I am trying to to setup a security policy in Spring such that anyone can read any entities created in roo but only the admin user (specified in the applicationContext-security.xml) can create/update/delete. It seems to me I should be able to achieve my goal by customizing applicationContext-security.xml but I can't figure out a way. I thought of using intercept-url like:
<intercept-url pattern="/anyEntity/*?form" access="hasRole('ROLE_ADMIN')" />
but this config does not cover DELETE because it is a hidden field in POST (according to the doc, post method is supported but there is no doc on how to specify a hidden field value in the intercept-url tag)
Another way would be to use #secured on entity setter methods. I currently rely on roo to generate the getters/setters so I would like to avoid using it if possible
I can also write a custom controller to do the filtering I suppose. But seems to me I should be able to just customize the configuration. I must be missing something obvious because a public read-only policy should be a very common strategy.
I think you can use the method="DELETE" attribute to intercept-url because roo converts the hidden method field to the http method.
There is also some more information here
Here is how I did it:
<!-- only user role can use modify methods -->
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="POST" access="hasRole('ROLE_USER')" />
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="DELETE" access="hasRole('ROLE_USER')" />
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="PUT" access="hasRole('ROLE_USER')" />
<!-- any role can use GET methods -->
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="GET" access="isAuthenticated()" />
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="HEAD" access="isAuthenticated()" />
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="OPTIONS" access="isAuthenticated()" />
<intercept-url pattern="/**" method="TRACE" access="isAuthenticated()" />
Related
I am trying to filter URLs using spring security. Following is a definition for filtering:
<intercept-url pattern="/page" access="#{new java.io.File('file_path').exists()}"/>
The URL is restricted based on existence of a file called file_path.
If the file_path exists at the time the spring configuration file is loaded, the access is provided. If the file_path is created after load, access is not provided. I would like the expression to be evaluated every time the request to /page is made & not just during compilation of the expression.
Tried to set the system property -Dspring.expression.compiler.mode=MIXED but there is no effect.
Can anybody please help me in this?
That's correct because you use the configuration time expression (#{...}). To achieve the requirements you should use something like this:
<http use-expressions="true">
<intercept-url pattern="/admin*"
access="hasRole('admin') and hasIpAddress('192.168.1.0/24')"/>
</http>
See Expression-Based Access Control. So, in your case it can be like this:
<http use-expressions="true">
<intercept-url pattern="/page" access="new java.io.File('file_path').exists()"/>
</http>
I have seen Spring Security OAuth2 samples has this defined in the spring-servlet.xml,
<http pattern="/users/**" create-session="never" entry-point-ref="oauthAuthenticationEntryPoint"
access-decision-manager-ref="accessDecisionManager" xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/security">
<anonymous enabled="false" />
<intercept-url pattern="/photos" access="ROLE_USER,SCOPE_READ" />
<intercept-url pattern="/photos/trusted/**" access="ROLE_CLIENT,SCOPE_TRUST" />
<intercept-url pattern="/photos/user/**" access="ROLE_USER,SCOPE_TRUST" />
<intercept-url pattern="/photos/**" access="ROLE_USER,SCOPE_READ" />
<custom-filter ref="resourceServerFilter" before="PRE_AUTH_FILTER" />
<access-denied-handler ref="oauthAccessDeniedHandler" />
</http>
Is the pattern attribute in http tag valid? I could not find its definition in the spring-security-2.0.1.xsd. If it is valid, what is the relationship of this pattern with intercept-url's pattern attribute? Take for example, does the intercept path /photos/user/** has the final matching interception path of /users/photos/user/**? Thanks.
The pattern attribute was introduced in 3.1 which introduced namespace support for multiple filter chains. Spring Security 2 is very out of date (you shouldn't be using it).
The patterns in the intercept-url elements are independent, in that they are matched against the incoming request URI in the same way as the filter chain http pattern is checked. However if the latter doesn't match, the filter chain won't be applied to the request at all, so in order to have any effect, they must be consistent with the filter chain pattern.
For the example you've posted, this would mean that none of the /photos patterns have any effect. They should all have the prefix that the main filter chain matches - i.e. they should begin with /users/photos.
In the case of spring security 4, Role is checked by haseRole('ADMIN'), Just try it.
It works fine for me.
I have two different configuration of spring security, one for local development and the other per test and production server. They are quite different but need to share the "intercept-url" part.
Consither this:
<security:http ... >
<security:http-basic />
<security:anonymous />
<security:intercept-url ... />
<security:intercept-url ... />
...
</security:http>
I need to share the list of the intercept-url tags between two different http tags.
Is there a way to do this?
That's not something you can easily do with the namespace.
If you are just defining access constraints, one possibility might be to define an external filter-security-metadata-source and write a BeanPostProcessor to inject it into the FilterSecurityInterceptor.
However, it's probably not worth the trouble for something like this.
Another option would be to externalize the authentication filters you want to use as beans (use the custom-filter element to add them to the <http> configuration) and configure them separately depending on your environment. It would be easier to suggest how feasible that is if you could post both configurations explicitly to see how much overlap there is.
