.Add(user);
status = MembershipCreateStatus.Success;
return user;
}
public override bool DeleteUser(string username, bool deleteAllRelatedData)
{
var u = Users.Where(mu => mu.UserName.Equals(username, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).FirstOrDefault();
if (u == null) return false;
Users.Remove(u);
return true;
}
public override bool EnablePasswordReset
{
get { return false; }
}
public override bool EnablePasswordRetrieval
{
get { return false; }
}
public override MembershipUserCollection FindUsersByEmail(string emailToMatch, int pageIndex, int pageSize, out int totalRecords)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override MembershipUserCollection FindUsersByName(string usernameToMatch, int pageIndex, int pageSize, out int totalRecords)
{
var users = (from u in Users
where u.UserName.Equals(usernameToMatch, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
select u).ToList();
totalRecords = users.Count;
return ToMembershipUserCollection(users);
}
public override MembershipUserCollection GetAllUsers(int pageIndex, int pageSize, out int totalRecords)
{
var list = Users.Skip(pageIndex * pageSize).Take(pageSize);
totalRecords = list.Count();
var result = new MembershipUserCollection();
foreach (var u in list)
{
result.Add(u);
}
return result;
}
public override int GetNumberOfUsersOnline()
{
return Users.Count();
}
public override string GetPassword(string username, string answer)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override MembershipUser GetUser(object providerUserKey, bool userIsOnline)
{
return (from u in Users
where u.ProviderUserKey.ToString() == providerUserKey.ToString()
select u).FirstOrDefault();
}
public override MembershipUser GetUser(string username, bool userIsOnline)
{
return (from u in Users
where u.UserName.Equals(username, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
select u).FirstOrDefault();
}
public override string GetUserNameByEmail(string email)
{
return (from u in Users
where u.Email.Equals(email, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
select u.UserName).FirstOrDefault();
}
public override int MaxInvalidPasswordAttempts
{
get { return 3; }
}
public override int MinRequiredNonAlphanumericCharacters
{
get { return 1; }
}
public override int MinRequiredPasswordLength
{
get { return 6; }
}
public override int PasswordAttemptWindow
{
get { return 10; }
}
public override MembershipPasswordFormat PasswordFormat
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public override string PasswordStrengthRegularExpression
{
get { return null; }
}
public override string Name
{
get
{
return ProviderName;
}
}
public string ProviderName { get; set; }
public override string ResetPassword(string username, string answer)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public override bool RequiresQuestionAndAnswer
{
get { return false; }
}
public override bool RequiresUniqueEmail
{
get { return true; }
}
private MembershipUserCollection ToMembershipUserCollection(IEnumerable<MembershipUser> users)
{
var result = new MembershipUserCollection();
foreach (var u in users)
{
result.Add(u);
}
return result;
}
public override bool UnlockUser(string userName)
{
return true;
}
public override void UpdateUser(MembershipUser user)
{
var oldUser = Users.Where(u => u.UserName.Equals(user.UserName, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).Single();
var index = Users.IndexOf(oldUser);
Users[index] = user;
}
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public MockMembershipProvider()
{
this.ProviderName = "MockMembershipProvider";
Users = new List<MembershipUser>();
}
}
public class FakeMembershipProvider : MockMembershipProvider
{
public FakeMembershipProvider(string name)
{
this.ProviderName = name ?? "MockMembershipProvider";
}
public override MembershipUser CreateUser(
string username,
string password,
string email,
string passwordQuestion,
string passwordAnswer,
bool isApproved,
object providerUserKey,
out MembershipCreateStatus status)
{
status = MembershipCreateStatus.ProviderError;
var user = new MockMembershipUser();
user.Password = password;
user.User = username;
user.UserKey = providerUserKey;
Users.Add(user);
status = MembershipCreateStatus.Success;
return user;
}
}
public class MockMembershipUser : MembershipUser
{
public string Password { get; set; }
public string User { get; set; }
public object UserKey { get; set; }
public override string UserName { get { return User; } }
public override string Comment { get; set; }
public override object ProviderUserKey { get { return UserKey; } }
public override string GetPassword()
{
return Password ?? string.Empty;
}
Custom MembershipProvider
It is possible to get some nice security features "for free" if you're using a MembershipProvider: You can set up web.config to redirect every non-authenticated user to a login page, for instance. Or you can set up specific parts of the site to only be visible to users with specific roles. If these features don't make sense for your project, or if you're already implementing their equivalent in another way, there's not much point implementing a custom MembershipProvider.
SqlMembershipProvider
One other possibility you may want to consider is actually switching your own implementation to use the SqlMembershipProvider to handle membership functions.
The SqlMembershipProvider provides a robust, proven platform for the common tasks that are annoying to have to reinvent for every project: account creation, validation, deletion, locking, password resets, basic roles, etc. If you've already done all of this yourself without using the SqlMembershipProvider, there really isn't any point creating one just for the sake of having it. However, you should be careful, because there's a good chance that you've done something wrong in your own implementation. For example,
Are you storing passwords as plain text, or as hashes?
Are you open to Rainbow Table attacks, or are you salting your hashes?
Do you lock people's accounts after you've seen 50 or so invalid password attempts in a row, or do you let hackers just keep pounding away until they've brute-forced their way into someone's account?
The SqlMembershipProvider has already addressed all these issues in an easily configurable manner. You may want to have your own membership interfaces and DTOs simply wrap this default MembershipProvider just so you don't have to worry about these various concerns. That way, most of your code doesn't have to interact with these "uninvited types," but you still get the advantages of a widely-used and proven security framework on the back end.
Do you want to decouple your web application from MembershipRepository?
If so, implement all of the same functionality in a custom MembershipProvider so that your app will only depend on the .NET Membership classes (aside from your web.config).
If not, then don't bother.

