We have an asp.net mvc application which I'm porting to aspnet core mvc.
In the old solution authentication is done using Windows authentication.
On top of that we have an "activity based authentication" (like http://ryankirkman.com/2013/01/31/activity-based-authorization.html); a user is connected to roles and the roles are connected to rights. The users roles and corresponding rights is stored in a separate application that serves as authorization service for our application and handful of other systems.
A query to the authorization service api for the rights of user "Jon Doe" would get a response like this:
{
Email:"Jon.Doe#acme.com",
FirstName:"Jon",
LastName:"Doe",
Resources:
[
"CanAccessWebApplication",
"CanCopyAppointment",
"CanEditAppointment",
"CanEditContact",
"CanSaveContact"
...
]
Alias:"1234567",
UserId:"1234"
}
In our current application these rights are checked using attributes (that we have implemented our selves) on the controller methods:
public ContactController
{
[ActionUserAccess("CanSaveContact")]
public ActionResult SaveContact
{
...
}
}
The current legacy implementation of the ActionUserAccessAttribute filter looks like this:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method | AttributeTargets.Class)]
public sealed class ActionUserAccessAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private readonly string _accessRight;
public ActionUserAccessAttribute(string accessRight)
{
_accessRight = accessRight;
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
if (!filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("ActionUserAccessAttribute can not be used for controllers or actions configured for anonymous access");
}
base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext);
var securityService = ContainerResolver.Container.GetInstance<ISecurityService>();
var hasResource = securityService.HasAccess(_accessRight);
if (!hasResource)
{
filterContext.Result =
new HttpStatusCodeResult(
403,
string.Format(
"User {0} is not authorized to access the resource:'{1}' ",
filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name,
_accessRight));
}
}
}
}
Porting the attribute/filter to aspnetcore seems quite straightforward, but according to this answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/31465227/1257728 by "asp.net security person" #blowdart we shouldn't.
If not porting the custom filter to aspnetcore, what would be the best fit to implement here?
Maybe we could use the Role based authentication https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/security/authorization/roles?
We could create a middleware that populates the users access rights from the authorization service api and flatten the rights and add them as ClaimTypes.Role to the users' ClaimsIdentity ? Then we would use on the method above like:
[Authorize(Roles = "CanSaveContact")]
public ActionResult Save()
The misfit of this approach is that this is not really about roles, but more about the access rights.
I've also looked at the Policy based authorization:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/security/authorization/policies
Which could look like this in the controller:
[Authorize(Policy = "CanSaveContact")]
public ActionResult Save()
But as I read the code in microsoft's policy based example above I would then have to add all available access rights that exists in the security service api as policies in the ConfigureService method of the Startup class to be able to use them. I think seems awkward (pseudo code):
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMvc();
IEnumerable<string> allAccessRights = _securtiyService.GetAllAccessRights();
services.AddAuthorization(options =>
{
foreach(var accessRight in allAccessRights)
{
options.AddPolicy(accessRight, policy => policy.Requirements.Add(new AccessRightRequirement(accessRight));
}
});
services.AddSingleton<IAuthorizationHandler, AccessRightHandler>();
}
The AccessRightHandler would then be resposible to validate the access right for the user. Writing an AccessRightHandler is ok, but it seems unnecessary to have to add all the rights as policies.
What would be the best approach to implement this kind of authorization in our aspnetcore application?
Great question, and I think a number of people would have the same problem upgrading to ASP.NET Core.
Barry Dorrans (#blowdart) is absolutely correct, you shouldn't write your own custom authorize attributes - Authorization in ASP.NET Core has been greatly improved, and you can definitely mould it to your needs.
It would of course greatly depend on your current application, and what roles do you have, so I'll make some assumptions based on the snippets you provided above.
Before I start, I REALLY recommend you read through the new Authorization docs for ASP.NET Core, as well as Barry Dorran's Authorization workshop on GitHub. I highly recommend you go through the latter, and he has a .NET Core 2.0 branch there as well.
