I wrote an API in rails which is of micro services architecture.
In my API i need to implement Role authorization to authorize each and every user using their roles.
Is there any gem that fits into micro services architecture or should I write my own logic to authorize users.
i was using gem authorization gem but it does provide much capability that fits into micro services architecture.(rolify)
Is there any other that suits micro services architecture?
Thanks in Advance.
Whenever you have to implement MicroServices in Rails, then I prefer to put your authentication and authorization (role based permissions) using JWT (JSON Web Token). Because in MicroServices, there are multiple different projects which are deployed on different servers and communicating with each other through APIs and you require only one API Gateway, where user provides the login credentials and its should work for all different projects. I wont prefer devise because it creates a session after successful login which is Stateful, while JWT is Stateless.
Statelessness means that every HTTP request happens in complete isolation. When the client makes an HTTP request, it includes all information necessary for the server to fulfill that request. The server never relies on information from previous requests. If that information was important, the client would have sent it again in this request.
In case of JWT, each request comes with a token something like "eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJleHAiOjE0NjUwOTYxMzMsInN1YiI6MX0.e9yeOf_Ik8UBE2dKlNpMu2s6AzxvzcGxw2mVj9vUjYI" which will contain all required info in its payload for login. Please refer https://restfulapi.net/statelessness.
The token should also include the role or permissions (e.g. admin role) of user and based on role it should fetch the data and its relatively faster than Stateful requests. Because in case of Stateful requests (as happens in traditional Web Apps), it stores the session_id in cookies and sends the session_id with request. So on server side, first it fetches its user info and check whether its valid user, then fetch its role and then after successful authentication and authorization, it fetches requested data. While in case of JWT, since the role and username comes within token itself which would be decoded on server side, and directly fetches the requested data from DB. JWT (or Statelessness) helps in scaling the APIs to millions of concurrent users by deploying it to multiple servers. Any server can handle any request because there is no session related dependency.
Difference between Stateful and Stateless, please refer https://restfulapi.net/statelessness and https://nordicapis.com/defining-stateful-vs-stateless-web-services.
For more info about the implementation, please refer http://pacuna.io/2016/06/03/rails-and-jwt and https://github.com/nsarno/knock.
The devise gem is the leader in the industry. All of its methods are fully customizable - they can be used as a before_action (typical usage but not ideal for micro services) and can also be used as just another method in your code (inside a block, in a 'if' statement, etc). Checkout the github page here
https://github.com/plataformatec/devise
It has so much functionality, I could teach en entire course on this gem. There's a lot to learn if you aren't familiar yet.
Thanks for the Answers guys,
Coming to the answer,i have implemented my own way of authorization.
I had come up with a design where User -> Roles -> Resources -> Permissions
Here the resources are individual parts where every user has some permissions upon using a resource and role has set of defined set of resources with some permissions like
read_only,read_create,read_update etc
Each user can have any number of roles, thus user having a permission to access a specific resource.And i perform this check for each action using
before_action
Thanks,
Suresh
Related
I am developing an SPA and would like to have SSO.
As I understood so far, OAuth2 with OIDC is the best solution for SPA SSO.
Better than, for example, SAML.
What I didn't understand so far is how to use authorization token in SPA's JS code to handle authorization on various resources of SPA. For example, I would like the users with a role 'buyer' to have access to the shopping history tab, where other users won't have access to.
Should I parse access token obtained from Authorization server in JS code and check whether a user has an appropriate role to see the tab, or should this decision be made on server (API) side, in which case SPA's code would just read the answer from API and based on that customize UI?
In case of the first approach, is there any standard way of doing the checking (in form of some JS library)?
When it comes to authentication, what is the better approach (more secure, etc):
to let SPA (at that point already loaded in the browser) do the authentication flow and based on result let the user use it's protected functionalities. This is pseudo authentication actually since the code is in the user's browser and means the user is authenticating himself to the code in his hands i.e. to himself. Does this authentication make sense at all?
require the user to authenticate himself in order to be able to even load the SPA in his browser. This is probably not SPA architecture then since backend which serves the SPA should be able to create a backchannel with the Authentication server.
According to user description, your application must vary depending on user type. If this is the case I would suggest you to use a backend for authentication and decide application content to be served from the backend. Otherwise, as you have figured out, running authentication on browser and altering user view is not secure.
IMO this not necessarily break SPA architecture. What you are doing is altering what you server based on tokens presented to you. Also, maintaining a session will be required with this approach. And SPA's calls for backend will require to contain this session to obtain contents.
As soon as the User is logged in, you would request for authentication and based on his UserId, and the role he belongs to you should receive all the permissions that User is entitled to.
You convert these permissions into claims and can send them back to UI and use it appropriately to show the features accordingly.
You also enforce same on the server side api to prevent any unauthorized access besides from your UI.
I have a single realm with 3 single-page applications and a shared backend. I want to restrict the access to one of the SPAs so that users without a specific role can't log in.
But once you create a user in the realm, he can log in to every SPA client. I can restrict the endpoints of the backend but I don't want to programmatically reject the user in the specific SPA but automatically on the login page.
I tried to use client roles which don't seem to have an effect in this case. The only solution I have found so far is to create separate realms which I think is conceptually the correct way but unfortunately brings up some practical issues, e.g. the administrators of one realm must be able to manage (CRUD) users of another realm which seems fairly unintuitive.
users without a specific role can't log in - it isn't good requirement. How system will known if user has a specific role without log in (authentication)? Keycloak provides Open ID Connect SSO protocol, which is designated for authentication. After successful OIDC authentication is token generated, which may contains also user role. So only then authorization can be applied. So let's change requirement to: users without a specific role can't access SPA, which better fits into OIDC concept.
