First of all, this is not a question about how to get the user's IP address, as i know how to do that.
Basically, administrators of my website (ASP.NET MVC 3 Web Application) need the ability to block a certain IP address from submitting user content. So i'm storing the "IP Address" against user in our system. Cool.
My question is:
When (e.g at what times, page lifecycle events) should i be checked the user's current IP address and saving to the database?
At the moment, i'm thinking of using session. That is, when i first create the session (e.g Session_OnStart()), grab the users IP address and stick it in the session. Then when the session ends (e.g Session_OnEnd()), i see if the IP address in session is different to that of the database. If it is, update the DB.
At the moment we're using InProc, but there's a good chance we'll go to StateServer later on - and MSDN states Session_OnEnd is only available to InProc. So that might be a problem.
Any thoughts/alternatives to this approach?
EDIT
So i tried using Session_OnStart() to try and do the following thing:
If user is authenticated, get their IP address, get their last IP from the database, and if they different, update the database.
But the problem seems to be that Session_OnStart runs before Application_AuthenticateRequest - so it's never passing the "is authenticated" check.
A good example is if a user logs into my website - using Forms Auth, which sets a cookie with an expiration date of a week (for example).
Then they come back a few days later - the Session_OnStart is fired - but they're not authenticated yet. Even though the cookie is present - it hasn't been processed into the http context yet.
So the Session_OnStart looks like a no go - any other ideas?
Would there be a problem in just logging the ip at the start of the session rather than the end? Like you say, the ip wont change during a session.
Have accepted #lomaxx's answer - but thought i'd add my own for others and the reasoning as to why this is required.
Solution: Global action filter executing on every request.
(Simplified) code:
public class UserTrackingFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnResultExecuted(ResultExecutedContext filterContext)
{
// If the user isn't authenticated or we have already tracked IP this session, bubble back up to base context.
if (!Authenticated || HaveTrackedIpAddressThisSession)
{
base.OnResultExecuted(filterContext);
return;
}
// Get the users current ip address.
var currentIp = HttpContext.Current.Request.CurrentIpAddress(); // extension method to read server variables, cater for proxy, etc
// Get the users last known ip address from repository.
var userService = ObjectFactory.GetInstance(typeof(IUserService)) as IUserService;
var unitOfWork = ObjectFactory.GetInstance(typeof(IUnitOfWork)) as IUnitOfWork;
if (userService == null || unitOfWork == null) return;
// See if the user's ip has changed.
var currentUser = userService.FindById(CurrentUserId);
if (currentUser == null || (currentUser.LastIpAddress != null && IPAddress.Parse(currentUser.LastIpAddress).Equals(currentIp)))
{
// User cannot be found or IP hasn't changed - set session key and bubble back up to base context.
HaveTrackedIpAddressThisSession = true;
base.OnResultExecuted(filterContext);
return;
}
// User's ip has changed - update ip address.
currentUser.LastIpAddress = currentIp.ToString();
// Save.
userService.Save(currentUser);
// Commit.
unitOfWork.Commit();
// Update session key.
HaveTrackedIpAddressThisSession = true;
}
}
"CurrentUserId" and "HaveTrackedIpAddressThisSession" are private properties to shorten code in that method. Basically they read HttpContext.Current.User.Identity and HttpContext.Current.Session["someKey"] respectively.
Why i need a global action filter over a Global.asax event: because my logic requires a Http principal be present, i can't use Session_OnStart since at that time, the forms authentication cookie has not been decrypted into the principal identity. So although this runs on every page request, the session "flag" mitigates this overhead.
Since it's asp.net MVC and you want it to run against all request, I'd consider looking at using a global action filter like the one described here http://weblogs.asp.net/gunnarpeipman/archive/2010/08/15/asp-net-mvc-3-global-action-filters.aspx
I'm taking a guess you are doing the comparison in the database, reading your question.
My suggestion is keeping the blocklist in web.config for simplicity and compare the incoming id to it whenever you need.
If you need to keep the blocklist in the database I'd say use the caching class to cache the blocklist for a reasonable amount of time and compare the ip to the blocklist in your code instead of in the database.