Depending how you want to implement it, you could either go with Claims based authorization, or go resource based.
Looking at your roles, it seems like Resource based auth could actually work great in your case!
For example:
Identify possible operations (the operation Name is to be picked up from your Resources):
public static class Operations
{
public static OperationAuthorizationRequirement Access = new OperationAuthorizationRequirement { Name = "Access" };
public static OperationAuthorizationRequirement Copy = new OperationAuthorizationRequirement { Name = "Copy" };
public static OperationAuthorizationRequirement Edit = new OperationAuthorizationRequirement { Name = "Edit" };
public static OperationAuthorizationRequirement Save = new OperationAuthorizationRequirement { Name = "Save" };
public static OperationAuthorizationRequirement Delete = new OperationAuthorizationRequirement { Name = "Delete" };
}
Create a base resource authorization handler:
public abstract class BaseResourceAuthorizationHandler<TResource> : AuthorizationHandler<OperationAuthorizationRequirement, TResource>
{
private readonly string _resourceType;
public BaseResourceAuthorizationHandler(string resourceType)
{
_resourceType = resourceType;
}
protected override Task HandleRequirementAsync(AuthorizationHandlerContext context, OperationAuthorizationRequirement requirement, TResource resource)
{
if (context.User.HasClaim("Resources", $"Can{requirement.Name}{_resourceType}"))
{
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
}
Implement specific resource based handlers. The resources are binding objects in your application to entities in your Resources. This class will be the glue between your current resource roles, the Operations, and the authorization system in ASP.NET Core. These can also be extended to add extra logic for any specific resource types/operations
For example, for Appointments:
public class AppointmentAuthorizationHandler : BaseResourceAuthorizationHandler<Appointment>
{
public AppointmentAuthorizationHandler() : base("Appointment") { }
}
Which you then register:
services.AddSingleton<IAuthorizationHandler, AppointmentAuthorizationHandler>();
Then in your controllers:
public class AppointmentsController : Controller
{
IAppointmentsRepository _appointmentsRepository;
IAuthorizationService _authorizationService;
public AppointmentsController(IAppointmentsRepository appointmentsRepository,
IAuthorizationService authorizationService)
{
_appointmentsRepository = appointmentsRepository;
_authorizationService = authorizationService;
}
public IActionResult Edit(int id)
{
var appointment = _appointmentsRepository.Get(id);
if (appointment == null)
{
return new NotFoundResult();
}
if (!(await _authorizationService.AuthorizeAsync(User, appointment, Operations.Edit)))
{
return new ChallengeResult();
}
return View(appointment);
}
}
You can also do the same in views, to check whether the user is allowed to see the Edit button, for example:
#using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization
#model IEnumerable<Appointment>
#inject IAuthorizationService AuthorizationService
<h1>Document Library</h1>
#foreach (var appointment in Model)
{
if (await AuthorizationService.AuthorizeAsync(User, appointment, Operations.Edit))
{
<p>#Html.ActionLink("Appointment #" + appointment.Id, "Edit", new { id = appointment.Id })</p>
}
}
P.S. Just to add a note - yes, you lose the ability to filter by attributes, but in the end it's better this way. First and foremost - you move away from String based roles, you request permissions based on an operation type and resource type. Secondly, you can handle permissions in a much better (and intelligent way), as well as combine multiple permission checks.
It looks more complex, but it's also MUCH more powerful :)
Going to play the devil's advocate here, and suggest an alternative to my other answer - this could be a simpler option based on #mortb's request, and could fit some people that are migrating from their current systems.
Based on your situation, the Policy based auth really wouldn't fit your usecase - it's a more powerful option, you're not really using any of it, other than checking for the existence of a Resource string from your API.
On the other hand, I wouldn't discard the Roles approach. The resource list you get from the external API isn't strictly resources, but at the same time it maps quite perfectly to your needs. At the end of the day, all you're trying to do is to check whether the user has one (or more) Resource access permissions for a specific request.
