If I set up composer-rest-server to use github authentication (as described in https://hyperledger.github.io/composer/latest/integrating/enabling-rest-authentication.html), then a client of the rest server needs to authenticate against github.
If this authentication is successful, then the client acts with the business card that was specified during startup of the rest server (or with the one that was uploaded in multi-user mode).
However, ANY github user may authenticate that way! There is no control which github users may use the rest server (I would expect a configuration file with a white list etc.). Therefore ANY github user may interact with the blockchain the same way using the business card of the rest server?!
This is quite useless in my opinion. Or do I oversee something? What is the purpose of github authentication in composer-rest-server?
Before authentication there is no real access to the Business Network, after authentication there is access to add Cards to a Wallet after which there is access to the business network (controlled by ACL).
The Wallet is unique to the authenticated user, so in your github example if you open a different browser and use a different Github ID you will have an empty Wallet, and no access to the network - except to add a card.
With regard to Github it is just used as an example of a Passport Strategy for Authentication - it is used in the example docs as it is quite easy to set up and anybody can use Github. It might be useful for a public blockchain, but for many examples it might be more appropriate to use a Passport Strategy to connect to a private LDAP or Active Directory.
Related
I am trying to make a desktop application with Twitch API and Google API.
Since this application requires Twitch user permission, a user needs to authorize my application through twitch's OAuth and I think there's no way to omit this process.
Now, I want to add some functionalities from Goole APIs, for instance TTS.
My application will be installed and run on user's local machine,
it cannot store API key or credential information safely.
I think I have three options:
Add Google OAuth: This is most safe way, I think, but I don't think I can convince users to authorize another Google account even though they already authorized their Twitch account.
Make a kind of proxy server which verifies request for Google API using twitch authentication information and relays request to/response from Google API. This seems feasible but it requires additional payment to running server for sending data from Google API. I already have to pay for TTS service, another payment for proxy server which sends binary data frequently would be a financial burden for me.
Make a server to acquire API key for Google API. This also requires additional server, but it does not involve lots of traffic because application will access Google API directly once API key acquired. However, I concern that the API key may be easily stolen using monitoring tool such as wireshark.
Which method should I use here, and how can I improve it?
Or, is there better way for this case?
We have an in-house OAuth2 server used by our applications. Now we want to use Windows SSO for our applications but without them to change anything: they'll still reach our OAuth2 server for an access token and the authentication part will be delegated to Kerberos (which Windows use, if I understood properly).
Is there a way to do that?
That is a standard setup and should just require configuration changes in the Authorization Server (AS) - with zero code changes in applications.
Most commonly:
The AS might be hosted in the cloud
It will redirect browsers to an on premise Identity Provider (IDP)
The IDP can connect to Active Directory
You may also need a fallback option for when users are not joined to the work domain. See this Curity guide for an example and some infrastructure factors to think about.
If the AS is in house it may even be able to make a direct Kerberos connection via an LDAP data source, though the preferred architecture is a separate IDP.
Of course you need an AS that supports the ability to make this type of connection, so would need to check the vendor docs.
REQUEST FLOW
Kerberos has always been the simplest protocol conceptually but the deepest to understand - here is a bit of a summary:
Your apps will make a standard OpenID Connect authorization redirect to the AS
The AS may then present an authentication selection screen to the user, unless there is only a single option
Alternatively an app can send the acr_values query parameter to say which authentication method to use
The AS will then redirect the browser to the next stage of processing, that uses a 'Windows SSO authenticator'
The redirect to the Windows SSO authenticator does not have to use OpenID Connect - it could be any vendor specific HTTP request
The browser will send an encrypted Kerberos ticket automatically by connecting to AD - a prerequisite for this to work might be that the domain in the URL is in the Local Intranet zone on end user computers
The Windows SSO authenticator will need to be able to decrypt this credential, which typically requires a Service Principal Name to be configured
Once the Kerberos ticket is decrypted, the authenticator will make an LDAP connection to an Active Directory data source via its standard LDAP endpoints, to verify the received ticket
I'm trying to figure out how to migrate a system that is currently using ACS to Azure AD. I've read the migration docs provided by Azure and have looked through the Azure AD docs and the sample code but I'm still a bit lost as to what the best approach for my situation would be.
I've got a web API that has about 100 separate external systems that connect to it on a regular basis. We add a new connections approximately once a week. These external systems are not users--these are applications that are integrated with my application via my web API.
Currently each external system has an ACS service identity / password which they use to obtain a token which we then use to authenticate. Obviously this system is going away as of November 7.
All of the Azure AD documentation I've read so far indicates that, when I migrate, I should set up each of my existing clients as an "application registration" in Azure AD. The upshot of this is that each client, instead of connecting to me using a username and password, will have to connect using an application ID (which is always a GUID), an encrypted password, and a "resource" which seems to be the same as an audience URL from what I can see. This in itself is cumbersome but not that bad.
