How to use X509 certificate with the Nest Elastic Client - elasticsearch

I am currently upgrading from Elastic Search 1.7 to 5.2. I know there is no upgrade path, which is fine. One problem we had originally is with Nest and ElastiSearch.Net there was no way to attach an X509 certificate as it only had the ability to use Basic Authentication. To get around that we made copies of the existing github repos and modified the code directly to allow it. This ultimately is what kept us from upgrading for so long since we couldn't just use the nuget packages, because we now had custom code.
Now that we are upgrading I'm trying to find out if this was ever remedied. Or, at the very least are there any hooks that we can use to get the ElasticClient(in Nest) or the ElasticLowLevelClient (in ElasticSearch.Net) to take in a certificate and pass it on when making the call.
Another option, is to use a PUT request to create the Index on initial creation, which is where we are needing the certificate. The issue we have there is we require the use of the AutoMap method since we have some custom attributes added on our models, and need those to go in on Index creation. I'm not sure if there is a way to generate that result of AutoMap for a given model to JSON, and just use a webclient to attach the certificate.
Let me know if you need anymore details.

It's possible to customise the connections that both NEST and Elasticsearch.Net use all the way back to 1.x. This is done by providing your own implementation of IConnection to the ConnectionSettings instance that is passed to the ElasticClient constructor.
First create your custom IConnection; it's easiest to derive from HttpConnection
public class HttpConnectionWithClientCertificate : HttpConnection
{
protected override HttpWebRequest CreateHttpWebRequest(RequestData requestData)
{
var request = base.CreateHttpWebRequest(requestData);
// add the certificate to the request
request.ClientCertificates.Add(new X509Certificate("path_to_cert"));
return request;
}
}
then pass this to ConnectionSettings
var node = new Uri("http://localhost:9200");
var connectionPool = new SingleNodeConnectionPool(node);
var connection = new HttpConnectionWithClientCertificate();
var settings = new ConnectionSettings(connectionPool, connection);
var client = new ElasticClient(config);