Like you mentioned on your post, you'd have to extend your authorization to populate the roles from your external API. Don't forget that your ClaimsIdentity has a RoleClaimType property, which marks the type of the claim used to store the roles. It'll usually be set to ClaimTypes.Role, but not always.
You could even go ahead, and create custom auth attributes, not unlike this:
public class AuthorizeAccessAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
public AuthorizeAccessAttribute(string entity)
{
Roles = "CanAccess" + entity;
}
}
public class AuthorizeEditAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
public AuthorizeEditAttribute(string entity)
{
Roles = "CanEdit" + entity;
}
}
So you could use it as follows:
[AuthorizeEdit("Appointment")]
public IActionResult Edit(int id)
{
return View();
}
Related
Designing an ASP.Net MVC application authorization using claim based model. Lets say that we have an object called - Product. Typically, there are 4 different actions - Create, Edit, Delete and View. Authorization is done using ClaimsAuthorize attribute.
[Authorize]
public class ProductController : Controller
{
[ClaimsAuthorize("Product", "VIEW")]
public List<Product> GetProducts()
{
// ....
}
[ClaimsAuthorize("Product", "CREATE")]
public Product CreateNewProduct(Product product)
{
//....
}
}
But in my case, I have to support different types of EDIT permissions:
Some Users can Edit the product if the same user has created the Product originally
Some users can Edit the product if the Product belongs to a specific category and the user also has access to the same category
Some users can Edit all the products (this is the normal Product Edit operation)
How do you elegantly authorize all these Edit operations (preferably attribute driven as shown above) and at the same time I want to keep the authorization code separate from the normal MVC controller code and business logic.
[Above code sample is not syntactically correct, I just made it up for the purpose of explaining this question]
Let me know your thoughts.
For first part of your question, Claim based authorization, I have already answered it in this similar question. And I am not going to repeat here.
But for your another rules like products editable only by owner. You could write separate AuthorizeAttribute for each rule and apply them on your Actions consider this as an simple example:
using Microsoft.AspNet.Identity;
public class OwnerAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
private string _keyName;
public bool IsPost { get; set; }
public OwnerAuthorizeAttribute(string keyName)
{
_keyName = keyName;
}
protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)
{
// imagine you have a service which could check owner of
// product based on userID and ProductID
return httpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated
&& this.ContainsKey
&& _productService.IsOwner(httpContext.User.Identity.GetUserId(),
int.Parse(this.KeyValue.ToString()));
}
private bool ContainsKey
{
get
{
return IsPost
? HttpContext.Current.Request.Form.AllKeys.Contains(_keyName)
// for simplicity I just check route data
// in real world you might need to check query string too
: ((MvcHandler)HttpContext.Current.Handler).RequestContext
.RouteData.Values.ContainsKey(_keyName);
}
}
private object KeyValue
{
get
{
return IsPost
? HttpContext.Current.Request.Form[_keyName]
// for simplicity I just check route data
// in real world you might need to check query string too
: ((MvcHandler)HttpContext.Current.Handler)
.RequestContext.RouteData.Values[_keyName];
}
}
}
You could repeat same pattern to your other rules too.
And you could simply apply your custom attributes to your actions:
[OwnerAuthorize("id")]
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
// your code
}
[HttpPost]
// double checking in post back too
[OwnerAuthorize("id", IsPost = true)]
public ActionResult Edit(Product product)
{
// your code
}
It is obvious you could apply more then one AuthorizeAttribute to your actions. In this case all of them must return true.
[ClaimsAuthorize("Product", "EDIT")]
[OwnerAuthorize("id")]
[YetOtherAuthorize]
public ActionResult MyFancyAction(int id)
{
}
I'm working on a ASP.Net MVC 5 app and using ASP.Net identity 2, and need to authorize users based on roles and permissions. roles and permissions is not related to each other. for example, to access "action1" action method,( "admin" role ) or ( combination of "role1" and "permission1" ) must exist for him, but other users that is not in "admin" role or combination of ( "role1" and "permission1") is not true for theirs, don't allow to access that action method.
how i can do this scenario?
do claims based authorization useful in this manner?
or i must implement Permission entity and custom AuthorizeAttribute? if true how?
best regards
Check out the ResourceAuthorize attribute in the Thinktecture.IdentityModel.Owin.ResourceAuthorization.Mvc package.
