I am looking for a best practice for End to End Authentication for internal Web Applications to the Database layer.
The most common scenario I have seen is to use a single SQL account with the permissions set to what is required by the application. This account is used by all application calls. Then when people require access over the database via query tools or such a separate Group is created with the query access and people are given access to that group.
The other scenario I have seen is to use complete Windows Authentication End to End. So the users themselves are added to groups which have all the permissions set so the user is able to update and change outside the parameters of the application. This normally involves securing people down to the appropriate stored procedures so they aren't updating the tables directly.
The first scenario seems relatively easily to maintain but raises concerns if there is a security hole in the application then the whole database is compromised.
The second scenario seems more secure but has the opposite concern of having to much business logic in stored procedures on the database. This seems to limit the use of the some really cool technologies like Nhibernate and LINQ. However in this day and age where people can use data in so many different ways we don't foresee e.g. mash-ups etc is this the best approach.
Dale - That's it exactly. If you want to provide access to the underlying data store to those users then do it via services. And in my experience, it is those experienced computer users coming out of Uni/College that damage things the most. As the saying goes, they know just enough to be dangerous.
If they want to automate part of their job, and they can display they have the requisite knowledge, then go ahead, grant their domain account access to the backend. That way anything they do via their little VBA automation is tied to their account and you know exactly who to go look at when the data gets hosed.
My basic point is that the database is the proverbial holy grail of the application. You want as few fingers in that particular pie as possible.
As a consultant, whenever I hear that someone has allowed normal users into the database, my eyes light up because I know it's going to end up being a big paycheck for me when I get called to fix it.
Personally, I don't want normal end users in the database. For an intranet application (especially one which resides on a Domain) I would provide a single account for application access to the database which only has those rights which are needed for the application to function.
Access to the application would then be controlled via the user's domain account (turn off anonymous access in IIS, etc.).
IF a user needs, and can justify, direct access to the database, then their domain account would be given access to the database, and they can log into the DBMS using the appropriate tools.
I've been responsible for developing several internal web applications over the past year.
Our solution was using Windows Authentication (Active Directory or LDAP).
Our purpose was merely to allow a simple login using an existing company ID/password. We also wanted to make sure that the existing department would still be responsible for verifying and managing access permissions.
While I can't answer the argument concerning Nhibernate or LINQ, unless you have a specific killer feature these things can implement, Active Directory or LDAP are simple enough to implement and maintain that it's worth trying.
I agree with Stephen Wrighton. Domain security is the way to go. If you would like to use mashups and what-not, you can expose parts of the database via a machine-readable RESTful interface. SubSonic has one built in.
Stephen - Keeping normal end users out of the database is nice but I am wondering if in this day and age with so many experienced computer users coming out of University / College if this the right path. If someone wants to automate part of their job which includes a VBA update to a database which I allow them to do via the normal application are we losing gains by restricting their access in this way.
I guess the other path implied here is you could open up the Application via services and then secure those services via groups and still keep the users separated from the database.
Then via delegation you can allow departments to control access to their own accounts via the groups as per Jonathan's post.
Related
Sorry no code here because I am looking for a better idea or if I am on the right track?
I have two websites, lets call them A and B.
A is a website exposed to the internet and only users with valid account can access.
B is a internal (intranet) website with (Windows authentication using Active directory). I want Application B (intranet) to create users for Application A.
Application A is using the inbuilt ASP.NET JWT token authentication.
My idea is to expose a Api on the extranet website (A) and let (B) access this API. I can use CORS to make sure only (B) has access to the end point but I am not sure if this is a good enough protection? We will perform security penetrations test from a third party company so this might fail the security test?
Or
I can use entity framework to a update the AspnetUsers table manually. Not idea if this is feasible or the right way or doing things.
Any other solution?
In my opinion, don't expose your internal obligations with external solutions like implementing APIs etc ...
Just share the database to be accessible for B. In this way, the server administration is the only security concern and nobody knows how you work. In addition, It's not important how you implement the user authentication for each one (whether Windows Authentication or JWT) and has an independent infrastructure.
They are multiple solution to this one problem. It then end it really depends on your specific criteria.
