I'm trying to setup a "private beta" for a site that I'm working on. The site uses open id. I don't want anyone to even browse the pages if they aren't part of the beta. What's the best way to implement this? Any suggestions?
For example:
When the site goes live, users will go to http://www.mydomain.com which will not require them to log in.
For the beta I want to restrict access. Users that go to http://www.mydomain.com will be redirected to a login page. Anyone attempting to access ANY PART OF THE SITE who is not authenticated will be redirected back to the login page.
I could stick [Authorize] attributes all over my controller actions, but that seems stupid.
If you're using ASP.NET MVC, it comes with authentication/authorization out of the box. You should be able to use that to setup authentication on your site.
Alternatively you could setup app server settings - IIS lets you setup username/password on a specific site it's serving, regardless of what the actual application may do. If you have access to the app server this might be the best solution.
If you're using IIS6, you can setup authorization easily. Right-click on your site > Properties > Directory Security Tab > Authentication and Access Control > Edit, and enter a username/pwd of your choice. Done.
The real question is how are they being invited to the private beta?
You could setup a password which drops a cookie much like serverfault.com does.
OR
If you know who you are inviting: you could add them to the system before hand using the email/login information that you already know about them (assuming you are inviting them via email)
I have implemented a function in a web application a while ago where we go the possibility to block access to the full website unless the user was an administrator (which in our case meant that the user account was a member of a specific group in Active Directory).
It was based on two things. First, all pages in the web application inherited not directly from the Page class, but from a custom page class in our web application. Second, we had a value like this in the appSettings section of web.config file:
<add key="adminaccessonly" value="0" />
The custom page class would check that value when loading. If it was not 0 it would redirect to a page (that did not inherit the same custom page class, though) informing the user that "the site is not available right now". If the value was 0 the page would load as usual.
In that application we used this to be able to take the site "offline" when we deployed a new version, giving us some time to verify that all was good before we let in the users again.
Best way are invitation system (based on invitation code) or manually confirmation access after create profile in your system. imho
Or you could host the site on a private server, and set up a VPN to use it. Depending on your resources and needs this may be the easiest and most secure way to do what you want without modifying your codebase.
OR alternatively you could use Apache or IIS to force authentication on access to the website directory. Keeping the authentication info in .htaccess for a while.
Even though you use open id authentication, you may still need some form of authorization mechanism. The simplest form would be a user-roles system in your database that assigns different roles to users
In your case, just assign the private_beta role to your private beta invitees and ensure you your authorization mechanism that all users have private_beta privilege before they may continue.
If you don't want to provide authorization for the public site (where everyone can do everything, once authenticated), then, you may only need to do a quick-and-dirty post-processing (for private beta only) on your open_id authenticated users to check them off a short list (which you can store on a text file.
Related
I am implementing a basic login app. here are the features:
Upon successful login, there should be a welcome page that shows the name, username and role (manager/user).
If the user has a manager role, the welcome page will have a link to access a restricted webpage.
This restricted webpage can only be accessed by a manager role and not by other user roles.
implement logout functionality.
If the userid or password is not valid, I should remain at the login page with an error message "Invalid userid or password".
All data should be stored in a database.
The application should demonstrate MVC pattern...
my schema:
enter image description here
i am using react js for the front end. i build the backend using spring security with the role-based authorization where certain url can be accessed by certain role. i already do a testing on backend end using postman where i try to access /restricted and it responded with 401 if i use ROLE-USER instead of ROLE-MANAGER by using the mvcMatchers(). now the confusing part is the frontend
i noticed i can do all the necessary validation on the front end. i dont even need to do mvcMatcher() on the backend as i can just load the userdetails and roles and ask react to validate for me! hell, i dont even need to use role-based authorisation. i just need to add extra field in user table named "role" and use that to check for item 3 and display the role on item 1. i just need 1 table, not 3. i can even ask react to redirect to /login if user is trying to access /welcome without login, or disable /unauthorised if user role is USER.
but i dont feel right about this way. i'm confused.
a. whats the best approach?
b. is role-based only applicable to rest-api services, not full stack app? from what i see front end can do ALL validation
back end repo
front end repo
a. The Best approach is to have authorization at the back-end level because your React front-end is not the only way to access the back-end. If the back-end doesn't have authorization implemented, then even if you have validation on the front-end, a malicious user can use any other HTTP client to access the back-end without authorization.
b. Role-based authorization is applicable in all scenarios in which you want to allow access to resources based on user roles, no matter which stack is used.
I'm working on a project that uses sessions to manage the currently logged in user with a slight twist, there is no log in form on the actual application. Instead, another site will provide a button that should log in the user and redirect to their profile page.