This attribute authorizes a user based on an action (e.g. read) and a resource (e.g. contact details). You can then base whether or not they are allowed to perform that action on a resource based on a claim (e.g. their presence in a role).
See here for a good example.
Might not be exactly what you are looking for, but you can take inspiration and implement your own authorization attribute using similar logic.
This is custom made Authorize which checks permission from database.
For example you have 3 bools for permission Account,Clients,Configuration
and you want to restrict user based on them.
you can add even two permission on one action, for example you have a method which can be accessed by Account and Client permission than you can add following line
Modify this to use roles with permissions in this, this is the easiest and best way to handle it.
[PermissionBasedAuthorize("Client, Account")]
This method below is which check the bools from database.
public class PermissionBasedAuthorize : AuthorizeAttribute
{
private List<string> screen { get; set; }
public PermissionBasedAuthorize(string ScreenNames)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(ScreenNames))
screen = ScreenNames.Split(',').ToList();
}
public override void OnAuthorization(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
base.OnAuthorization(actionContext);
var UserId = HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.GetUserId();
ApplicationContext db = new ApplicationContext();
var Permissions = db.Permissions.Find(UserId);
if (screen == null || screen.Count() == 0)
{
actionContext.Response = new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized);
}
bool IsAllowed = false;
foreach (var item in screen)
foreach (var property in Permissions.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (property.Name.ToLower().Equals(item.ToLower()))
{
bool Value = (bool)property.GetValue(Permissions, null);
if (Value)
{
IsAllowed = true;
}
break;
}
}
if (!IsAllowed)
{
actionContext.Response = new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized);
}
}
}
I implemented a Permission-based extension for Microsoft Identity 2 membership system. But in this extension, permissions and roles are related together. there is a many-to-many relation between them. Also you can have a complex authentication with combination of roles and permissions. I suppose it can help you to do permission based authentication.
You can do permission authentication in two ways:
First approach:
// GET: /Manage/Index
[AuthorizePermission(Name = "Show_Management", Description = "Show the Management Page.")]
public async Task<ActionResult> Index(ManageMessageId? message)
{
//...
}
Second approach:
// GET: /Manage/Users
public async Task<ActionResult> Users()
{
if (await HttpContext.AuthorizePermission(name: "AllUsers_Management", description: "Edit all of the users information."))
{
return View(db.GetAllUsers());
}
else if (await HttpContext.AuthorizePermission(name: "UnConfirmedUsers_Management", description: "Edit unconfirmed users information."))
{
return View(db.GetUnConfirmedUsers());
}
else
{
return View(new List<User>());
}
}
Also it's an open source and free extension and you can access to the repository here.
I am developing a web application in ASP.NET MVC5.
Like all basic web applications it also has a login page where a user can authenticate himself. Once authenticated I want to store a couple of user-related items in the Session so I don't have to query the database every time to reconstruct the authenticated user.
After having read Mark Seemann's book about Dependency Injection I want to loosely couple all my layers and make sure that everything can easily be replaced.
At the moment my SessionProvider is by default using the Session object, but maybe in the future this could change to another type of storage mechanism.
The approach I have taken is by using Ambient Context which he explained with the TimeProvider example, but I am wondering if this is the right approach for this functionality and if it is thread safe (also for unit testing).
Is my solution proper or how would you implement such a mechanism? This has been in my head for days now so who can help me define the best solution?