Related
pretty new to creating Web APIs, I am currently trying to secure my API and have a couple of questions
So basically I have a Web API and an MVC app. The API currently has a controller called Account that has two methods Register and Login. The MVC app has the same controller with actions but just calls the api methods.
Now basically they way I see it, I only ever want my MVC app to use the Web API, so ill have an api key in the MVC app webconfig that gets passed to the API each time? Also users need to authenticate so at the same time passing the user details?
Will this mean I need to setup two AuthAttributes? One for a user and one for the api details?
EDIT
To take this example a bit further and to demonstrate what I need
I have an WebUI that has a controller called CreateTeam. This passes a Team model up to the api Controller method CreateTeam, the api method requires that the user is authorized to create a team. Now this works fine but....
I also have a controller on my api called LeaguesController, which has a method AddNewTeamsToLeagues. Now I have a console app that runs every hour that calls this method on the api to add new teams to leagues. Now I dont ever want anyone to call this method on the api, I only ever want the console app to be able to use it. Whats the best way to secure this?
One solution is to use the token generated by [AntiForgeryValidation] (the Razor helper is #Html.AntiForgeryToken). You can use the following token (generated on your MVC View) to assist with validation if you'd like (it can be very helpful) or use your own:
<input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="some-generated-value" />
If you're using jQuery you can override the default Ajax options (jQuery.ajaxSetup() - API documentation) to automatically add this to your request headers and validate against it (in whatever implementation you want). You can also obviously send in a username and whatever else you'd like for verification uses.
Then, you can have your Web API have a filter that validates against this information (and whatever else you'd like) using AntiForgery.Validate(cookieValue, request.Headers["__RequestVerificationToken"]);.
Unfortunately, until MVC6/Web API3 the two controller types have completely different implementation so you may have to write a customer filter yourself to handle authentication. There are dedicated [Authorize] attributes for both MVC and Web API but they have have different namespaces (System.Web.Http.AuthorizeAttribute vs System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute).
Hope this helps. For further reading, you can check out this blog post.
-- Edit to reply to your updated comment about your Console application --
You could always create a Filter that only allows local connections, specific IP addresses, certain LDAP/AD Security Groups, etc to have access to a specific controller/controller action. In your case of a Console application you would need to decide how you'd want that to be secured; once you decide to you can go from there. So, say you want to allow only specific members of an AD Security Group to access the controller, you could throw together a filter like so:
namespace YourAppName.Filters
{
public class AuthorizeADAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
public string Groups { get; set; }
protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)
{
if (base.AuthorizeCore(httpContext))
{
var groups = Groups.Split(',').ToList();
var context = new PrincipalContext(ContextType.Domain, "YourDomainHere");
var userPrincipal = UserPrincipal.FindByIdentity(
context,
IdentityType.SamAccountName,
httpContext.User.Identity.Name);
foreach (var group in groups)
if (userPrincipal.IsMemberOf(context,
IdentityType.Name,
group))
return true;
}
return false;
}
protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(AuthorizationContext filterContext)
{
if (filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
var result = new ViewResult();
result.ViewName = "NotAuthorized";
result.MasterName = "_Layout";
filterContext.Result = result;
}
else
base.HandleUnauthorizedRequest(filterContext);
}
}
}
And then apply it to a controller or a method inside of your controller, like so:
[AuthorizeAD(Groups = "SecurityGroupToAuth, League Admins, Console App Group")]
public YourViewModelHere AddNewTeamsToLeagues()
{
// do stuff
}
So, to answer your initial question: you'll likely need two different attributes/filters for the different types (between handling the AntiforgeryToken and then the console app). Unfortunately without knowing how your application and console application are hosted (different machines, same subnet, on the same network, etc) I can't give much more information but hopefully this helps point you in the right direction for creating your own filter/attribute(s).
In asp.net mvc when creating, updating, deleting data how does one know that the data beeing manipulated does really belong to the user making the call?
[Authorize]
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(Model model)
{
// edit data in database
}
If a user is only to manipulate his own data but can see and easily find out information of other users witch is public to manipulate.
