How to find user addresses in hyperledger sawtooth?
How to register a user on sawtooth validator node?
Is there anything similar to account in ethereum?
There is no concrete thing called 'user' out of the box in sawtooth. What it does have is the ability to set which keys are authorized to do things like change settings and submit transactions.
A sawtooth application can, and probably some have, implemented user and ID management as sawtooth does provide underlying tools to exploit that.
A good start would be to follow the path to the developer documentation from the github main page.
Related
I am a beginner with hyperledger composer, I am not clear with ACL (access control) in hyperledger composer. Sorry, if my question have problem.
Why we need ACL?
When we use it?
Where we use it?
To control access to resources on the ledger, or the kinds of CRUD operations (can I create an asset, can I update an asset), or kind of transaction types a participant of the business network can perform.
Because you want to apply access control - security 101 !
It is applied usually within the realms of a business network. So if I have a business network called 'Commodity Trading' I may only wish 'Trader 1' (a participant) to see his own historical trades on the business network - and not see others' trades. Yet I may allow him (by access rules) to be able to execute certain trade types, because of his role, in that Trade Brokerage. You get the picture.
ACL stands for Access control language and constitutes an important part of our composer network. Hyperledger as we know is a permissioned blockchain and ACL helps in achieving that. It helps in writing rules which define the different access levels of any participant of the ecosystem. We can define whether a participant can CREATE, READ, UPDATE or DELETE asset. We can restrict their access to the assets as well.We use ACL whenever there is are participant at different levels in our network and we don't need each of them to perform every operation on the assets.
You must go through this link once : https://hyperledger.github.io/composer/v0.16/reference/acl_language
I'm working on a service that provides smart (hopefully) integration of different services supporting OAuth 2.0. The focus of our tool is on team work flow improvement, so we're combining Slack, GitHub, Asana (issue tracker), Cezanne (hr tool), etc.
We have ui and backend that work with all those tools (user is authorised to all of them, so I have required access and refresh tokens). We need to be able to hide different parts of the ui depending on person's role in a specific tool. Let's take GitHub as an example. The user can be a repository owner, contributor, company owner (for business account), etc, so those user might need different ui based on their rights.
Originally I was hesitant implementing authorisation on my own (another custom authorisation system is the last thing this world needs), I wanted to take advantage of other services' authorisation mechanisms and just create a lightweight wrapper around them. It seemed like a reasonable idea at first, but I can't figure out how to implement it and Google doesn't give valuable advice which means: 99.99% I'm trying to do something stupid, 00.01% I'm trying to do something rare/innovative.
I hoped to take advantage of OAuth 2.0 but it doesn't seem to support what we need. The closest thing is scopes but it doesn't look very relevant to our scenario.
The only idea I have for now is to create our own authorisation system and integrate other services using kind of reverse engineering. So I would request user's GitHub account details using API and apply him roles in our system appropriately: Owner for repository A, contributor for repository B, owner of company C, etc. I will have to reverse-engineer the permission for each role (i. e. repository owner can not change company name). And we would have to keep user roles for each service: so instead of typical Admin/User/Manager/etc. we will get: OwnerOfGitHubRepository (for repositoryA), ManagerOfAsanaTeam (for team B), etc.
It would be awesome if OAuth 2.0 services had an endpoint that would return the permissions available for a current user.
I'm not a security engineer, so I might be missing something obvious. So wanted to ask you guys for advice before investing into the implementation mentioned above.
The word, "authorization", is used in two different contexts.
In one context, authorization means "who has what permissions". Solutions for this authorization is "identity management".
In the other context, authorization means "who grants what permissions to whom". Solutions for this authorization is "OAuth".
In some cases, you may have to handle these two authorizations simultaneously. See this question and this answer for details.
You tagged your question with identityserver4.
This Issue for identityserver3 from last year may interest you.
But I'm afraid most providers don't support this oauth2 profile (yet).
UMA seems to be an oauth2 way to enable fine grained authorization, but may not be the best solution.
Currently in Hyperledger Fabric 1.0 there is a central membership service. I want a way to make it decentralized so that atlas 50% of the members have to agree for a new member to join the network. How can I achieve this?
The idea is basically put the membership logic in chain code and let member service fetch data from chain code at the time of enrollment. But how to enforce this, I mean how do we know that membership service is actually reading from blockchain and not cheating.
This is actually natively support by Hyperledger Fabric, and the behavior you describe is actually the default for channel membership changes.
Each channel begins life with a genesis block. The contents of this genesis block define the channel members, as well as policies for which users from these organizations are authorized to perform different functions on the blockchain. For instance, some users may be allowed to submit transactions, but not read the whole blockchain, while others could do both.
To change the channel membership, you submit a channel reconfiguration transaction. This transaction specifies the new membership, and must include enough signatures to authorize this modification. By default, this is signatures from the admins of a majority of the organizations.
The policy framework is actually quite powerful, and with a little knowledge, you can define even more powerful rules. For instance, you could require that OrgA and 3/10 other organizations sign off to change membership. Or, you could require that all but one Org agree to make any membership change, or an infinite number of other permutations.