Thanks!
public abstract class SessionProvider
{
private static SessionProvider _current;
static SessionProvider()
{
_current = new DefaultSessionProvider();
}
public static SessionProvider Current
{
get { return _current; }
set
{
if (value == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException();
}
_current = value;
}
}
public abstract string UserName { get; set; }
}
My local default:
public class DefaultSessionProvider : SessionProvider
{
public override string UserName
{
get { return (string) HttpContext.Current.Session["username"]; }
set { HttpContext.Current.Session["username"] = value; }
}
}
So I have access in my entire solution to my SessionProvider, whether this is a real session object or a database-driven storage mechanism...
SessionProvider.Current.UserName = "myUserName";
Once authenticated I want to store a couple of user-related items in
the Session so I don't have to query the database every time to
reconstruct the authenticated user.
Well, it looks like you're working on some sort of caching mechanism. It doesn't really matter if it's in a Session or in Redis cache, or any other type of cache. And this cache is key-value storage. I would create cache interface, something like that:
interface ICache
{
object this[string key] {get; set;}
}
And create concrete classes. SessionCache in your case:
public SessionCache : ICache
{
private IHttpSessionState _session;
public SessionCache(IHttpSessionState session)
{
_session = session;
}
// ICache implementation goes here...
}
So you'll narrow down the problem to dependency-inject Session object to concrete class (SessionCache). With Ninject you can do something like:
.WithConstructorArgument("session",ninjectContext=>HttpContext.Session);
And after that you can finally make your controllers dependent on ICache.
In your unit tests project you can create another ICache concrete class, something like DummyCache with in-memory cache. So you can test your controllers without sticking to Session object.
I am using Entity framework 5 and using repository pattern. Say I got these entities Customer, Files, Images, Tasks, Invoice, User.
Each entity (apart from Customer) has a foreign key of Customer. When a user logs in I store the customerid in session (aps.net mvc). What I want is any CRUD taken on all entities to be limited to the customer who's user is logged in. e.g I can't afford to delete a Task belonging to customer 1 to be deleted by user who is from customer 2.
Is adding an argument of customerid for each method of repositories the best way to achieve this or are there any better/clever ways of doing it?
Tricky to give a definitive answer but you could make it a bit more extensible by implementing higer order functions, like this:
public interface IRepository<T>
{
public T GetBy(Expression<Func<T, bool>> query)
}
public class FileRepository : IRepository<File>
{
public File GetBy(Expression<Func<T, bool>> query)
{
using(var context = new FilesContext())
{
return context.Files.Where(query).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
}
public class SomeController
{
private IRepository<File> _repo;
public SomeController(IRepository<File> repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
var model = _repo.GetBy(f => f.CustomerId == Session.Whatever.CustomerId);
return View(model);
}
}
This way you can vary the search query when required, rather than tie yourself in to using a hardcoded customer id property. For example, if you wanted to get the File object by the FileID, not the CustomerID, then:
var model = _repo.GetBy(f => f.FileId == someId);
and that's the only part of the code that needs to change.
Some really good info on Higher Order functions and functional programming in C# here: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/375166/Functional-programming-in-Csharp
Edit:
You might be able to isolate the "Always use the customer ID when hitting DB" into a repository of it's own, using a decorator style pattern, thus: (massive disclaimer - I haven't tested this, but something along these lines should work)
public class SpecialFileRepo : IRepository<File>
{
private readonly IRepository<File> _baseRepo;
public SpecialFileRepo(IRepository<File> baseRepo)
{
_baseRepo = baseRepo;
}
public SpecialFileRepo() : this(new FileRepository())
{
}
public File GetBy(Expression<Func<File, bool>> query)
{
var parameters = query.Parameters;
var newParam = Expression.Parameter(typeof (File), "f");
var additionalQuery = Expression.AndAlso(query.Body,
Expression.Equal(
Expression.PropertyOrField(newParam, "CustomerId"),
Expression.Constant(HttpContext.Current.Session["customerId"])));
var newQuery = query.Update(additionalQuery, parameters);
return _baseRepo.GetBy(newQuery);
}
}
Then anything that's talking to a repository, as far as it's concerned, it's just a base repository, but this class is sitting in between and always grafting the "customerid = sessionwhatever" expression onto what finally gets passed to the database. And of course, anything that only cares about using the base repository, can still do so.
