I've setup two membership providers: my custom provider and the Sitefinity provider. My custom membership provider is set as the default.
I want to use Sitefinity's Profile provider for both sets of users. However, the profile provider only seems to work for the users that I pull out of the Sitefinity membership provider.
After poking around with Reflector a bit, it seems that the Telerik Profile Provider assumes that the username exists in its own DB.
User userByName = this.Application.GetUserByName(userName);
if (userByName != null)
{
// magic happens here...
}
All the magic only happens if it was able to retrieve the user locally. Seems to violate the principles of the providers. Shouldn't I be able to arbitrarily add properties to any user regardless of the membership provider?
(I've also posted this on the Sitefinity forum, but haven't got a response yet. SO has spoiled me. I've come to expect an answer in minutes, not days.)
If I understand you correctly you want to use the sitefininty provider as a base and attach some additional information to the users profiles.
In general I would advise against trying to mingle with internal sitefininty management. Instead try to attach whatever functionality you want to execute to the standard provider.
What I have done in these situations in the past was creating a Membership Provider Wrapper (In your case a ProfileProviderWrapper) that holds an internal reference to another profile provider, while being a Profile provider itself.
This way you can execute any code you want before/after calling back to the actual underlying provider (or maybe your not calling back at all).
For example: Before returning the profile you could attach additional properties to it.
This way you don't break the sitefinity behavior, while still being able to interfere.
Related
I have an ASP.NET 5 (RC1) application for which I am trying to set up authentication and authorization. However I am confused and overwhelmed by all the varying authentication and authorization information online in as it pertains to this platform. Much of it seems either hopelessly out of date or simply doesn't seem to apply in this particular usage scenario. Right now, I'm not even sure what the right 'terminology' to use for the question I am trying to ask, but I digress.
What I am trying to accomplish is a system whereby users are authenticated/authorized via Azure AD (B2C?), with additional user profile information stored in a database. However, the user context in the controllers is accessed in a consistent way using what I presume would be a custom ClaimsPrincipal/ClaimsIdentity? I would imagine this should be as simple as adding an 'authorize' attribute or something similar and accessing the ClaimsPrinciple.Current.Claims.
I have used ASP.NET Identity in the past, but many of the examples I have found aren't using that. Most are simply using the UseOpenIdConnectAuthentication middle-ware. I see that ASP.NET Identity is still available but I'm not sure it applies in this scenario. I also found a couple posts on here suggesting using a custom ClaimsIdentity to accomplish this, but I am having trouble finding useful up to date examples. BTW, I realize that much of this "profile" information can be stored as custom attributes in azure ad but the way some of the information is used within the application prohibits all of it from being in azure (i.e. EF linq joins and such).
Please, tell me if I am even close on some of this. I know this is a fairly new platform and the information is sparse, but certainly I'm not the only one asking these questions.
Just calling out an excellent article Identity management for multitenant applications in Microsoft Azure.
A lot of your questions are answered there.
e.g. you can augment the claim in the OWIN middleware AuthenticationValidated event.
ASP.NET Identity is claims-based in that the attributes are delivered as claims but authentication is on the DB, not via external IDP like Azure AD.
B2C is a special case in Azure AD - used for many (millions!) external users who can self-register and self-manage e.g. SSPR.
B2C uses a separate tenant to the normal Azure AD one and the users have no access to things like O365 or any SaaS applications.
I am using vaadin 7, and jboss 7.1.1. There is a business requirement for very granular ui access. There will be parent windows per business function, and in that window functions relative to it. Business requires enabling and disabling those functions within, per user, so as an example, a parent window that represents employees, and when you click that you enter the child window which has functions like editing, deleting, viewing, adding,etc etc but that access must be customized to the user using it, so user x can update but not delete, as an example.
So what i came up with was to store that information in the database. In the database there will be a users table with username and a user guid. Then a parentview table and and parentchildren table and then lastly a userview table. i will store in the userview table the users guid and either the view they have access to and what type of access as in read,write,update,etc... I will on the ui login authenticate against ldap, get the users information and guid and use the guid to pull the users view access from the userview table in the database and store it in the vaadin session, and then on the ui, read that from the session and show the correct access.