How can i be sure that the user is really who he says when for example Edit is called?
The Authorize only makes sure that a user has logged in.
I'm thinking about using controller.User.Identity.Name in the update to make sure the user how created the data is the one that changes it.
But then comes the question could it be possible for a user to go around this by manipulating controller.User.Identity.Name ?
How can one know that a user is who he says he is with regard to this?
There are two kinds of authorization.
One, which is very "vertical", has helpers provided by the framework (such as the Authorize attribute). This "vertical authorization" determines if a user is allowed to make a request or perform an action. It knows nothing of the data of the request or the action being performed, just the request/action itself.
The second, which is more "horizontal", doesn't have built-in helpers in the framework because it's subjective based on the business logic of your application. This one is up to you. This "horizontal authorization" determines if a user is permitted to manipulate specific data elements (specific records in the data) under specific conditions.
To put it simply... If a user submits a request to your application (invoking an edit action on a record for example) then while the framework can tell you if that user is permitted to invoke that action you need to manually determine if that user is permitted to edit that specific data.
For example, let's say two users create records in a table. In that table there should be a column indicating the user which created that record. (Username, some identifier, however you want to link it to a user.) This value isn't provided by the user when inserting the data, it's provided by your code when you build the record. You'd probably pull this value from the logged-in identity of the user (however you track username/id in the application).
Later, when a user attempts to edit a record in that table, you would need to validate that the user performing the action (again, based on their logged-in identity) is the user who originally wrote that record (based on the data that's in the table). Or an admin, or in some other way authorized to manage that data based on your business logic. None of this is based on values being sent from the client, it's all entirely server-side.
So while the client-side code may store an identifier for the record being edited, that value can be changed by any savvy user. That value isn't to be trusted. If a user requests a page, edits values, and submits that page then your server-side code would use the page-provided identifier to know which record the user is attempting to edit, but would use the logged-in user identity to determine if the user is allowed to edit that record. In the event that the user has manipulated the form values to edit somebody else's record, the server-side code should just respond with an error or friendly message denying that action.
This is a loaded question. You could do this with roles (if only Admins can edit). You can do this via user IDs (if you only want them to edit their own personal data).
It seems your question on more based on personal user data so lets go that route.
[Authorize]
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(Model model)
{
var userId = WebSecurity.CurrentUserId;
var previousRecdord = //Logic or service call to get previous record
if (previousRecord.AUthorId != userId)
{
//Do Something
}
else
{
//Edit something
}
}
You could even throw all of this into a service method and have a validate method that is called before the actions on the service are run. something like
[Authorize]
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(Model model)
{
var userId = WebSecurity.CurrentUserId;
var profileEntity = //some mapper that maps profile to entity
_UserService.EditUserProfile(userId, profileEntity)
}
and then in some service method:
public void EditUserProfile(int userId, profileEntity profile)
{
validateProfile(userId, profile);
saveProfile(profile);
}
private void validateProfile(int userId, profileEntity profile)
{
var previousRecdord = //Logic or service call to get previous record
if (previousRecord.AUthorId != userId)
{
//throw exp of some sort
}
}
I have the following ntier app: MVC > Services > Repository > Domain. I am using Forms authentication. Is it safe to use Thread.CurrentPrincipal outside of my MVC layer to get the currently logged in user of my application or should I be using HttpContext.Current.User?
The reason I ask is there seems to be some issues around Thread.CurrentPrincipal, but I am cautious to add a reference to System.Web outside of my MVC layer in case I need to provide a non web font end in the future.
Update
I have been following the advice recieved so far to pass the username into the Service as part of the params to the method being called and this has lead to a refinement of my original question. I need to be able to check if the user is in a particular role in a number of my Service and Domain methods. There seems to be a couple of solutions to this, just wondering which is the best way to proceed:
Pass the whole HttpContext.Current.User as a param instead of just the username.
Call Thread.CurrentPrincipal outside of my web tier and use that. But how do I ensure it is equal to HttpContext.Current.User?
Stick to passing in the username as suggested so far and then use Roles.IsUserInRole. The problem with this approach is that it requires a ref to System.Web which I feel is not correct outside of my MVC layer.