Related

how to use services before app build in .net core 6.0

I have earlier achieved this .net 3.1. But it couldn't be possible with .Net 6 because of startup.cs removed.
I have registered a few services,
builder.Services.AddControllers();
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();
var appSettings = builder.Configuration.GetSection("AppSettings").Get<AppSettings>();
builder.Services.AddScoped<IEncryption, Encryption>();
//Here I need to get the IEncryption Service, and call the method in this service to encrypt/decrypt the connection string to pass to DBContext Service.
builder.Services.AddDbContext<CatalogDbContext>(options => options.UseNpgsql(
appSettings.ConnectionString));
var app = builder.Build();
Earlier in .NET 3.1, I used BuildServicProvider() to get the Encryption service, and call the methods in that service to do the required logic then got the proper connection string I wanted that would be passed to the DBContext service on the next line.
Now, .NET 6/7 is forced to use the services only after app = builder.Build(); so, I can't register the DBCOntext after the build() method.
How can I solve this case? Any recommended approach to do this in .NET 6/7?
You still can useStartup.cs in .net 6
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var startup = new Startup(builder.Configuration);
startup.ConfigureServices(builder.Services); // calling ConfigureServices method
var app = builder.Build();
startup.Configure(app, builder.Environment); // calling Configure method
And then you can use ConfigureServices and Configure methods to register your services before building.
You didn't need to use BuildServiceProvider in .NET Core 3.1 either. AddDbContext has an overload that provides access to an IServiceProvider instance :
builder.Services.AddDbContext<CatalogDbContext>((services,options) =>{
var myOwnDecrypter=services.GetRequiredService<IMyOwnDecrypter>();
var cns=myOwnDecrypter.Decrypt(appSettings.ConnectionString,key);
options.UseNpgsql(cns);
});
or, if you use the ASP.NET Core Data Protection package :
builder.Services.AddDataProtection();
...
builder.Services.AddDbContext<CatalogDbContext>((services,options) =>{
var protector = services.GetDataProtector("Contoso.Example.v2");
var cns=protector.Unprotect(appSettings.ConnectionString);
options.UseNpgsql(cns);
});
or, if IConfiguration.GetConnectionString is used :
builder.Services.AddDataProtection();
...
builder.Services.AddDbContext<CatalogDbContext>((services,options) =>{
var conn_string=services.GetService<IConfiguration>()
.GetConnectionString("MyConnectionString");
var protector = services.GetDataProtector("Contoso.Example.v2");
var cns=protector.Unprotect(conn_string);
options.UseNpgsql(cns);
});
That said, it's the configuration provider's job to decrypt encrypted settings, not the service/context's. ASP.NET Core's configuration allows using multiple different configuration sources in the same host, not just a single settings file. There's nothing special about appsettings.json. That's just the default settings file name.
You can add another settings file with sensitive contents with AddJsonSettings. That file could use the file system's encryption, eg NTFS Encryption, to ensure it's only readable by the web app account
You can read settings from a key management service, like Hashicorp, Azure Key Vault, Amazon Key Management etc.
You can create your own provider that decrypts its input. The answers to this SO questino show how to do this and one of them inherits from JsonConfigurationProvider directly.
Important Caveat: In general, my suggestion below is a bad practice
Do not call BuildServiceProvider
Why is bad? Calling BuildServiceProvider from application code results in more than one copy of singleton services being created which might result in incorrect application behavior.
Justification: I think it is safe to call BuildServiceProvider as long as you haven't registered any singletons before calling it. Admittedly not ideal, but it should work.
You can still callBuildServiceProvider() in .Net6:
builder.Services.AddScoped<IEncryption, Encryption>();
// create service provider
var provider = builder.Services.BuildServiceProvider();
var encryption = scope.ServiceProvider.GetService<IEncryptionService>();
// use service here
or alternatively
builder.Services.AddScoped<IEncryption, Encryption>();
var provider = builder.Services.BuildServiceProvider();
using (var scope = provider.CreateScope()) {
var encryption = scope.ServiceProvider.GetService<IEncryptionService>();
// use service here
}
Alternative:
You can still use the classic startup structure in .Net6/7. We upgraded our .Net3.1 projects to .Net6 without having to rewrite/restructure the Startup()

Calling internal (Endpoint) function in WebAPI

I am using Hangfire to execute recurring jobs in my web API and I use System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath in the "RoutineMethod" function.
But the problem is it throws object null exception.
I searched the problem and found that recurring jobs don't use http threads, they use background threads.
Now to resolve this problem I need to call my internal (endpoint) using httpclient.
But to do that I need to give URL of the Web API (to generate URI). So is there any other way to call internal function using httpclient.
My current code:
public static async Task<IHttpActionResult> RoutineTask()
{
//It was like this before.
//await new DemoController().RoutineMethod();
//await new DemoController().RoutineMethod2();
//I am planning to do this.
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
//But I need to give URI which I don't think is a good idea.
var uri = new Uri("http://localhost/DemoApp/api/DemoController/RoutineMethod");
await client.GetAsync(uri);
}
return new DemoController().Ok();
}
The short answer is no. The HttpClient, as its name implies, requires an http connection.
There are no smell issues with storing service connection information in a configuration file.
However, to expand on Nkosi's comment, it appears that since your code can create an instance of DemoController, that it must have a reference to that controller's project or even be in the same project. I would extract the interesting code into a library or service that all areas needing the information can reference.

How to speed up the restlet client to get response?

I use restlet client to send rest request to the server.
public class RestHandler {
protected ClientResource resource = null;
protected Client client = null;
public void connect(final String address,
final Protocol protocol){
final Context context = new Context();
if (client == null) {
logger.info("Create Client.");
client = new Client(context, protocol);
}
resource = new ClientResource(context, new Reference(protocol, address));
resource.setNext(client);
resource.setEntityBuffering(true);
}
}
In its child class, use resource.get()/post/put/delete to send rest request.
I found the response come back so slow at the first time(5-10s).
And then it go faster in the next few requests.
But after waiting about 10min I send the request again, it become slow again.
Is there any way to make the response come back faster?
You can try to use another client connector. It can be the cause of your problem, especially if you use the default one. Notice that the default one should be used for development only.
This page gives you all the available client connectors: http://restlet.com/technical-resources/restlet-framework/guide/2.3/core/base/connectors.
Regarding client connectors, you can configure properties to tune them. To use a client connector, simply put the corresponding Restlet extension within your classpath. Perhaps can you make a try with the extension org.restlet.ext.httpclient.
This answer could help you regarding connector configuration and properties: Restlet HTTP Connection Pool.
Hope it helps you,
Thierry