Is it possible to make my application ask for username and password prompting for it before render a view?
Just like on twitter API to get information about your account:
http://twitter.com/account/verify_credentials.xml
So before render the view || file it asks you to insert you username and password, I think this is made directly on the server since the curl request is based on username:password as well like this:
curl -u user:password http://twitter.com/account/verify_credentials.xml
As I'm trying to build an API following the same structure I would like to know how I can do this on ASP.NET MVC C#. I've already used this on ruby rails and its pretty simple like:
before_filter :authenticate
def authenticate
authenticate_or_request_with_http_basic do |username, password|
username == "foo" && password == "bar"
end
I don't think that [Authorize] filter is the same since I believe it's just a redirection,
and it redirects you to the Accounts Internal Controller that is based on the accounts database, in this case I will use another database, specifically from a webservice and do the validation after the information is submitted.
But I need the action to require the user and pass credentials on its request.
Thanks in advance
UPDATE:
Actually to request a page that requires this authentication (i.e. Twitter)
I would have to declare this on its request
request.Credentials = new NetworkCredential("username", "password");
And this would reflect that prompted username and password.
So, it's exactly the same thing but from the other side, if it's possible to provide information to the authentication prompt on request, how could I require this authentication on the request instead?
So everytime somebody tries to make a request to my application on example:
http://myapplication/clients/verify_credentials
it should ask for a username and password with that server prompt
so to retrive information on curl for example it would be like this
curl -u user:password http://myapplication/clients/verify_credentials
Well, to require basic authentication you need to return 401 status code. But doing that will cause the current authentication module to execute its default unauthorized handler (for forms authentication, this means redirecting to login page).
I wrote an ActionFilterAttribte to see if I can get the behaviour you want when there's no authentication module installed in web.config.
public class RequireBasicAuthentication : ActionFilterAttribute {
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) {
var req = filterContext.HttpContext.Request;
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(req.Headers["Authorization"])) {
var res = filterContext.HttpContext.Response;
res.StatusCode = 401;
res.AddHeader("WWW-Authenticate", "Basic realm=\"Twitter\"");
res.End();
}
}
}
And the controller action :
[RequireBasicAuthentication]
public ActionResult Index() {
var cred = System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII
.GetString(Convert.FromBase64String(
Request.Headers["Authorization"].Substring(6)))
.Split(':');
var user = new { Name = cred[0], Pass = cred[1] };
return Content(String.Format("user:{0}, password:{1}",
user.Name, user.Pass));
}
That action successfully prints the username and password I enter. But I really doubt that's the best way to do this. Do you have no choice except asking for username and password this way?
You really want to create a service and not a web application, based on what I have read. I am guessing here, but I think you picked ASP.NET MVC to take advantage of the routing and building the URL's the way you want? Correct me if I am wrong.
In my opinion the best way to solve the problem you are having is to build RESTful web services with WCF if you are returning data. This article should help you get started if you want to go this route.
Otherwise, you will need to go further up the stack for handling the request and authenticating it. If this is the case, I can help with providing more info and code.
I modified the çağdaş answer to put the whole logic inside my custom ActionFilter attribute.
public class BasicAuthenticationAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public string BasicRealm { get; set; }
protected string Username { get; set; }
protected string Password { get; set; }
public BasicAuthenticationAttribute(string username, string password)
{
this.Username = username;
this.Password = password;
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var req = filterContext.HttpContext.Request;
var auth = req.Headers["Authorization"];
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(auth))
{
var cred = System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetString(Convert.FromBase64String(auth.Substring(6))).Split(':');
var user = new { Name = cred[0], Pass = cred[1] };
if (user.Name == Username && user.Pass == Password) return;
}
var res = filterContext.HttpContext.Response;
res.StatusCode = 401;
res.AddHeader("WWW-Authenticate", String.Format("Basic realm=\"{0}\"", BasicRealm ?? "Ryadel"));
res.End();
}
}
It can be used to put under Basic Authentication a whole controller:
[BasicAuthenticationAttribute("your-username", "your-password",
BasicRealm = "your-realm")]
public class HomeController : BaseController
{
...