How would you suggest I proceed?
I wouldn't do either, HttpContext.Current.User is specific to your web layer.
Why not inject the username into your service layer?
Map the relevant User details to a new Class to represent the LoggedInUser and pass that as an argument to your Business layer method
public class LoggedInUser
{
public string UserName { set;get;}
//other relevant proerties
}
Now set the values of this and pass to your BL method
var usr=new LoggedInUser();
usr.UserName="test value "; //Read from the FormsAuthentication stuff and Set
var result=YourBusinessLayerClass.SomeOperation(usr);
You should abstract your user information so that it doesn't depend on Thread.CurrentPrincipal or HttpContext.Current.User.
You could add a constructor or method parameter that accepts a user name, for example.
Here's an overly simplified example of a constructor parameter:
class YourBusinessClass
{
string _userName;
public YourBusinessClass(string userName)
{
_userName = userName;
}
public void SomeBusinessMethodThatNeedsUserName()
{
if (_userName == "sally")
{
// do something for sally
}
}
}
I prefer option number 2( use Thread.CurrentPrincipal outside of web tier ). since this will not polute your service tier & data tier methods. with bonuses: you can store your roles + additional info in the custom principal;
To make sure Thread.CurrentPrincipal in your service and data tier is the same as your web tier; you can set your HttpContext.Current.User (Context.User) in Global.asax(Application_AuthenticateRequest). Other alternative location where you can set this are added at the bottom.
sample code:
//sample synchronizing HttpContext.Current.User with Thread.CurrentPrincipal
protected void Application_AuthenticateRequest(Object sender, EventArgs e)
{
HttpCookie authCookie = Request.Cookies[FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName];
//make sure principal is not set for anonymous user/unauthenticated request
if (authCookie != null && Request.IsAuthenticated)
{
FormsAuthenticationTicket authTicket = FormsAuthentication.Decrypt(authCookie.Value);
//your additional info stored in cookies: multiple roles, privileges, etc
string userData = authTicket.UserData;
CustomPrincipal userPrincipal = PrincipalHelper.CreatePrincipal(authTicket.Name, authTicket.UserData, Request.IsAuthenticated);
Context.User = userPrincipal;
}
}
of course first you must implement your login form to create authorization cookies containing your custom principal.
Application_AuthenticateRequest will be executed for any request to server(css files, javascript files, images files etc). To limit this functionality only to controller action, you can try setting the custom principal in ActionFilter(I haven't tried this). What I have tried is setting this functionality inside an Interceptor for Controllers(I use Castle Windsor for my Dependency Injection and Aspect Oriented Programming).
I believe you are running into this problem because you need to limit your domains responsibility further. It should not be the responsibility of your service or your document to handle authorization. That responsibility should be handled by your MVC layer, as the current user is logged in to your web app, not your domain.
If, instead of trying to look up the current user from your service, or document, you perform the check in your MVC app, you get something like this:
if(Roles.IsUserInRole("DocumentEditorRole")){
//UpdateDocument does NOT authorize the user. It does only 1 thing, update the document.
myDocumentService.UpdateDocument(currentUsername, documentToEdit);
} else {
lblPermissionDenied.InnerText = #"You do not have permission
to edit this document.";
}
which is clean, easy to read, and allows you to keep your services and domain classes free from authorization concerns. You can still map Roles.IsUserInRole("DocumentEditorRole")to your viewmodel, so the only this you are losing, is the CurrentUserCanEdit method on your Document class. But if you think of your domain model as representing real world objects, that method doesn't belong on Document anyway. You might think of it as a method on a domain User object (user.CanEditDocument(doc)), but all in all, I think you will be happier if you keep your authorization out of your domain layer.
I implemented a custom Profile object in code as described by Joel here:
How to assign Profile values?