I am not sure if this is the best way which is why i am asking if my solution is ok? I have been reading lots of doc's around security but non seem to achieve what i want. Another point of keeping it in the db, is that i can create a user admin ui which can edit the users access simply by updating the db, i dont want to redeploy or do anything with the webserver, I would prefer a ui user access control module and for someone with rights to it to administer that access. I would really appreciate insight and some ideas into this.
Thanks guys, I would appreciate any input.
What you want to achieve, regardless of the environment you are in and technology you are using, is fine-grained access control / authorization.
The way to do that is to use authorization frameworks. Spring Security has one for instance. I'm not sure whether Vaadin comes with anything.
In our company we use Vaadin to develop a management portal and we then use XACML to apply fine-grained decisions to the portal such as which functions to enable for which users and even which items to display in a Vaadin table.
Generally speaking you want to look at the field of attribute-based access control (NIST ABAC). ABAC lets you define authorization constraints based on different factors/parameters such as user attributes (location, department, role...) and resource attributes (where the resource can be data, widgets, functions... You name it).
I actually delivered a webinar yesterday on the topic of fine-grained authorization for Java MVC apps. I think it could prove useful for you.
If you go down the XACML path, you do not need to create a custom database with the information inside as you have done. All you need to do is write authorization policies e.g. a user in purchasing can use the purchasing functions.
There are several open source XACML implementations as well as vendor solutions such as the one I work for, Axiomatics.
I hope this helps. I've also written a lengthier answer here which covers the broader field of authorization.
I am building a multi-tenant site with MVC3. Prior to this project I had never touched either the .NET stack or web development in general, so as you can imagine my domain knowledge is somewhat lacking.
I'm still using the default AccountController architecture, but I pretty quickly determined that I didn't want to use aspnetdb.mdf for authentication, as its design is pretty different from my requirements. I do want role-based authentication, so I ultimately wrote custom User and Role classes as code-first Entity classes and used this tutorial to set up a custom MembershipProvider and RoleProvider.
Everything works fine at the moment, but as I'm building the multi-tenancy functionality it's getting messier. Based on this example, I am using a custom extension of Controller which keeps track of which tenant is using this session, and all my controllers extend this class instead of the base Controller class.
All tenants are using the same database. Each entity has a Tenant property that identifies who it belongs to.
So, here's the problem:
Usernames do not need to be globally unique. Only the combination of username and tenant must be unique. Thus, ValidateUser needs to know the username, password, and tenant. Since my custom MembershipProvider is not a Controller, it doesn't know which tenant is using the session, and the ValidateUser method only accepts username and password so I can't pass it that information.
Furthermore, pretty much everything MembershipProvider does besides ValidateUser is already implemented in a UserRepository class, which that tutorial told me to make. I'm rather fond of the Repository pattern, and it's way more convenient than adhering to MembershipProvider's interface, but now there's a massive conflict of interest between UserRepository and MembershipProvider.
So, my question:
Do I need to use MembershipProvider, or even Membership, at all?
It seems like everything MembershipProvider does would be performed more conveniently by my repository class. At this point all I'd have to do is write a new Authorize attribute that doesn't rely on Membership, and everything should work without any MembershipProvider at all, right? If I don't drop Membership I'm forced to completely mutilate my MembershipProvider implementation to the point that it barely resembles the original interface anyway.
...Either that or Membership does a ton of things I'm unaware of and removing it is blatant stupidity. That is also a distinct possibility.
No, you don't need to use Membership, but consider for a moment exactly what Membership is. Membership does not involve your users names, or addresses, or other information. Membership is strictly related to the login account of the system. It only handles details with creating, validating, updating, or deleting the information needed to login. That's it.
Likewise, the Role system is only assigning a role name to the user.
Ultimately, Membership and Roles are just implementations of the IPrincipal interface. While FormsAuthentication is an implementation of the IIdentity interface. These work together so that you can utlize the built-in ASP.NET Authorization and Authentication system.
