A common use case for WebAPI would be to have shell views rendered by MVC controllers, which contain javascript that then hit your API to access data.
But let's say you have some expensive API operations and you don't want people remotely accessing those endpoints -- you only want your MVC views, delivered by your application, to access them. How could you go about protecting them?
In this case Request.IsLocal doesn't work, because javascript is invoking it from the client's browser on their machine. Even if it did work, you need to dig to get the real HttpContext in order to find this property -- and that solution wouldn't work in self-hosted WebAPI.
For API endpoints that require a valid IPrincipal, you could protect them with the [Authorize] attribute. But what about API endpoints that you want your app to be able to access for anonymous users?
I have tried a solution and will post it separately as an answer, because I'm not sure if it's the best (or even a good) approach.
If your MVC site uses authentication, you could enable forms authentication for your Web API methods. You could write a custom [Authorize] attribute that will check for the presence of a forms authentication cookie which will be sent from the AJAX call and if present construct the principal.
Another possible solution is to protect your API with tokens which is a more RESTful style. The idea here is that when a user authenticates on your MVC website you could generate and pass a token to the view which will be used when sending the AJAX request to the Web API which in turn will verify the validity of the token and its signature.
If on the other hand your site doesn't use authentication, then things will get very complicated because you have no way of knowing whether the request comes from a trusted client since you are using javascript to call your API methods.
Before you go harping about "what have you tried", here is what I have tried. It works. Just not sure if there is a better way.
Create an MVC action filter and add it as a global filter during Application_Start.
Create an Http (WebAPI) action filter and use it on actions that should reject remote requests.
The global MVC filter does this:
Looks for a specific cookie in the request. If the cookie is there, its value is decrypted. The decrypted value should be a string representation of a DateTime, so use DateTime.TryParse to get it out. If the value is correctly parsed to a DateTime, and that DateTime is less than a day old, STOP HERE and do nothing else.
If the cookie is not there, or cannot be decrypted / parsed, or is older than a day, write a new cookie to the browser. Use the current DateTime.UtcNow.ToString() as the value, encrypt it, and write it with HttpOnly = false.
The WebAPI filter does this:
Looks for a specific cookie in the request. If the cookie is there, decrypt its value and try to parse it out as a DateTime.
If the value is a valid DateTime and is less than 2 days old, STOP HERE and do nothing else.
Otherwise, throw a 403 Forbidden exception.
A couple of notes about my current implementation of this. First of all, I use AES encryption with a shared secret and a salt. The shared secret is stored as an appSetting in web.config. For the salt, I enabled anonymous identification and used Request.AnonymousID as the salt. I'm not entirely fond of the salt because it's tricker to get at in a WebAPI controller, but not impossible as long as it is not self-hosted.
Related
I would like to know that how [Authorize] attribute recognize that this user is authenticate?
If user is valid then we call FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie() method and as per MSDN this method:
Creates an authentication ticket for the supplied user name and adds it to the cookies collection of the response, or to the URL if you are using cookieless authentication.
Is [Authorize] attribute checks authentication ticket or cookies collection?
[Authorize] does not deal with any authentication mechanism itself. It merely looks in the users IIdentity for the IsAuthenticated flag. It will also look in the users IsMemberOf method, for authorization based on roles.
All the work to decode the authentication ticket is done in the early stages of the app pipeline, which sets those flags. By the time the Authorization Attribute methods are called, all that work has already been done and is stored in the users runtime data.
You can easily check the source code for the Authorize attribute, and you will see that it's quite simple in nature. It just returns true or false based on some simple lookups.
It's become more complicated in .net core, where it's based on policies and what not, but the original MVC implementation was quite simple.
My answer relates to ASP.NET Core I'm not sure if you asked about classic ASP.NET but this should be similar.
There's a middleware that you have to add for [Authorize] to work. ASP.NET Core provides this middleware out of the box and you can add your custom authentication handlers too.
You can check how it's implemented by reading: https://github.com/aspnet/Security/tree/dev/src
For example you want to use JWT bearer authentication, you have to add JWT bearer middleware, this is simply extension of AuthenticationBuilder: https://github.com/aspnet/Security/blob/dev/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer/JwtBearerExtensions.cs which calls AddScheme under the hood.
