We have an internal website that provides map data.
We'd like to make this data available to a 3rd party via http get requests, secured by oauth2.
I've created an openapi definition that corresponds to some of the high level website urls. I then imported this into apim and added a validate-jwt policy.
This works well. The 3rd party is able to obtain a jwt token from aad and get data from one of the apim operations that maps to a website page.
My question is, do I need to extend the openapi definition to include an api operation for each of the data "pages" that the 3rd party may need access to? I suspect there's an easier way and wondered if anyone can point me at an example?
Related
I am going to build a web application that allows users to sign in with their Google or Twitter account. I think OpenID Connect(OAuth2) is the standard today to verify the identity.
I also want to provide several API services that can be only accessed with a valid access token from either Google or Twitter.
For example, all the four API's above are going to be public and so I have to protect from unauthorized users. For NodeJS based API services I can use http://www.passportjs.org/ to protect all APIs.
Assume, in the future the number of API's will be grow for example up to 20 API's and sign in with Facebook account will be also allowed.
Again, all the API's have to be protected and I have to do it 16 times with http://www.passportjs.org/.
In addition add the new provider Facebook, I have to do the changes on all 20 APIs.
The question is, is their a way to keep centralized, which means in the future when I will provide more the providers for example GITHUB for sign in I would like to do changes in one place not in 20 places.
Is the tool https://www.ory.sh/hydra what I need?
These are perhaps the two primary features of OAuth 2.0 and Open ID Connect:
Federated sign in to your UIs via multiple identity providers and the ability to easily add new options such as GitHub in a centralised manner
Full control over claims included in access tokens, so that your APIs can authorize requests however you'd like
FOREIGN ACCESS TOKENS
You should aim to avoid ever using these in your apps. Your UIs and APIs should only use tokens issued by your own Authorization Server (Ory Hydra), which manages the connection to the Identity Provider. Adding a new sign in method will then just involve centralised configuration changes, with zero code changes in either UIs or APIs.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN AUTHORIZATION SERVER YET
Maybe have a look at the Curity Identity Server and its free community edition - use sign in with GitHub, which has strong support for both of these areas:
Many Authenticators
Many Options for Issuing Claims
EXTERNAL RESOURCES
One exception to the above is that your APIs may occasionally need to access a user's Google resources after login, by calling Google APIs. This would require the token issued by Google. It can be managed via an embedded token approach - though it doesn't sounds like you need that right now.
I have a Node.js REST API which is usually consumed with a valid token after login from UI . The token generation and authentication happens on my node.js server only. I have to secure this API for programatic access.
For example, an "Add item to an inventory API". The API should allow adding item after a merchant logs in through the UI as well as through programmatic access from his end (Assume he has an automatic system which enables him to be able to do so periodically)
How do I secure such a system properly. I have few solutions in my mind to implement
this but what would be the most right way to do this ?
It sounds like you want to provide your merchant an API key in order to access your app's APIs. It's a very common pattern.
We have few micro-services that are used by a UI. Azure B2C is our auth provider. Each micro-service(API) requires an access token and needs to talk to a database for authorization. This database has role based access permission.
This is how it looks today:
With this we have two problems:
As Azure B2C do not allow adding scopes from multiple resources into one access token, we have to get multiple access tokens.
We are now at a stage where the UI need to call two or more APIs to display the data on one page.
We wanted to use GraphQL as an API Gateway. Something like this:
All the micro-services are placed inside a private vnet and only GraphQL API is allowed to talk to them. GraphQL Layer handles all authentication and authorization.
Now the questions are:
Do you see any problems with this approach?
Is it okay to use a client and secret for communication between GraphQL layer and other API's? or Is there an provision in Azure B2C that can do this validation with out GraphQL layer requesting individual access tokens?
what are the additional advantages of adding Azure API Management to this (other than logging, analytics, rate limiting etc)? Do I need to worry about SSL termination?
Option 2 looks like a good architecture.