You could go with:
B (intranet) website, reaching into the database and creating user as needed.
A (internet) website, having an API exposing the necessary endpoint to create user.
A (internet) website, having data migration running every now and then to insert users.
But they all comes with there ups and downs, I'll try to break them down for you.
API solution
Ups:
Single responsibility, you have only one piece of code touching this database which makes it easier to mitigate side effect
it is "future proof" you could easily have more services using this api.
Downs:
Attack surface increased, the API is on a public so subject to 3rd parties trying to play with it.
Maintain API as the database model changes (one more piece to maintain)
Not the fastest solution to implement.
Database direct access
Ups:
Attack surface minimal.
Very quick to develop
Downs:
Database model has to be maintained twice
migration + deployment have to be coordinated, hard to maintain.
Make the system more error prone.
Migration on release
Ups:
Cheapest to develop
Highest performance on inserts
Downs:
Not flexible
Very slow for user
Many deployment
Manual work (will be costly over time)
In my opinion I suggest you go for the API, secure the API access with OAuth mechanism. It OAuth is too time consuming to put in place. Maybe you can try some easier Auth protocols.
What are the pros and cons of Azure Active Directory to manage the accounts of a simple website (at most 10 accounts, just for login to control panel), instead of SQL membership provider or the new bogus identity system in my own database. I never tried this service before but I like the fact that I don't need to take care of the database and credentials of my users, it's free and very secure I guess. Someone has tested it in production? any security advise? thanks.
Among the many upsides there's that it is free, highly available, enterprise-grade and basically management-free - all flows for entering and changing passwords and similar are already implemented for you. Also, it can be used for both web sites and web API - so that if tomorrow you want to add a mobile app for the same user population, we've got you covered.
About having tested it in production... yes, there are many many (MANY) apps using AAD in production today.
I guess that one possible downside for such a small use case is that all the defaults are set to a higher security level than you'd probably use in your scenario, translating in a bit more involvement from your users: passwords templates requiring special characters, mandatory password expiration, and so on. Of course to me it's a good thing, but I am biased :-)
Another current limitation is that the user names must be of the form alias#yourADdomain, as of today you cannot use an arbitrary string. That's usually not a big deal, but calling it out in case you have preexisting user names you need to stick to.
HTH
V.
I am deploying an ASP.NET application and SQL Server (2008) database on a live (production) server. The physical server is running both SQL Server 2008 and IIS 7 - it is provided by a hosting company and is not part of our internal network.
I have a couple of questions regarding database security and the connection string for the ASP.NET application.
Previously I would create a database user and specify the SELECT/INSERT etc. permissions for each table - but my issue is that there are 50+ tables in this database, so doing this would take a long time.
The application requires SELECT/INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE on each table.
Is there a better way than specifying the permissions for each table individually?
Is there an equivalent of integrated security for a live web server - what are the drawbacks?
Or is there a way of elevating the access rights for a particular user to full access for a particular database
Also how would the connection string change?
I just looking for some expert advice, just someone to point me in the right direction and a link to some documentation on how to achieve a better way of doing it.
Many thanks.
You have essentially three unrelated questions in your bullet list, not one.
The first one is a better fit at ServerFault.com, as it deals with SQL Server, not necessarily a programming question.
However, Google paid off, and here's a method for doing it: http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/2298/sql_server_2005_easily_grant_select_all_tables_views/
Alternatively, you can just assign the user to the correct groups as described in #Oded's answer here: TSQL granting read and write permissions to all tables
For the second one, Integrated Security, yes, there is a way to use integrated Security with ASP.NET. See this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bsz5788z.aspx
The biggest drawback is that it's more to configure. it's a non-standard (but supported) configuration, so maintenance programmers may not have seen the setup before.
Also, if you're doing this, there could be security concerns if you're using an account that has permissions elsewhere. Be sure to follow the principle of least privilege. It might be best to create a Domain account specifically for each website, so if one gets compromised, it limits the damage that can be done. You know your security concerns better than I do, so this may or may not be relevant advice, but it's something to consider.