You want to use cookie based authentication you just call AddCookie which is also extension that calls AddScheme under the hood: https://github.com/aspnet/Security/blob/dev/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.Cookies/CookieExtensions.cs
Usage of it is documented here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/migration/1x-to-2x/identity-2x?view=aspnetcore-2.1
See also Using the [Authorize] Attribute
Web API provides a built-in authorization filter, AuthorizeAttribute. This filter checks whether the user is authenticated. If not, it returns HTTP status code 401 (Unauthorized), without invoking the action.
If you are interested how this filter works under the hood you can check it here.
You must be authenticated before you can be authorized, this is the logic responsible for it: https://github.com/aspnet/Security/blob/644f34e90d35b369efdce9c11ab1db42e0a7f4a7/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization.Policy/PolicyEvaluator.cs#L91
In summary
how [Authorize] attribute knows that this user is authenticated.
Authorize attribute alone doesn't know if this user is authenticated. This is handled by authentication middleware and depends stricly on the scheme it tries to authenticate with. It simply tries to authenticate with schemes you have added(cookie,jwt etc.) by calling HttpContext.AuthenticateAsync which is simply calling AuthenticationService.AuthenticateAsync under the hood and sets HttpContext.User from the result ClaimsPrincipal, which is simply result from schema handler like jwt handler for instance. I think this should give you more in-depth idea how this works.
Generally if you're starting new project I don't recommend using classic ASP.NET and prepare for the future with .NET Core as everything is now going in this direction. ASP.NET 5 ( I also refer to it as "classic") is pretty much dead now.
I have to implement a web site (MVC4/Single Page Application + knockout + Web.API) and I've been reading tons of articles and forums but I still can't figure out about some points in security/authentication and the way to go forward when securing the login page and the Web.API.
The site will run totally under SSL. Once the user logs on the first time, he/she will get an email with a link to confirm the register process. Password and a “salt” value will be stored encrypted in database, with no possibility to get password decrypted back. The API will be used just for this application.
I have some questions that I need to answer before to go any further:
Which method will be the best for my application in terms of security: Basic/ SimpleMembership? Any other possibilities?
The object Principal/IPrincipal is to be used just with Basic Authentication?
As far as I know, if I use SimpleMembership, because of the use of cookies, is this not breaking the RESTful paradigm? So if I build a REST Web.API, shouldn't I avoid to use SimpleMembership?
I was checking ThinkTecture.IdentityModel, with tokens. Is this a type of authentication like Basic, or Forms, or Auth, or it's something that can be added to the other authentication types?
Thank you.
Most likely this question will be closed as too localized. Even then, I will put in a few pointers. This is not an answer, but the comments section would be too small for this.
What method and how you authenticate is totally up to your subsystem. There is no one way that will work the best for everyone. A SPA is no different that any other application. You still will be giving access to certain resources based on authentication. That could be APIs, with a custom Authorization attribute, could be a header value, token based, who knows! Whatever you think is best.
I suggest you read more on this to understand how this works.
Use of cookies in no way states that it breaks REST. You will find ton of articles on this specific item itself. Cookies will be passed with your request, just the way you pass any specific information that the server needs in order for it to give you data. If sending cookies breaks REST, then sending parameters to your API should break REST too!
Now, a very common approach (and by no means the ONE AND ALL approach), is the use of a token based system for SPA. The reason though many, the easiest to explain would be that, your services (Web API or whatever) could be hosted separately and your client is working as CORS client. In which case, you authenticate in whatever form you choose, create a secure token and send it back to the client and every resource that needs an authenticated user, is checked against the token. The token will be sent as part of your header with every request. No token would result in a simple 401 (Unauthorized) or a invalid token could result in a 403 (Forbidden).
No one says an SPA needs to be all static HTML, with data binding, it could as well be your MVC site returning partials being loaded (something I have done in the past). As far as working with just HTML and JS (Durandal specifically), there are ways to secure even the client app. Ultimately, lock down the data from the server and route the client to the login screen the moment you receive a 401/403.
If your concern is more in the terms of XSS or request forging, there are ways to prevent that even with just HTML and JS (though not as easy as dropping anti-forgery token with MVC).
My two cents.
If you do "direct" authentication - meaning you can validate the passwords directly - you can use Basic Authentication.
I wrote about it here:
http://leastprivilege.com/2013/04/22/web-api-security-basic-authentication-with-thinktecture-identitymodel-authenticationhandler/
In addition you can consider using session tokens to get rid of the password on the client:
http://leastprivilege.com/2012/06/19/session-token-support-for-asp-net-web-api/
I'm trying to find the simplest way of implementing token based authentication for a number of ASP.NET MVC actions.