}
or a specific ActionResult:
public class HomeController : BaseController
{
[BasicAuthenticationAttribute("your-username", "your-password",
BasicRealm = "your-realm")]
public ActionResult Index()
{
...
}
}
NOTE: The above implementation requires the developer to manually insert the username and password as ActionFilter required parameters but can be easily extended to make it support any authorization mechanism (MembershipProvider, ASP.NET Identity, custom userbase on an external DBMS or file, etc.) by removing the custom constructor and modifying the OnActionExecuting method IF block accordingly.
For additional info, you can also read this post I wrote on my blog.
Here's the way that has worked for me. It's a little foot work but it will make IIS and MVC3 behave a lot more like all the other Basic Http authentication systems, like Apache...
Step 1.
Make sure "Basic Authentication" is installed for IIS.
( Example: Control Panel -> Programs and Features -> Turn Windows features on or off )
*I'm using Windows 7 at the moment and am not sure the exact path. [GOOGLE: installing basic authentication in IIS] should get you close.
Step 2.
Make sure Basic Authentication is enabled under your site. If you had to install this in the previous step you need to make sure you reset the IIS service and that all the app pools actually went down.
Step 3.
(Note: I am using MVC3, and feel this should work in most models, including ASP.Net, without a lot of fuss.)
In your project you will need to add the following classes:
public class ServicePrincipal : IPrincipal { // This answers the "What am I allowed to do" question
// In real life, this guy will contain all your user info
// and you can put what ever you like and retrieve it
// later via the HttpContext, on your application side.
// Some fun with casting will be required.
public static IPrincipal Default {
get {
return new ServicePrincipal {
Identity = new ServiceIdentity {
AuthenticationType = "Test",
IsAuthenticated = true,
Name = "Basic"
}
};
}
}
public IIdentity Identity { get; set; }
public bool IsInRole(string role) {
// If you want to use role based authorization
// e.g. [Authorize(Roles = "CoolPeople")]
// This is the place to do it and you can do
// anything from load info from a db or flat file
// or simple case statement...though that would
// be silly.
return true;
}
}
public class ServiceIdentity : IIdentity { // This answers the "Who Am I" Question
public string AuthenticationType { get; set; }
public bool IsAuthenticated { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class ServiceModule : IHttpModule { // This is the module for IIS
public void Init(HttpApplication context) {
context.AuthenticateRequest += this.BasicAuthenticationRequest;
}
public void BasicAuthenticationRequest(object sender, EventArgs e) {
HttpApplication app = sender as HttpApplication;
if( !ServiceProvider.Authenticate(app.Context) ) {
// Total FAIL!
}
}
public void Dispose() {
// Clean up the mess, if needed.
}
}
public class ServiceProvider {
public static bool Authenticate( HttpContext context ) {
// For the example we are going to create a nothing user
// say he is awesome, pass him along through and be done.
// The heavy lifting of the auth process will go here
// in the real world.
HttpContext.Current.User = ServicePrincipal.Default;
return true;
}
}
Step 3a. [edit]
Here's the different libs you'll be "using"
using System.Security.Principal;
using System.Web;
Just wanted to throw those in. I hate it when folks leave them out. :)
Step 4.
Add the following to your web config. Please note I am including the surrounding structure, for example the "configuration" tag... It's just a road map, if you already have a "configuration" tag don't add the other or IIS gets upset with you.
<configuration>
<system.webServer>
<modules runAllManagedModulesForAllRequests="true">
<add name="ServiceCredentialModule" type="{Namespace}.ServiceModule"/>
</modules>
</system.webServer>
<configuration>
Please note that the Namespace in {Namespace}.ServiceModule is the Namespace you put the classes from Step 3 into.
...and that's pretty much it.