Google Drive SDK 1.8.1 RedirectURL

Is there any way to provide RedirectURL then using GoogleWebAuthorizationBroker?
Here is the sample code in C#:
Task<UserCredential> credential = GoogleWebAuthorizationBroker.AuthorizeAsync(secrets, scopes, GoogleDataStore.User, cancellationToken, dataStore);
Or we have to use different approach?
I have an "installed application" that runs on a user's desktop, not a website. By default, when I create an "installed application" project in the API console, the redirect URI seems to be set to local host by default.
What ends up happening is that after the authentication sequence the user gets redirected to localhost and receives a browser error. I would like to prevent this from happening by providing my own redirect URI: urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob:auto
This seems to be possible using Python version of the Google Client API, but I find it difficult to find any reference to this with .NET.
Take a look in the implementation of PromptCodeReceiver, as you can see it contains the redirect uri.
You can implement your own ICodeReceiver with your prefer redirect uri, and call it from a WebBroker which should be similar to GoogleWebAuthorizationBroker.
I think it would be great to understand why can't you just use PrompotCodeReceiver or LocalServerCodeReceiver.
And be aware that we just released a new library last week, so you should update it to 1.9.0.
UPDATE (more details, Nov 25th 2014):
You can create your own ICodeReceiver. You will have to do the following:
* The code was never tested... sorry.
public class MyNewCodeReceiver : ICodeReceiver
{
public string RedirectUri
{
get { return YOU_REDIRECT_URI; }
}
public Task<AuthorizationCodeResponseUrl> ReceiveCodeAsync(
AuthorizationCodeRequestUrl url,
CancellationToken taskCancellationToken)
{
// YOUR CODE HERE FOR RECEIVING CODE FROM THE URL.
// TAKE A LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING:
// PromptCodeReceiver AND LocalServerCodeReceiver
// FOR EXAMPLES.
}
}
PromptCodeReceiver
and LocalServerCodeReceiver.
Then you will have to do the following
(instead of using the GoogleWebAuthorizationBroker.AuthorizeAsync method):
var initializer = new GoogleAuthorizationCodeFlow.Initializer
{
ClientSecrets = secrets,
Scopes = scopes,
DataStore = new FileDataStore("Google.Apis.Auth");
};
await new AuthorizationCodeInstalledApp(
new GoogleAuthorizationCodeFlow(initializer),
new MyNewCodeReceiver())
.AuthorizeAsync(user, taskCancellationToken);
In addition:
I'll be happy to understand further why you need to set a different redirect uri, so we will be able to improve the library accordingly.
When I create an installed application the current PromptCodeReceiver and LocalServerCodeReceiver work for me, so I'm not sure what's the problem with your code.