The Api controllers sit alongside a web app, so I need to be able to specify which actions/controllers are subject to Api authentication.
I already have a membership provider that is used for forms authentication so I'd like to reuse this to validate the user and build the returned token.
I've read several articles on implementing OAuth, but most seem really complex. I've seen several examples of using an API key, but I want to request a token and then pass it back as a parameter not necessarily as a value in the HTTP header.
Essentially process needs to be:
User requests token from auth action passing in username and
password.
Service returns enc token
User passes enc token to future calls as a parameter to auth
What's the typical way this is done, does the client (say ajax call) need to compute a hash of the user name/pass in 1)? or plain text ok over TLS/SSL?
Any advice appreciated.
What are you concerned about with what you described?
The process you described seems viable. Typically systems will have an expiration on how long the token will be valid for, after which they need to get a new token. There are many variations for expiration though (fixed time, sliding time, etc..).
To your question regarding the username / password, the client shouldn't hash them. Just make sure they are transmitted via a secure method (SSL).
I'm trying to implement a small ASP.NET MVC site which interacts with another site. In short, sessions are managed between the main site and satellite sites through tokens in the URL. I can specify the url format but I can't remove the requirement that a session token is submitted as part of the URL.
I'm trying to work out how to set up the routing and am in a few minds here. I can't decide which would be best, or if there is perhaps a better way to do it. The main ways I'm thinking:
routes.MapRoute("Main", "{controller}/{action}/{id}/{token}");
Gives URLs like http://mysite.com/Products/Detail/5/5f1c8bbf-d4f3-41f5-ac5f-48f5644a6d0f
Pro: mostly keeps with existing MVC convention for site nagivation
Con: Adds complication to routing when supporting defaults for ID and Action.
routes.MapRoute("Main", "{token}/{controller}/{action}/{id}/");
Gives URLs like http://mysite.com/5f1c8bbf-d4f3-41f5-ac5f-48f5644a6d0f/Products/Detail/5
Pro: simplifies routing - can still apply action/id defaults as per standard MVC convention
Con: very "un-web-like" URLs. Requires regex to validate that the first variable is a valid GUID / token before moving on to next route in the table.
The other possibility coming to mind, passing sessions like:
http://mysite.com/Home/Index?session=5f1c8bbf-d4f3-41f5-ac5f-48f5644a6d0f
The related problem with that is I have a base class derived from Controller which all other secure pages are going through. The SecureController class overrides Execute() and checks for the validity of the token taken from the URL. Both approaches (GET and routing) seem like it would be easy enough to get the token within the controller Execute() function, but the GET approach feels kind of tacky whereas the routing approach feels like it's, for lack of better explanation, breaking the elegance of the MVC routing design.
Has anyone else out there taken on a similar problem and had any particular successes or difficulties to share?
It seems no matter you do, your URLs will be pretty messy with that token.
I have had to handle this kind of single sign-on functionality in an ASP.NET MVC app as well, but I went for a slightly different and much simpler approach: I created a GatewayController with a SignOn action that took a session token and a URL as parameters.
Then this SignOn action would just check the validity of the session token and then sign the user on to my site, redirecting to the supplied URL. From then on, the session token is not needed anymore, as authentication from then on would be cookie-based.
It might not be entirely applicable in your case, depending on your requirements. If you are required to continuously check the validity of the session token somewhere, you could however just do the same thing as I did and then store the session token in the user's session data, allowing you to check the token in each request.
I need to call a webservice which takes as parameters things like the database name, schema name, login credentials etc.
I'd ideally like to call the webservice directly from jQuery, but I feel that these parameters belong in the web config so perhaps I should be calling the webservice indirectly through an ajaxed MVC controller method.
What are peoples opinions on this? Is there an elegant solution?
Edit: It's just occured to me that I'll be exposing the server credentials to the client if I make the call from jQuery, so I guess that isn't an option unless there's a clever trick I don't know about.
Elegance is in the eye of the beholder, but you could institute a token-based system. Users of your service would apply ahead of time to use your service. You would issue a token (a GUID for this example). Each call to the service, the user would include that token as a parameter, or better, part of the request headers. On the server, you could use that token to find out the items needed by that user (database and schema names, login credentials, etc).
Again, elegance is in the eye of the beholder, but a solution like this does address the concern in the question: exposing server credentials to the client.
Jonathan has a good answer, but you could also create some sort of serialized data object that contains all the info you're concerned with, and write it to the client as an encrypted string. pass the string to the web service, and the web service would be able to decrypt and parse as needed.