Cannot find anywhere on Google Identity Platform docs that clearly describe whether it's possible to assign a single user to multiple tenants. see https://cloud.google.com/identity-platform/docs/multi-tenancy-managing-tenants
My project needs the capability to have a single user be able to login to multiple, separate tenants. Currently, I have to create a new user on every tenant I want to be able to login to. This is not good because each new user I create has a different uid and separate password management. For a single user, I want to be able to maintain the same uid across tenants so the associated user data can be consistent as well.
I was thinking there would be some way to create a user at the project level (not tenant level) and then assign that user to specific tenants?
Some random thoughts: The docs say some things about migrating users between tenants, perhaps that is one way. Also was thinking that creating a tenant user with my existing project-level uid would somehow merge them so the uid and password management is the same?
Edit: I found this conceptual discussion to be helpful: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/403274/multitenancy-with-cross-tenant-users
what I gathered from that link is that SSO is separate from multi-tenancy. So I'm trying to figure out an SSO solution on top of multi-tenancy google idp. Any code solutions/suggestions for how to add SSO on top of multi-tenant google identity platform?
If you need the same user across tenants maybe you should instead rely on the user email, custom claims, federated ID (eg. user.providerData[0].uid). When you get an ID token for the user you have access to this same information regardless of the tenant or user.uid.
Related
Assume I have a database composed of user and projects. A user has a one to many relationship with projects. The user can do operations using rest endpoints.
The problem is:
how can I verify that this user owns this resource?
I don't want a malicious user to change an id then suddenly he views another person's project details/images/etc. Think of it like a social media (my app is not a social media but trying to illustrate the issue): where you can view only your images but not another person's images despite having the same "status".
Most spring-security blogs online is using a role based approach. I have no idea what to even search for in this case (tried multiple search queries to no avail).
One option is to run some sort of multijoin query on every resource request/operation till I reach that resource id and check it's owning user to check if it is the logged in user. However, I am not sure if this way is efficient since there are multiple tables in a chain in the real app (could have a lot of joins if I go this way manually; example: user -> project -> tasklist-> ... -> Note; deleting a note would trigger a large chain) or how to make the "authorizer" use it.
what are my options?
In case it matters:
I am using spring-boot + hibernate/JPA + spring-security
Spring Security has the following concepts:
Authentication:
Proving the an actor is who it vouches to be. Authentication is done using credentials, where credentials can take any number of forms - username/password, token, hardware key, etc.
You can set up Spring Security with a set of acceptable authentication providers.
Authorization:
Given an authenticated user, deciding if that user has access to a given resource. Where the resource can be:
An HTTP endpoint.
An Java Method.
A property of an object.
What you want to do here is provide a custom authorization scheme.
You can read about Spring Security's authorization architecture here, including how to set up custom authorization. Once you're ready you might ask specific questions as you go.
First, I'm well aware of the multi-realm approach to multi-tenancy in Keycloak. I've taken over a legacy project where nobody thought of multi-tenancy. Now, two years later, suddenly, the customer needs this feature. Actually, the microservices are prepared for this scenario out-of-the-box.
The customer develops a mobile app that authenticates users via API on our keycloak instance with an account number (as username) and a password. Now, he'd like to add an tenant id to the login information.
The customer wants to avoid using several endpoints as a multi-realm solution would demand.
One first idea was to just concatenate tenant-id and account-id on registration. But that's a smelly approach.
So, my thought was that there may be a way to configure Keycloak in a way that I add a custom tenantid field together with username that acts just like a composite primary key in the database world.
Is such a configuration possible? Is there another way to achieve multi-tenancy behaviour using a single realm?
I can't say for sure, but after some research, I found this:
This website lists all of this together with more information:
https://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/2017-June/010854.html
Check it out, it may help with your data organization in key-cloak.
Late to the party. But maybe for others who are interested. You could try the keycloak extension keycloak-orgs. I am currently building a test stack with it and I am pleased.
A tenant in keycloak-orgs is an organization. You can map organizations and their roles to token claims with a built-in mapper.
"organizations": {
"5aeb9aeb-97a3-4deb-af9f-516615b59a2d" : {
"name": "foo",
"roles": [ "admin", "viewer" ]
}
}
The extension comes w/ an admin interface. From there you can create organizations and assign users to it. There is also a well-documented REST API on the Phase Two homepage (the company who open-sourced the project).
The maintainers provide a keycloak docker image that has the relevant keycloak extensions installed.
If you want a single realm and singe client that serves many tenants, you can just use custom user attribute and e.g. add key(s) "tenant=MyTenant" and then add a client scope and a mapper to include user attributes that has key=tenant
Then the token will carry the user's tenant(s) and you can use that to filter data, add to newly created data etc.
It's only like 4 steps in Keycloak:
Add User attributes using a key-convention.
Add a Client scope that will represent tenants.
Add a mapper to extract the User attributes.
Add Client scope to the Client in use.
Wrote about it here: https://danielwertheim.se/keycloak-and-multi-tenancy-using-single-realm/
I created a multi-tenant application where each tenant have different set of users. I am trying to implement a functionality where same user might exist in different tenants. Does outsystems provide such functionality or I have to create my custom logic ?
Right now, I did create a user having same username in 2 different tenants and during login I am showing user to select tenants. But on changing tenants and logging to that tenant, the environment doesn't switch to that tenant that user has selected.
Below is the image of the logic of switching tenants and logging in the customer.