The mature OIDC SPA libraries offer authorization guard (name can differs, it is some kind of post login function), where authorization can be implemented. Authorization requires to have a specific role in the token usually, otherwise user is redirected to the custom route, e.g./unauthorized. That's the page, where you can say a reason for denying access. Common use case is also customization of the app based on the user roles. For example users with admin role will see more items in the menu than standard users - that's also kind of authorization. Random example of SPA library with authorization guard (I'm not saying that's a best implementation) - https://github.com/damienbod/angular-auth-oidc-client/issues/441
Keep in mind that SPA is not "secure" - user may tamper code/data in the browser, so in theory user may skip any authorization in the browser. He may get access to SPA, so it's is important to have proper authorization also on the backend (API) side. Attacker may have an access to SPA, but it will be useless if API denies his requests.
BTW: You can find hackish advices on the internet how to add authorization to the Keycloak client with custom scripting (e.g. custom scripted mapper, which will test role presence). That is terrible architecture approach - it is solving authorization in the authentication process. It won't be clear why user can't log in - if it is because credentials are wrong or because something requires some role in the authentication process.
You should indeed not create multiple realms, since that is besides the point of SSO systems. Two approaches are possible in your - presumably - OAuth 2.0 based setup:
restrict access at the so-called Resource Server i.e your backend
use a per-SPA "scope" for each SPA that is sent in the authentication request
The first is architecturally sound but perhaps less preferred in some use cases as you seem to indicate. The second approach is something that OAuth 2.0 scopes were designed for. However, due to the nature of SPAs it is considered less secure since easier to spoof.
I was able to restrict users access to application using following approach:
I've created to clients in my default realm (master) i called my clients test_client1 and test_client2 both of them are OIDC clients with confidential access by secret
I've created a role for each of them, i.e. i have role test_client1_login_role for test_client1 and test_client2_login_role for test_client2.
I've created a two users - user1 and user2 and assign them to client 1 and client2 role. But to restrict access to client1 i have to delete default roles:
That did the trick, when i am logging with user2 i see test_client2 and not test_client1 as available application:
But i did n't delete roles from user1 and therefore i could see both clients when i am log in with user1:
Therefore you should use different clients for your applications, assign to each of a client specific role and remove from users default roles and add one releted to specific application.
I have a DashboardApi and an EnterpriseApi on my system. May be one more later.
I am new at IdentityServer3 and I wonder solve my problem.
IdentityServer saves client applications that will use an api. So I have 2 or 3 api. Will I create IdentityServer for all api? Because DashboardApi will consume EnterpriseApi. EnterpriseApi will consume another api.
And users will login to Dashboard application. I could not imagine the organisation.
To answer the question: you may have one instance of IdentityServer being your identity provider/authority across different "resource" APIs as long as they all point back to that same authority when it comes to token validation.
Then an access token used for "DashboardApi" can be used by "EnterpriseApi". It is important to proxy the token properly and in my experience it would be advantageous to create different scopes for each API to have better access as to which calls may be used to proxy into the second API through the first (especially if user consent is a concern).
How to secure access to rails server which provides REST API access.
We use Devise for authentication.
Our Rails app talks to another Rails server (Service App) and we would like the user to authenticate before accessing the Service App. Should I do it via device authentication token. Kindly advise? What should be done at the service level
https://github.com/plataformatec/devise
https://github.com/lynndylanhurley/devise_token_auth
Well, it depends of your app architecture.
You can use devise to authenticate users at REST API.
But if your Service App is for internal use only, for example it provides data only for another app, you can restrict access by ip, or Basic HTTP auth.
My opinion, that devise is good only for authorising end-users, but not services.
In my opinion, this question is highly opinion based as it stands at the moment.
What is the purpose of the Service App? Does your Rails app consumes frequently from the Service App? Or the other way around? Is it just for logging purposes, like statistics or tag-like resources or critical data like credentials?
From my rule of thumb, if an actual end-user needs to access it to modify a resource (POST, PUT, DELETE) I'd go for token based authentication. If it only needs to read, I might just go with just Basic or none at all, depending on the context.
Either way, I would consider twice if Devise is the precise tool for your own scenario. More than few times I have found myself writing more to actually modify Devise than it would be necessary if I implement my own authentication system. It's not that hard and you learn a lot!
UPDATE: I failed to mention earlier that we want solution that will be flexible with authenticating users from within our databases or by asking other servers to tell us if the user is authenticated. It is also worth mentioning that these other servers are not under our control so we can't enforce a specific user model.
I had a long and hard read on OAuth and OpenID but they are both not a suitable solution for our situation and will make the process harder to the user. This is something that has been solved a thousand times, yet I cannot find the solution.
What we are looking for is a framework that can be used in a REST services server to authenticate users (no third-party clients involved) with their username and password.
The solution must not pass the username and password except the first time on login and use tokens for further authentication. Even though OAuth does use tokens, it is designed to allow third-party clients access to the service-providers resources. That is not the case here, the services are for our own application only, the only thing needed is user authentication.
What do you guys think is the most appropriate solution?
Configuration:
-Spring server that provides RESTful services with our thinking going towards using Spring Security with some user management and token management framework.
-iOS Device that will be making HTTPS calls to the server.
What we ultimately want is to have the device send a login request and receive a token if the login was successful, later on make requests using that token. Just like Facebook, excluding third-party involvement.
Is there something that is ready to be configured in our server? Or should we consider building our own token management, comparison and generation software?
Is using Spring-Security with an iOS application without involving storing cookies or redirecting to pages possible?
OpenStack offers as part of it's many projects related to open source cloud... the project Keystone. Which does this pretty much exactly what you want.
You might want to check it out here:
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/keystone/