I can't get it to work when I'm creating a new user, however. When I do this:
Membership.CreateUser(userName, password);
Roles.AddUserToRole(userName, "MyRole");
the user is created and added to a role in the database, but HttpContext.Current.User is still empty, and Membership.GetUser() returns null, so this (from Joel's code) doesn't work:
static public AccountProfile CurrentUser
{
get { return (AccountProfile)
(ProfileBase.Create(Membership.GetUser().UserName)); }
}
AccountProfile.CurrentUser.FullName = "Snoopy";
I've tried calling Membership.GetUser(userName) and setting Profile properties that way, but the set properties remain empty, and calling AccountProfile.CurrentUser(userName).Save() doesn't put anything in the database. I've also tried indicating that the user is valid & logged in, by calling Membership.ValidateUser, FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie, etc., but the current user is still null or anonymous (depending on the state of my browser cookies).
SOLVED (EDITED FURTHER, SEE BELOW): Based on Franci Penov's explanation and some more experimentation, I figured out the issue. Joel's code and the variations I tried will only work with an existing Profile. If no Profile exists, ProfileBase.Create(userName) will return a new empty object every time it's called; you can set properties, but they won't "stick" because a new instance is returned every time you access it. Setting HttpContext.Current.User to a new GenericPrincipal will give you a User object, but not a Profile object, and ProfileBase.Create(userName) and HttpContext.Current.Profile will still point to new, empty objects.
If you want to create a Profile for a newly-created User in the same request, you need to call HttpContext.Current.Profile.Initialize(userName, true). You can then populate the initialized profile and save it, and it will be accessible on future requests by name, so Joel's code will work. I am only using HttpContext.Current.Profile internally, when I need to create/access the Profile immediately upon creation. On any other requests, I use ProfileBase.Create(userName), and I've exposed only that version as public.
Note that Franci is correct: If you are willing to create the User (and Roles) and set it as Authenticated on the first round-trip, and ask the user to then log in, you will be able to access the Profile much more simply via Joel's code on the subsequent request. What threw me is that Roles is immediately accessible upon user creation without any initialization, but Profile is not.
My new AccountProfile code:
public static AccountProfile CurrentUser
{
get
{
if (Membership.GetUser() != null)
return ProfileBase.Create(Membership.GetUser().UserName) as AccountProfile;
else
return null;
}
}
internal static AccountProfile NewUser
{
get { return System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Profile as AccountProfile; }
}
New user creation:
MembershipUser user = Membership.CreateUser(userName, password);
Roles.AddUserToRole(userName, "MyBasicUserRole");
AccountProfile.NewUser.Initialize(userName, true);
AccountProfile.NewUser.FullName = "Snoopy";
AccountProfile.NewUser.Save();
Subsequent access:
if (Membership.ValidateUser(userName, password))
{
string name = AccountProfile.CurrentUser.FullName;
}
Further thanks to Franci for explaining the Authentication life cycle - I'm calling FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie in my validation function, but I'm returning a bool to indicate success, because User.Identity.IsAuthenticated will not be true until the subsequent request.
REVISED: I'm an idiot. The above explanation works in the narrow case, but doesn't resolve the core problem: Calling CurrentUser returns a new instance of the object each time, whether it's an existing Profile or not. Because it's defined as a property, I wasn't thinking about this, and wrote:
AccountProfile.CurrentUser.FullName = "Snoopy";
AccountProfile.CurrentUser.OtherProperty = "ABC";
AccountProfile.CurrentUser.Save();
which (of course) doesn't work. It should be:
AccountProfile currentProfile = AccountProfile.CurrentUser;
currentProfile.FullName = "Snoopy";
currentProfile.OtherProperty = "ABC";
currentProfile.Save();
It's my own fault for completely overlooking this basic point, but I do think declaring CurrentUser as a property implies that it's an object that can be manipulated. Instead, it should be declared as GetCurrentUser().
Creating a user just adds it to the list of users. However, this does not authenticate or authorize the new user for the current request. You also need to authenticate the user in the current request context or for subsequent requests.
Membership.ValidateUser will only validate the credentials, but it's not authenticating the user for the current or subsequent requests. FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie will set the authentication ticket in the response stream, so the next request will be authenticated, but it does not affect the state of the current request.
The easiest way to authenticate the user would be to call FormsAuthentication.RedirectFromLoginPage (assuming you are using forms authentication in your app). However, this one would actually cause a new HTTP request, which will authenticate the user.