Getting "Object is read only" error when setting ClientCredentials in WCF

I have a proxy object generated by Visual Studio (client side) named ServerClient. I am attempting to set ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName/Password before opening up a new connection using this code:
InstanceContext context = new InstanceContext(this);
m_client = new ServerClient(context);
m_client.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "Sample";
As soon as the code hits the UserName line it fails with an "Object is read-only" error. I know this can happen if the connection is already open or faulted, but at this point I haven't called context.Open() yet.
I have configured the Bindings (which uses netTcpBinding) to use Message as it's security mode, and MessageClientCredentialType is set to UserName.
Any ideas?
I noticed that after creating an instance of the proxy class for the service, I can set the Username and Password once without errors and do a successful call to my webservice. When I then try to set the Username and Password again on the existing instance (unnecessary of course) I get the 'Object is Read-Only' error you mentioned. Setting the values once per instance lifetime worked for me.
It appears that you can only access these properties pretty early in the instanciation cycle. If I override the constructor in the proxy class (ServerClient), I'm able to set these properties:
base.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "Sample";
I'm beginning to appreciate the people who suggest not using the automatically built proxies provided by VS.
here is the solution:
using SysSvcmod = System.ServiceModel.Description;
SysSvcmod.ClientCredentials clientCredentials = new SysSvcmod.ClientCredentials();
clientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "user_name";
clientCredentials.UserName.Password = "pass_word";
m_client.ChannelFactory.Endpoint.Behaviors.RemoveAt(1);
m_client.ChannelFactory.Endpoint.Behaviors.Add(clientCredentials);
I have similar code that's passing UserName fine:
FooServiceClient client = new FooServiceClient("BasicHttpBinding_IFooService");
client.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "user";
client.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = "password";
Try creating the proxy with binding name in app.config.
The correct syntax is:
// Remove the ClientCredentials behavior.
client.ChannelFactory.Endpoint.Behaviors.Remove<ClientCredentials>();
// Add a custom client credentials instance to the behaviors collection.
client.ChannelFactory.Endpoint.Behaviors.Add(new MyClientCredentials());
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms730868.aspx
It worked for me.
I was facing same problem, my code started working when I changed my code i.e. assigning values to Client credential immediately after initializing Client object.
here is the solution ,
ProductClient Manager = new ProductClient();
Manager.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = txtUserName.Text;
Manager.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = txtPassword.Text;
This will not happen if the service reference is added through -> Add service reference ->Advanced->Add Web Reference-> Url/wsdl (local disk file).
I was facing this issue where I was trying to create a generic method to create a clients for different end points.
Here how I achieved this.
public static T CreateClient<T>(string url) where T : class
{
EndpointAddress endPoint = new EndpointAddress(url);
CustomBinding binding = CreateCustomBinding();
T client = (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), new object[] { binding, endPoint });
SetClientCredentials(client);
return client;
}
public static void SetClientCredentials(dynamic obj)
{
obj.ChannelFactory.Endpoint.Behaviors.Remove<ClientCredentials>();
obj.ChannelFactory.Endpoint.Behaviors.Add(new CustomCredentials());
obj.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "UserId";
obj.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = "Password";
}
I think your problem might be related to the use of the InstanceContext. I thought that was only needed for duplex communication channels from the server side.
I admit I'm not sure about this, but I think in this case you are telling the client to use an existing instance context so it thinks there is already a running service and will not allow changes.
What is driving the use of InstanceContext?
If using a duplex client, when you instantiate it the DuplexChannelFactory within the DuplexClientBase that your client is derived from is initialized with existing credentials so it can open the callback channel, which is why the credentials would be read only.
I second Mike's question and also ask why are you using NetTcpBinding if you are not going to use its inherent transport level security? Perhaps an HTTP based binding would be a better fit? That would allow you to use certificate based security which I believe can be modified after instantiation (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms576164.aspx).
A shot in the dark but does netTcpBinding allow username and password validation? Try using application layer (SOAP) security using a http binding
or you could just simply check the Credentials
if (client.ClientCredentials.ClientCertificate.Certificate == null || string.IsNullOrEmpty(client.ClientCredentials.ClientCertificate.Certificate.Thumbprint))
{
client.ClientCredentials.ClientCertificate.SetCertificate(
StoreLocation.LocalMachine,
StoreName.My,
X509FindType.FindByThumbprint, ConfigurationManager.AppSettings.Get("CertificateThumbprint"));
}
In .NET 4.6 I couldn't remove the credentials using Fabienne's answer. Kept getting Compiler Error CS0308 in the Remove method. What worked for me was this:
Type endpointBehaviorType = serviceClient.ClientCredentials.GetType();
serviceClient.Endpoint.EndpointBehaviors.Remove(endpointBehaviorType);
ClientCredentials clientCredentials = new ClientCredentials();
clientCredentials.UserName.UserName = userName;
clientCredentials.UserName.Password = password;
serviceClient.Endpoint.EndpointBehaviors.Add(clientCredentials);

Resources