Membership actually does have the concept of multiple tennants. This functionality is accomplished via the "ApplicationNane" field of the aspnet_users table (also settable in the Membership class itself)
From the documentation on the Membership class:
The ApplicationName is used to identify users specific to an application. That is, the same user name can exist in the database for multiple ASP.NET applications that specify a different ApplicationName. This enables multiple applications to use the same database to store user information without running into duplicate user name conflicts. Alternatively, multiple ASP.NET applications can use the same user database by specifying the same ApplicationName. The ApplicationName can be set programmatically or declaratively in the configuration for the Web application.
Now, this is designed to typically be set in the Web.Config and stay the same for the life of the app, but I see no reason why you can't use it to specify which tennant you want.
The only issue here is that Membership.ApplicationName is static, which means it's shared by all threads running in the App Pool. However, if you use some kind of lock around accessing it, then this shouldn't be a huge issue (though it could affect scalability at some level).
This would basically allow you to use the standard, out of the box membership provider without any changes. You just have ot make sure to guard the access calls.
You don't have to use the membership provider at all. Its simply provided as a quick and consistent way to get up and running. Some choose it because it supports multiple databases (universal membership providers include azure as well as sql ce, express, and full) but for others trying to map it to your applications rules can be more difficult than the <5 lines of code it takes to authenticate and issue your own forms auth ticket.
With that said I'm assuming you are using forms authentication. You can simply issue the ticket yourself. I would still program against an interface for this which the default MVC template should have, so simply add in a new tenant id.
With that said, I'd consider having unique names. It ensures you don't 'forget' to do an additional tenant check somewhere else in the app and tenant1\userBip and tenant2\userBip surprisingly end up stomping on each others record at some point.
True, testing should uncover this - if testing is complete : )
I'm trying to figure out how should I integrate facebook login system in my existing application through facebook c# sdk.
I have a web forms application and I'm authenticating users by standard Login control.
I'm using MembershipProvider, RoleProvider and ProfileProvider.
I'm thinking I should persist FacebookUniqueID and put it into relation with existing informations on my Membership Users table.
I'm wondering wich is a correct approach to this.
Considering I have a custom Profile Provider that uses a custom sql table, it would be fast to add a FacebookUniqueID property to my user profiles and use it in my login workflow:
Login through facebook;
retrieve facebookUniqueID;
retrieve userName for the user that
have this specific facebookUniqueID,
then
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(userName, bool);
What about providing an overload for the previous method taking facebookUniqueID as parameter?
Please let me know what do you think about this from any perspective and if anyone knows a simple working example
I think you are on the right track. We implement a similar solution (though we have rolled our own custom membership/role/profile etc and don't use the built in approach.)
You also will have to handle the situations that occur when a new user (without an existing account) logs into your site via Facebook.
Are there Custom ASP.NET Membership Providers for sale with added security?
For example, the ability to have multiple Questions/Answers that are randomly presented for Password reset, set number of login attempts, force password resets every 30 days, prevent duplicate passwords for new password for a certain period of time, etc
I've recently updated my custom provider with some of your requested features. Unfortunately it's not exactly for sale, but I did want to tell you that it wouldn't be terribly difficult to do on your own.
The multiple question/answer feature and the force reset (password expiration) actually can be implemented using any provider because they're not directly enforced by the provider. To enable Password Resets you could simply define a constant in your appSettings, i.e. "PasswordLifetimeInDays". Then in your Login page simply override the Authenticate method and inspected the LastPasswordChange property of the MembershipUser. If their password has expired then redirect them to a ChangePassword page, otherwise log them in. Check out this article for a walk through of implementing this feature.
The pre-generated question scenario is also something that doesn't really fit in as provider functionality. Although, a third party solution could contain this mechanism in a separate API I suppose.
The SqlMembershipProvider already provides a way to set the number of login attempts via the MaxInvalidPasswordAttempts attribute.
Really, the duplicate passwords functionality is the only piece that truly belongs in the provider implementation as it requires an additional table to track the password history.
Let me know if you ever decide to implement this stuff on your own and I could offer some more guidance.