Custom form authentication / Authorization scheme in ASP.net MVC

I am trying to create a custom authentication scheme in ASP.NET MVC using form authentication. The idea that I might have different areas on the site that will be managed - approver are and general user area, and these will use different login pages, and so forth. So this is what I want to happen.
User access restricted page (right now I have it protected with a customer AuthorizeAttribute)
User is redirected to a specific login page (not the one from Web.config).
User credentials are verified (via custom databse scheme) and user logs in.
Would really appreciate any help with this!!!
This is what I what I have so far, and it doesn't work:
public class AdministratorAccountController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Login()
{
return View("Login");
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Login(AdministratorAccountModels.LoginModel model, string returnUrl)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
if (model.UserName == "admin" && model.Password == "pass") // This will be pulled from DB etc
{
var ticket = new FormsAuthenticationTicket(1, // version
model.UserName, // user name
DateTime.Now, // create time
DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(30), // expire time
false, // persistent
""); // user data
var strEncryptedTicket = FormsAuthentication.Encrypt(ticket);
var cookie = new HttpCookie(FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName, strEncryptedTicket);
Response.Cookies.Add(cookie);
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(returnUrl))
{
return Redirect(returnUrl);
}
else
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
}
else
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "The user name or password provided is incorrect.");
}
// If we got this far, something failed, redisplay form
return View(model);
}
[AdministratorAuthorize]
public ActionResult MainMenu()
{
return View();
}
public class AdministratorAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)
{
var authenCookie = httpContext.Request.Cookies.Get(FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName);
if (authenCookie == null) return false;
var ticket = FormsAuthentication.Decrypt(authenCookie.Value);
var id = new FormsIdentity(ticket);
var astrRoles = ticket.UserData.Split(new[] { ',' });
var principal = new GenericPrincipal(id, astrRoles);
httpContext.User = principal;
return true;
}
protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(AuthorizationContext filterContext)
{
var model = new AdministratorAccountModels.LoginModel();
var viewData = new ViewDataDictionary(model);
filterContext.Result = new ViewResult { ViewName = "Login", ViewData = viewData };
}
}
}
I used a combination of code suggested by minus4 and my own code above to create this simplified scenario that might help someone else. I added some comments about things that confused me at first.
public class AdministratorAccountController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Login()
{
return View("Login");
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Login(AdministratorAccountModels.LoginModel model, string returnUrl)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
// Here you would call a service to process your authentication
if (model.UserName == "admin" && model.Password == "pass")
{
// * !!! *
// Creating a FromsAuthenticationTicket is what
// will set RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.IsAuthenticated to True
// in the AdminAuthorize attribute code below
// * !!! *
var ticket = new FormsAuthenticationTicket(1, // version
model.UserName, // user name
DateTime.Now, // create time
DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(30), // expire time
false, // persistent
""); // user data, such as roles
var strEncryptedTicket = FormsAuthentication.Encrypt(ticket);
var cookie = new HttpCookie(FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName, strEncryptedTicket);
Response.Cookies.Add(cookie);
// Redirect back to the page you were trying to access
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(returnUrl))
{
return Redirect(returnUrl);
}
else
{
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
}
else
{
ModelState.AddModelError("", "The user name or password provided is incorrect.");
}
// If we got this far, something failed, redisplay form
return View(model);
}
[AdminAuthorize]
public ActionResult MainMenu()
{
return View();
}
public class AdminAuthorize : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
if (!filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Request.IsAuthenticated)
{
// Redirect to the needed login page
// This can be pulled from config file or anything else
filterContext.HttpContext.Response.Redirect("/AdministratorAccount/Login?ReturnUrl="
+ HttpUtility.UrlEncode(filterContext.HttpContext.Request.RawUrl));
}
base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext);
}
}
}
okay here you go The Code
in there you have ActionFilters folder ( AuthAccess.cs)
Plugins Folder (security.cs (encrypt/decrypt cookie), SessionHandler.cs (all matters of login))
Controllers folder (BaseController.cs, and exampleController (show you how to use)
and the loginTable SQL file.
i use mysql so you may need to amend, also i use subsonic so my model would come from there
and would be in the empty models folder.
really simple to use will leave it up for a while for you, enjoy
nope cookie model is here sorry:
using System;
namespace TestApp.Models
{
public class CookieModel
{
public string CurrentGuid { get; set; }
public DateTime LoginTime { get; set; }
public Int32 UserLevel { get; set; }
public Int32 LoginID { get; set; }
public bool isValidLogin { get; set; }
public string realUserName { get; set; }
public string emailAddress { get; set; }
}
}
Isn't this what roles are for?
Have a look at asp.net mvc authorization using roles or have a look at roles in general
i tackled this one before i have a class i use for login
routines are login, read cookie, check cookie and they have a model that contains
name, email, id, userlevel
then you just have your own custom actionFilter
eg [CustomAuth(MinAllowedLevel=10)]
i use a baseclass for all my controllers so i can have an easier link to
all my session content and can then get info like so
var model = pictures.all().where(x => x.userid == users.ReadCookie.userID)
i will bob up the code tommorow if you want for you when im back on UK daytime
say 10 hrs i will let you have the class for all the session stuff and the
custom action filter that you can use, then all you need is a logins table with a userlevel field, best with levels of 10,20,30,40 incase you need a level between 1 and 2