Finally, (and this is probably too obvious to point out) it would be foolish to use a real person's UserId. If that person leaves the company and their account is removed, the website will obviously break.
Now that I've found an answer for the first question, the third one becomes moot.
You can create or use an existing database role. Then you put the user into that role to allow that user to have all the permissions you need. For example, you might put the user account you are using in your connection into the db_datawriter role given the scenarios you described.
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189121%28v=sql.105%29.aspx
This article also related to how you could elevate a user's permissions.
Integrated security will work--it just requires that the login used on the computer that is making the connection be recognizable by the database server (in the same or in a trusting Windows domain).
Our requirement is something like this.
We are building a multi-tenant website in ASP.NET MVC, and each customer should be able to create their own users as per predefined user roles.
We are thinking about to create a schema for few tables which would be common for customers. So customer can login to system according to their schema logins and we need not to alter any queries to serve all of them.
We are referring http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479086.aspx Shared Database, Separate Schemas.
Can someone suggest on following
1. After creating schema how to authorize user against a particular schema
2. Is this possible that without any changes in queries db can serve multi-tenants
Thanks in advance
Anil
After much research, I can say that, although it takes more development up front and more checks along the way, shared database and shared schema is the way to go. It puts a little bit of limits on how easily you can cater to a client's specific needs, but from my point of view SAAS isn't about catering to a single client's weird needs. It's about catering to the majority of clients. Not that it's a SAAS but take iPhone as an example. It was built to cater to the masses. Rather than focusing on doing everything it's built to be one-size fits all just by its simplicity. This doesn't help your case when it comes to authoriztion but it'll save you dev hours in the long run.
If you are asking this in the context of SQL Server authentication/authorization mechanism, i can asnwer this question with saying that every user has a default schema which helps query engine to find out required object in the database.
SQL Query Engine will look at the user's default schema first to find the required object (table). If it founds the object in user's schema then use it, otherwise goes to system default schema (dbo) to find it.
Check this article's How to Refer to Objects section to find out how it works. The article also has some information about security concepts related to schemas.
My company is building an ASP.NET HR application and we have decided to create one database per client. This ensures that clients cannot accidentally view another client's data, while also allowing for easy scalability (among other benefits, already discussed here).
My question is - what is the best way to handle security and data access in such a scenario? My intent is to use a common login/account database that will direct the user to the correct server/database. This common database would also contain the application features that each user/role has access.
I was not planning to put any user information in each individual client database, but others on my team feel that the lack of security on each database is a huge hole (but they cannot articulate how duplicating the common access logic would be useful).
Am I missing something? Should we add an extra layer of security/authentication at the client database level?
Update:
One of the reasons my team felt dual user management was necessary is due to access control. All users have a default role (e.g. Admin, Minimal Access, Power User, etc.), but client admins will be able to refine permissions for users with access to their database. To me it still seems feasible for this to be in a central database, but my team doesn't agree. Thoughts?
We have a SaaS solution that uses the one DB per client model. We have a common "Security" database too. However, we store all user information in the individual client databases.
When the user logs into the system they tell us three pieces of information, username, password and client-id. The client-id is used to lookup their home database in the "security" database, and then the code connects to their home database to check their username/password. This way a client is totally self-contained within their database. Of course you need some piece of information beyond username to determine their home database. Could be our client-id approach, or could be the domain-name requested if you're using the sub-domain per client approach.
The advantage here is that you can move "client" databases around w/out having to keep them synced up with the security database. Plus you don't need to deal w/cross-db joins when you're trying to lookup user information.
Update: In response to your update... One of the advantages to each customer having their own DB is also the ability to restore a customer if they really need it. If you've split the customer's data into two databases how do you restore it? Also, again, you'll need to worry about cross-db data access if the users are defined in a DB other than the home DB.
I've always been of the opinion that security should be enforced at the application level, not the database level. With that said, I see no problem with your intended approach. Managing accounts and roles through a central database makes the application more maintainable in the long run.
You may want to look into using the ASP.NET membership provider for handling the authentication plumbing. That would work with your stated approach and you can still keep all of the authentication data in a separate database. However, I agree with Chris that keeping one DB will utlimately be more maintainable.