For example, the customer is viewing their profile on Site A, the 3rd party application. From their profile on Site A they click on a button that should log them in to Site B and redirect to their profile on Site B, the site I'm building.
I'm a unfamiliar with the security concerns for a case like this. My initial thought is that if Site A POSTs via https the user's email address and password, then it should work just as if they were filling the form out on my site, Site B.
What security concerns am I missing here or will this just not work at all?
NOTE: The 3rd party site is basically out of my hands and I'll never convince that team to setup any sort of OAuth protocol, or at the very least its going to take unacceptably long. Plus, OAuth, at least with my understanding is method to accept requests from any number of 3rd parties. No other site except for SiteA will ever attempt to log people in.
This sounds like a typical application for an OAuth provider.
Get an overview and grasp the concept here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oauth
There already exists OAuth Providers in Ruby, so you don't have to do everything by yourself: e.g. https://github.com/songkick/oauth2-provider.
But if you really wanna do this without, then I would let the other server generate a hash containing the users id (can be username, email, or database id), a random token, the current timestamp and then sign this using MessageVerifier. Then you can check on your server if the timestamp is within a certain range (some minutes) and if the message verifies (using the same key naturally). If so, then accept the user.
If the other site uses PHP, then you might have to rebuild the generate method in PHP. Find the source in Ruby here.
I am using this answer here to log unique page views in my app: https://stackoverflow.com/a/15174466/1235816
I am using a cookie to check for unique visits. As far as I am aware, because the site will be hosted in the UK, I should have a message which asks the user to accept cookies or if they don't... it asks them to leave the site.
I want it to work like this... If a user wishes to accept cookies, then the 'app-name-visited' cookie should then be downloaded, otherwise if they just exit the site without clicking accept, no cookies are downloaded to the clients machine...
Is this:
1/. a correct way of thinking?
2/. possible?
The cookie law has since been modified, so this is not quite necessary any more, you only need to let the user know that they you will be using cookies.
The organisation that enforces this is the ico, which doesn't ask for permission for cookies on their site:
http://www.ico.org.uk/
Suggest you follow this pragmatic approach.
If you are wanting to comply as per your question I did some work on this a while back for rails projects which should be a decent starting point:
https://github.com/yule/threepwood
I currently have an intranet site that is accessed by external customers. I therefore set this up using Forms Authentication. However the powers that be (my bosses) want all our domain users to not have to enter their username and password to access the site.
I've done a bit or reading and everything seems to point to setting up a WinLogin.aspx page that you alter to use WindowAuthenthication and then redirect from there.
I have a problem with this as I don't like the idea of putting an aspx form in my mvc application.
Can anyone tell me how to achieve mixed authentication using a strictly MVC Controller/Action setup without a second application?
NOTES: running MVC 3 on an IIS 7 box.
Forms Authentication is not related to the URL or physical structure of your files. What matters is that a URL should ultimately map to a physical (or virtual) resource on the server, and be processed, and be returned back to the user.
Thus, somewhere in between for each incoming call (each HTTP request, even those for CSS and JavaScript files), you have to see if the current user has enough permission to access it or not. If no, then you might redirect him to the login page.
If you want, you can have a URL like /user/windowslogin where user is the name of the controller, and windowslogin is the name of your action method. Then you can create a custom authentication attribute (something like [WindowsAuthentication]) on your windowslogin action, and in that attribute (which is an MVC filter in essence), you can see if the current request comes from within your domain, and if so, talk to Active Directory for authentication or stuff like that, and on case of successful authentication, create an authentication cookie using FormsAuthentication class, and the rest of the story.
However, I don't think this would be an easy task. Others might introduce better solutions.
I need to create a website with non standard authorizaion logic (or rather not exactly the site. It should be separate Area in existing ASP.NET MVC3 application). Access to most of the pages sould be available only to authorized users. Authorization is carried out on the token passed in the link. After the user arrived to this area, the token should be checked and if it’s valid site will create a session key for 30 minutes (we already have our own mechanisms of session managment and it should be used).
Workflow example :
Third-party website generates a link for user, e.g. https://example.com/securedPage/?accountId=123456&token=XXXXX
Our site check this token (it depends on the page from URL, in this case https://example.com/securedPage/)
If the token is valid, example.com obtains a session key for the user and stores it in cookies.
Then user continues browsing whole website and only session is checked.
I’m new to MVC framework, so I’d like to ask several questions about architecture.
What is an apropriate place for this logic? ActionInvoker, Global.asax etc.?
Currently I'm trying to create my own ActionInvoker and keep this logic there, but I'm afraid that it could be a wrong way.
If I understand correctly you want yo extend the Action of the controller to inject/check your token.
I think the global action filters should help you.