How do I wrap MembershipUser

How would i wrap MembershipUser so that the call below returns. Reason for wrapping is I would like the return result to be an interface to I can mock the user.
public IMembershipUser GetUser(string username, bool userIsOnline)
{
var user = Membership.GetUser(username, userIsOnline));
//Do something
return WrappedUser;
}
Thanks
I'm afraid you can't do this becuase..
System.Web.Security.MembershipUser type does not inherit from any special base-type and also it's not declared as partial, so there's no way you can do this.
But if you let us know what exactly you want to do, we can come up with alternate solutions.
You can achieve this by implementing your own SiteMembershipProvider. Here's an example snippet of an implementation I did a while back:
public class CustomMembershipUser : MembershipUser
{
public UserItem UserItem { get; private set; }
public CustomMembershipUser(string providerName, UserItem user)
: base(providerName, user.UserName, "user_" + user.UserID, user.Email,
null, null, true, !user.IsCurrent, DateTime.MinValue,
DateTime.MinValue, DateTime.MinValue, DateTime.MinValue, DateTime.MinValue)
{
this.UserItem = user;
}
}
public class SiteMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
....
private static MembershipUser GetMembershipUser(UserItem user)
{
return new CustomMembershipUser(_membershipProviderName,user);
}
public override MembershipUser GetUser(string username, bool userIsOnline)
{
// Load user
return GetMembershipUser(foundUser);
}
....
}
In Web.Config:
<membership defaultProvider="SiteMembershipProvider">
<providers>
<clear/>
<add name="SiteMembershipProvider" type="SiteMembershipProvider" enablePasswordRetrieval="false" enablePasswordReset="false" requiresQuestionAndAnswer="false" connectionStringName="myConnectionString"/>
</providers>
</membership>
This should default your entire site to use the new MembershipProvider called SiteMembershipProvider.
Have a look here or here for an example to implement the entire class.
You could create a class which implements your IMemberShipUser interface and internally stores a reference to the "real" MembershipUser.
The properties and methods on your wrapped class could then simply delegate to the real reference.
Edit - A super simple example below:
using System.Web.Security;
namespace Example
{
public interface IMembershipUser
{
string UserName { get; }
string Email { get; }
}
public class WrappedMembershipUser: IMembershipUser
{
private readonly MembershipUser realUser;
public WrappedMembershipUser(MembershipUser realUser)
{
this.realUser = realUser;
}
public string UserName
{
get { return realUser.UserName; }
}
public string Email
{
get { return realUser.Email; }
}
}
}

Resources