Some links you might find helpful:
http://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configtxgen.html
http://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/policies.html
http://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configtx.html
The documentation and tools around reconfiguration are a little lacking at the time of this writing. The most useful place you can probably look is:
https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/tree/release/examples/configtxupdate
There are two protobuf structures you must familiarize yourself with, the common.ConfigUpdate, and the common.Config. Channels are created by submitting a signed config update to the ordering service, which generates a corresponding config embedded in the genesis block.
The policy which governs membership changes for a channel is specified as the mod_policy field of the Application group, which is a subgroup of the Channel group. This field defaults to Admins, which refers to the policy definition Admins within the Application group. By default, this policy is set to MAJORITY of the Admins policies for the organization groups defined under the Application group.
So, to modify this policy before creating your channel, you would decode the configtx to JSON using the configtxlator tool, make your modifications, and then encode it back using the configtxlator tool once again. Submitting this new transaction will create the channel with the policy you specified.
If you wish to modify membership after the fact, the process is similar. Retrieve the current channel configuration, decode and modify it, then use configtxlator to compute a config update structure which represents your change. Gather signatures via peer channel signconfigtx then submit it to modify your channel's configuration.
This process is obviously all a bit manual at the moment, but in the future, common tasks should be automated by the SDKs and the tooling should improve as well.
Note: configtxlator is a REST service so that it can be accessed conveniently from inside your SDK application, independent of language.
As a quick addendum. You asked how you can be sure that no one is 'cheating' and not really getting the required signatures. This is also built into the system. All changes to the channel configuration are validated not only by the ordering network, but by all peers in the system. If a configuration arrives which cannot be validated, then all nodes in the network will notices, and will halt usage of that channel until corrective administrative action is taken.
For decentralised membership, that is not dependent on a centralized CA, take a look at Blockstack.
I'm building a standalone couchdb application. These are called couchapps. The idea is that the database itself is served on port 80 and returns HTML and works as the actual website. This is a very powerful idea and I'm entirely amazed by this new concept of having your code live inside your database.
But I'm having some issues with user registration. The one built into couchdb allows for cookies to be set and makes it really easy to plug it into your website. But there's several quite important things missing that my app requires in order to say that it has a "proper" user registration system.
There's no signup verification. No email is sent, no captcha is displayed. This means that anyone could spam your _users database and create as many new users as they please.
If a user forgets their password there's no facility to help them recover it.
Any idea how I could overcome these issues without doing any hardcore Erlang development at a lower level (not an Erlang guy)? It would also be great if anybody knew if I could be using OAuth to authenticate against Twitter or GitHub accounts and have that integrate seemlessly with how couchdb data is handled (inside validate_doc_update functions).
Thank you
While the built in user database can work, I would not recommend it for the workflow you describe. Here are some other options:
Browser ID
I would really recommend using BrowserID. IrisCouch has provided a plugin to couchdb here:
https://github.com/iriscouch/browserid_couchdb
This will take care of the normal registration workflow.
If you want to take it a step further and have your users "Fairly Anonymous", you can follow the example of this couchapp called "Mingle"
https://github.com/thedod/Mingle
Twitter Integration
Max Ogden's "DataCouch" project has a log in via twitter, although it is using some Node external processors to make it work. See here:
https://github.com/maxogden/datacouch/blob/master/processors/auth/twitterauth.js
Facebook integration
https://github.com/ocastalabs/CouchDB-Facebook-Authentication
OpenID
https://github.com/mcaprari/couchdb-openid
I dont think you can use the oauth purely with Couch, as this post suggests:
http://bennolan.com/2011/01/11/couchdb-oath.html
so the closest you will get there is following what Datacouch has done.
Hope these suggestions help.
I am about to be writing a Ruby on Rails app which will use sub-domains to authenticate users. We will have two types of accounts:
user accounts
domain accounts
Users will thus be able to belong to multiple domain accounts using the same credentials. I hope to have the ability for a domain account administrator to be able to search for particular users and add them to their domain.
In addition to simply creating a domain account in the database, I want to setup an actual account on the machine (linux-based) so that users can drop files into a special directory and we can run some scripts to import that new data. Alternatively, I may write a client/server script to make this process easier.
All of this I believe I can do, however, as soon as the project attains a certain number of domain accounts, it will be necessary to figure out how to cluster the domain accounts appropriately so that we can have multiple machines.
From a database standpoint, this is fairly easy and there are lots of tutorials on how to cluster MySQL or whichever SQL server I decide to use. So my question really pertains more to machine accounts as well as how to cluster a Rails app.
If you want a comparison, think of this project like GitHub or Beanstalk but with data that isn't source control related.
Does anybody have any experience with this or know of any really good articles/books to get me started?
Thanks very much!
I suggest you look at using one of the PAM modules that lets you do account authentication against a SQL database. That way you just add the domain account to the SQL database and you get UNIX accounts (on all your servers) automagically, for free. So the clustering should just happen for free too...