During debugging I saw that after executing TenantSwitch action it did change the Site.TenantID property but after User_Login action is reverted to the first tenant not the one user selected.
When you use User_Login(), the system will log you in the first Tenant it finds in the DB that has that username, thus ignoring your TenantSwitch().
So, if you want to login to a specific Tenant in your case, you need to be more explicit and instead use the Login() action - after the tenant switch.
For a thorough explanation of this, with example code, please check out the following deepdive Master Class on Multi-Tenancy starting around the 27:20 minute mark.
This isn't available out of the box as OutSystems assigns users (and all entities) to a specific tenant. Entities belonging to single tenanted modules are assigned to the default tenant.
OutSystems uses a hidden .Tenant_Id attribute on each entity to indicate which tenant that user belongs to. You can unhide this attribute for the users entity by selecting it, clicking More... and then ticking the relevant box in the Advanced tab. You can then access the attribute directly, but be aware this will hinder OutSystems' ability to do some of the stuff it does automatically to ensure that you access tenant specific data.
When you use the User_Login action OutSystems will deduce which tenant to use from the User.Tenant_Id attribute regardless of which tenant you've switched it to previously. The user would need an account for each tenant they need to use, but there's no reason this couldn't be done behind the scenes with OS fetching the correct username before logging in. You'd need to ensure they all stay in sync though, especially the passwords ofc.
We are trying to integrate our platform with Pipedrive. As far as we have researched, in a pipedrive account, there is one admin and he can add multiple users. And the users later can login in their respective accounts.
What we are trying to make sure is that once a Pipedrive account is integrated with our platform, the same account should not be integrated twice. So, I need a unique identifier, that lets me know whether the account has already been integrated.
My initial approach was to check the api key. But it was not successful, since every users in an account have different API Keys.
After a bit of research, I found out that there is an identifier called company_id which is common for all the users in an account. But I could not find anything regarding it in documentation. So, I am not 100% confident to go ahead and implement it in our code.
Does anyone have an idea about this?
Pipedrive support rep here.
The most sure-fire way to ensure this is to make a GET request against http://api.pipedrive.com/v1/users?api_token=your_token_here.
You are correct in assuming the company_id in the additional_data object in the response is static and won't change across any users on the account.
Note that a Pipedrive account may have more than one admin, and that non-admins (regular users) might have visibility (and editing) restrictions in place, which may cause some of your GET, PUT and DELETE requests to fail.
In case you're not doing this already, I'd thus advise filtering the data array from the abovementioned endpoint for user.is_you to equal true and check whether the is_admin property is set to 1 during "registration" to ensure the user setting up the integration is an admin.
Hope this helps!
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. Are you looking for a unique identifier for each user?
Each user has an id, you can get all users by calling
https://api.pipedrive.com/v1/users?api_token=____
This will return a JSON Object with data on your users, including their names and associated IDs. Admins are just users with different privilege levels. All admins are users, but not all users are admins. All users are part of a company, the company is identified by the first part of the Pipedrive account url ie.
https://FooCompany.pipedrive.com
Are you trying to see if a certain company has been integrated already?
In my application I need to register users. The users can be any of three: admin, client and general. They have different attributes (Admin may have only name, client may have company address and so on). The default MVC membership scheme is okay but how can it be extended to register more information during registration time? Or should I use custom membership?
I need to have a record of clients and general users with clientID or generalID.
The default MVC membership scheme is okay but how can it be extended
to register more information during registration time? Or should I use
custom membership?
I think too many people, yourself included, are expecting to get too much from the default ASP.NET Membership Provider. It was never designed to handle application-specific things, like what company your customer works for, your admin's name, and so on. It's main purpose is storing passwords for authentication.
Sure, the password needs to be linked to a username, so that there can be a 2-key authentication pair. Sometimes you also need the user's email address, when it is different from their username, in order to contact the user regarding their password. But don't store anything else about your users in the membership store. Store it in your application database.
In order to join data between your application and the membership provider, use the membership provider's UserName or ProviderKey as a column in one of your database tables. You end up with 2 entities which are not explicitly related. You can even have your SqlMembershipProvider implemented in a separate database from your application database. Even if they are in the same database, avoid having a foreign key between any of the provider tables and your application tables. This muddies the waters between what you own, and what you "outsource" to the membership provider.
You end up with 2 physically isolated representations of your user. One is the MembershipProvider, which contains a password for your user. The other is your application, which contains other business-specific details. The two are only logically associated within your application. After you authenticate a user with the membership API, their UserName and/pr ProviderKey become available to your application. You can then use that piece of data to query your app database and get the additional details. This is where you might put something like the clientID or generalID you mentioned.
If you look at the System.Web.Security.Member* API, this should make things clearer. It does one thing really well -- associating your users with passwords and other information related to password resetting (like the email address, question and answer, etc). So outsource just the password provider, and rely on your application to do the important stuff.
You could customise the default profile provider or create your own... Follow this reference
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8zs47k7y
You can add new properties to the profile for anything in the web.config too
I highly suggest creating your own membership roles. It's dead simple and nothing can beat the flexibility of having your own implementation.
Here's a video I made a while back showing you step by step how to achieve this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsxUsyMSGeA
The gist of it is, you create your own AuthorizeAttribute and create your own roles; protecting each controller or even individual Action methods along the way.
The one drawback of this approach is that you can determine what Role a user has in your system, but not what a Role can do in your system. Does that make sense?
There are other choices if you need to edit what a role can do at runtime.