Q1) Is there a way (ie a class method) in Spring Security that allows you to list all the users and roles that is in the Sprint Security user & roles tables? (I'm not looking for only logged in users; and I'm not looking for only the authorities for a given user. I'm looking for all users and all authorities.)
Q1b) If there is a way, does the user running this query need special permissions?
(I can hack this by writing my own SQL statement that queries the users and authorities table, but that seems like unecessary work, prone to mistakes, and breaks the Spring Security API.)
In case it helps, my application context setup is fairly standard:
<authentication-manager alias="myAuthenticationManager">
<authentication-provider>
<jdbc-user-service data-source-ref="dataSource"
users-by-username-query="select username, password, enabled from users where users.username=?"
authorities-by-username-query="select users.username,authority from users,authorities where users.username=authorities.username and users.username=?" />
</authentication-provider>
</authentication-manager>
and
<beans:bean id="dataSource"
class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DriverManagerDataSource">
<beans:property name="driverClassName">
<beans:value>com.mysql.jdbc.Driver</beans:value>
</beans:property>
<beans:property name="url">
<beans:value>jdbc:mysql://XXXXX:XXXX/XXXXX</beans:value>
</beans:property>
<beans:property name="username">
<beans:value>XXXXX</beans:value>
</beans:property>
<beans:property name="password">
<beans:value>XXXXXX</beans:value>
</beans:property>
</beans:bean>
Spring Security implementation solve very specific task and in most cases this task needs only one user. So many of Spring Security queries contain user filter "where username = ?". You could easily check all available queries by downloading sources and searching for string ["select ].
So, you should write your own queries (JDBC or Hibernate) in your DAO-layer for your tasks.
No - looking at the API for JdbcUserDetailsManager which you are using there are no methods to list all users or list all authorities. You'll need to write custom code to do it.
Is it possible to mention both form-based and basic authentication in Spring security using namespace configuration without overriding other ? So that the appliciation could serve both browser based request and remoting client.
The response by #grimesjm is right. However, if you are using Spring 3.x you have to adapt the class names to:
<bean id="basicProcessingFilter" class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.www.BasicAuthenticationFilter">
<property name="authenticationManager">
<ref bean="authenticationManager" />
</property>
<property name="authenticationEntryPoint">
<ref bean="authenticationEntryPoint" />
</property>
</bean>
<bean id="authenticationEntryPoint"
class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.www.BasicAuthenticationEntryPoint">
<property name="realmName" value="Your realm here" />
</bean>
And
<sec:http auto-config="true">
... your intercept-url here
<sec:custom-filter before="SECURITY_CONTEXT_FILTER" ref="basicProcessingFilter" />
<sec:form-login ... />
....
</sec:http>
I do not know whether placing the filter before SECURITY_CONTEXT_FILTER is the best option or not.
The end result you want is possible, I have ran into that exact same problem and here is my solution.
Anytime when defining form-login in the namespace it will override automatically any other authentication filters you apply via namespace. This is done through the ordering of the filter chain look at FilterChainOrder.java in the spring security to see how the order is actually applied to each filter.
To get around this remove the http-basic tag from the namespace then manually define the bean to handle basic authentication and place its order before the AuthenticationProcessingFilter because this is the spring security filter that will handle the form-login.
The BasicProcessingFilter spring provides to handle Basic authentication is a passive filter, meaning that if the credentials are missing it will continue down the filter chain until it finds the appropriate filter to handle the request.
Now by manually defining the BasicProcessingFilter bean we can set the order that it will appear in the filter chain.
Below is an example of the additional xml declarations you will need to supply in the security xml (Spring Security < 3.x)
<bean id="basicProcessingFilter" class="org.springframework.security.ui.basicauth.BasicProcessingFilter">
<property name="authenticationManager"><ref bean="authenticationManager"/></property>
<security:custom-filter before="AUTHENTICATION_PROCESSING_FILTER"/>
<property name="authenticationEntryPoint"><ref bean="authenticationEntryPoint"/></property>
</bean>
<bean id="authenticationEntryPoint"
class="org.springframework.security.ui.basicauth.BasicProcessingFilterEntryPoint">
<property name="realmName" value="My Realm Here"/>
</bean>
Also note if your authenticationManager reference isn't found you can add an alias to your namespace like the one below.
<security:authentication-manager alias="authenticationManager"/>
The end result is the basic filter will be applied as a passive filter and if its required credentials are missing it will continue down the filter chain and the form-login filter will then handle it.
The problem with this approach is that if credentials are correctly entered, the response back is the login page from the form-login filter.
However, It appears that this problem will be fixed by spring in version 3.1 of spring security and this work around will no longer be needed.
It is now possible with Spring Security 3.1.0
It seems that it is not possible to declare both form and basic authentication using namespace configuration.
A reference link to spring community :
http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?t=72724&highlight=form+basic+authentication