Then, implementing the authorization piece in my web API is deceptively simple. It looks like, fundamentally, all I need to do is include the properly configured [Authorize] attribute in my ApiController. But the trick is in getting it to be properly configured.
From what I can see in all the examples out there, I need to hard-code the unique Audience URL for every single client that might possibly connect to my API into my startup code somewhere, and that really does not seem reasonable to me so I can only assume that I must be missing something. Do I really need to recompile my code and do a new deployment every time a new external system wants to connect to my API?
Can anyone out there provide a bit of guidance?
Thanks.
You have misunderstood how the audience URI works.
It is not your client's URI, it is your API's URI.
When the clients request a token using Client Credentials flow (client id + secret), they all must use your API's App ID URI as the resource.
That will then be the audience in the token.
Your API only needs to check the token contains its App ID URI as the audience.
Though I want to also mention that if you want to do this a step better, you should define at least one application permission in your API's manifest. You can check my article on adding permissions.
Then your API should also check that the access token contains something like:
"roles": [
"your-permission-value"
]
It makes the security a bit better since any client app with an id + secret can get an access token for any API in that Azure AD tenant.
But with application permissions, you can require that a permission must be explicitly assigned for a client to be able to call your API.
It would make the migration a tad more cumbersome of course, since you'd have to require this app permission + grant it to all of the clients.
All of that can be automated with PowerShell though.
I am to be having a lot of problems, misinformation and confusion when attempting to find out the plausibility and viability of attempting this.
The requirement is for a remote client, accessing our website to be auto signed in with their Active Directory User account.
We have the option to setup a WCF service (or something similar) on their remote server for authentication purposes. Which from my little understanding is how this problem will be tackled.
So, my question after a little background is this.
CAN this be done, and HOW can it be done?
Instead of hosting a WCF service on their domain, I would look into installing ADFS on their domain.
You can change your website to accept security tokens from ADFS using the WS-Federation protocol. You can use classes from the System.IdentityModel namespace for that. An example of how to implement this in ASP.NET can be found here.
An alternative would be to use Azure Active Directory as your identity provider and have your client sync accounts to their AAD directory (or federate between AAD and ADFS). An example can be found here.
The basic requirement is to centralize the authentication and authorization of multiple SaaS applications to ease development (each SaaS application using minimal code to authenticate against a single source) and when necessary provide SSO. The authentication mechanism must handle the following options available to the user:
Use Third Party Authentication -- Google
Use our centralized authentication
Use the corporate provided authentication (ADFS)
In my research, I have found many, many ways this can be done and have found OpenAM to be the most complete solution, but then I came across FreeRadius which could also be used.
My Questions are:
There seems to be a plug-in for each tool where one can use the other together (OpenAM - authenticate against radius server), but is there any use case where FreeRadius would be preferred as the SOLE authentication server over OpenAM.
Does OpenAM require that a web agent installed for the server - if all I am doing is serving a Restful Interface (developed in Node.js) - is it possible to authenticate users without installing a web agent (there is no web agent for Node.js).
Can I pass user credentials from Browser -> Server (node.js) -> OpenAM thereby not giving the user the OpenAM login screen. The OpenAM token will be passed from OpenAM -> Server -> Browser (setting the cookies's origin as the SaaS's application.
That is each SaaS application server will serve as a "proxy" for user management (authenticate, authorize, and manage[create|update|delete] users)
Thank you
I'm early to the Open Identity Stack game but I am deploying an OpenAM (and OpenIDM + OpenDJ) based solution to handle exactly the solutions you mention.
direct answers:
As far as handing sole authentication over to FreeRadius I don't see why you would want to but anything is possible. Given your mention of the multiple directories (identity sources - google, ADFS, and your centralized authentication) I would think hooking up OpenAM to provide the RADIUS authentication (i.e. OpenAM RADIUS hook, not FreeRadius) would make sense.
No, a web agent doesn't have to be applied but it may make sense. There are some node.js pieces to help (https://github.com/alesium/node-openam). You just need to talk from your server to the OpenAM side (REST) and that should be good.
You can do that or you can just skin the OpenAM login screen to look like your own. I'd suggest the latter as you're then relying on OpenAM for the login screen security. If you're doing a pure proxy then you take that burden on. Your call as a design decision obviously.
good luck!
you're comparing a RADIUS sever with a Web SSO solution ... I'm not sure if this makes sense.
It seems FreeRadius does not have that many 'auth backends' (like Oauth to leverage Google Auth)
I am looking into the solution for a similar requirement myself, but I am looking to integrate 2FA as well. I have seen so many different solutions, but haven't pinned down the best one yet. Here is what I have come up with so far:
RCDev OpenID seems to be pretty comprehensive, and it is free for cases with less than 40 users.
Green Rocket's GreenRADIUS is expensive, but they have plugins for every scenario and it can work.
Red Hat's KeyCloak could be used in combination with TACACS+ or FreeRADIUS to accomplish this