Alternatively, if you need to continue your logic for processing the current request, but want the user to be authenticated, you can create a GenericPrincipal, assign it the identity of the new user and set the HttpContext.User to that principal.
You are going to run into problems with this approach if you enable anonymousIdentification. Rather than Membership.GetUser().UserName, I would suggest using HttpContext.Profile.UserName.
Like this...
private UserProfile _profile;
private UserProfile Profile
{
get { return _profile ?? (_profile = (UserProfile)ProfileBase.Create(HttpContext.Profile.UserName)); }
}
Hat tip: SqlProfileProvider - can you use Profile.GetProfile() in a project?
First of all, thanks #Jeremy for sharing your findings. You helped me get going in the right direction. Secondly, sorry for bumping this old post. Hopefully this will help someone connect the dots.
The way I finally got this working was to use the following static method inside my profile class:
internal static void InitializeNewMerchant(string username, Merchant merchant)
{
var profile = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Profile as MerchantProfile;
profile.Initialize(username, true);
profile.MerchantId = merchant.MerchantId;
profile.Save();
}
Where do I get information about the currently connected user? That is, how does shibboleth pass the information?
Can I set some restrictions on actions using [Authorize] attribute based on data acquired from shibboleth?
Shibboleth publishes user attributes associated with
sessions into HTTP request headers, based on header names defined
in Attribute Acceptance Policy (1.3.x) or Attribute Mapping (2.x)
files. These headers are transformed into CGI variables based
on mapping rules defined by the CGI specification.
You should be aware of this security advisory:
http://shibboleth.net/community/advisories/secadv_20090615.txt
I have never user shibboleth, but you can get information about the user from Controller.User property. It will return a generic principal of current thread. Using this principal you can check whether the user is authenticated and get a login name of the user. This is due to the reason that after logon an authentication cookie is set and this cookie contains limited amount of information. And on each request after logon only this cookie is checked (if it exists and valid - user is authenticated).
So if you need in some specific information you can manually load a user (it's better to use cache here) and check whatever you want.
Also you can create and attach your own principal with necessary information to the thread on start of a request (e.g. on start of a request load the user from db/cache using user name from base principal, create and set your own principal to thread). After this you can check all properties of the user you need.
Where would you attach your own principal? You say on the start of the request but what if you don't want every request authorizing?
You'll want to create a method in Global.asax.cs that has the following signature
protected void Application_PostAuthenticateRequest()
{
//Your code here.
}
This will be called automatically before almost anything else is done (MVC will call this method if it exists, you don't have to "turn it on" anywhere), and this is where you need to set the Principal. For instance, let's assume you have a header called RolesHeader that has a comma separated value of roles and another header called UserId that has (duh) the user ID.
Your code, without any error handling, might look something like:
protected void Application_PostAuthenticateRequest()
{
var rolesheader = Context.Request.Headers["RolesHeader"];
var userId = Context.Request.Headers["UserId"];
var roles = rolesheader.Split(',');
var principal = new GenericPrincipal(new GenericIdentity(userId), roles);
Context.User = principal;
}
It's the Principal/Identity that the [Authorize] attribute uses, so setting it here at the beginning of the request lifecycle means the [Authorize] attribute will work correctly.
The rest of this is optional, but I recommend it:
I like to create my own custom classes that implement IPrincipal and IIdentity instead of using the GenericPrincipal and GenericIdentity, so I can stuff more user information in it. My custom Principal and Identity objects then have much more rich information, such as branch numbers or email addresses or whatever.
Then, I create a Controller called BaseController that has the following
protected new CustomPrincipal User
{
get
{
return (base.User as CustomPrincipal) ?? CustomPrincipal.GetUnauthorizedPrincipal();
}
}
This allows me to access all my rich, custom Principal data instead of just what's defined in IPrincipal. All of my real controllers then inherit from BaseController instead of directly from Controller.
Obviously, when using a custom Principal like this, in the Application_PostAuthenticateRequest() method, you'd set the Context.User to be your CustomPrincipal instead of a GenericPrincipal.