A common pattern is for the UI to call a dedicated 'entry point' API, which then orchestrates calls to microservices in a private network - as in your second diagram.
Eg an Online Sales UI calls only an Online Sales API
This also helps to keep UI specific requirements out of microservices and keep responsibilities clean.
In OAuth terms as you say there will be a single resource - the entry point API - and you should only need a single access token.
The entry point API's token (or its claims) can then be forwarded directly to Microservices and used to identify the user there if needed.
I'd avoid getting additional tokens for microservices and just enforce authorization based on roles from your user database.
In some cases it may also make sense to also enforce rules such as 'Online Sales API not allowed to call Payroll microservice'.
Personally I would develop entry point APIs using the same technology as microservices.
We have a multi-instance Saas Application:
Each of our clients is given their own instance and their own subdomain for the site.
Our application (Web app & API) is protected by Azure, currently with the ADAL javascript libraries
We also have a second API for system-level integration that needs to be protected, currently using a second 'native' azure app, but this is likely incorrect and we want to consolidate
Our application reads and writes to the Azure AD both through the AzureAD Graph API and Microsoft Graph API (including password reset calls)
We're looking at Azure AD application configuration options and want to make sure we're building the most sensible and secure Azure AD Application. Here are some of the documentation we've been looking at:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/active-directory-integrating-applications
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/active-directory-v2-protocols-oauth-client-creds
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/multitenant-identity/
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/active-directory-v2-compare
We want the application to be multi-tenant to ease configuration, and allow availability in the Gallery; but when looking into doing so we're left with some security questions.
A. Which application version to use
1) v1. Allows access to both Graph API. And as suggested by Microsoft we should use this when we're not concerned with Microsoft Accounts.
2) v2. When looking at the MS Graph API documentation it recommends using v2. Reportedly doesn't work for AzureAD Graph API? Allows the same app to be of multiple types (Web App/API and native), which we may or may not need to protect both our web api and our system api (which we're still trying to model).
B. How to manage the reply URL when our clients have different sub-domains?
I've noted the following options:
1) On the app registry, we add the reply urls for all of our customers. This seems okay because we only need to do it once, but feels odd. Is there a limit to the number of reply urls?
2) Have one reply url, but manage an external tool to route the responses to the correct instance, leveraging the state url parameter. Microsoft seems to be suggesting that in this link: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/multitenant-identity/authenticate I'm not sure if ADAL allows us to set the state for a return subdomain url though. Is this approach common?
3) Is it possible for each ServiceProvider instance in our client's directories to configure the reply url to their own subdomain? I feel like this would be the cleanest approach, but I don't see documentation for it. It would be nice if we could set the replyURL programmatically as well.
C. How to manage authorization to the Graph APIs (AzureAD and Microsoft Graph)
I've noted the following options:
1) Use the client credential flow, with a single application key (used for all clients). As clients subscribe they will admin consent with our app to give the application permission to their directory. Of course we'd do our best to keep that key secure. But if for some reason it was compromised this would put all of our clients at risk, not just the one instance that was compromised.
2) Same as 1, but use a certificate instead of a secret key. I understand this could be a little more secure, but I don't see how it wouldn't suffer from the same issue as 1.
3) Instead of using application permissions, use delegated permissions with an admin user. This would be good, in that it inherently prevents one instance of our app from talking to the wrong directory. However changes to the administrator may interrupt service; and I think it is best audit-wise that our application is responsible for the changes it makes. (Also, do delegated permissions allow for password resetting? I know for app permissions you need to run powershell script to upgrade the application's directory role)
4) Is there some way for the service principal to generate a unique key for it's directory on creation? can this be handed back to our app programmatically? Perhaps during admin consent?
Really good questions. I'll try to answer each to the best of my knowledge, but if someone has other ideas, feel free to comment/add your own answer.
A. Which application version to use
v2 should allow you to call Azure AD Graph API. The documentation you linked shows an example of specifying Azure AD Graph scopes:
GET https://login.microsoftonline.com/common/oauth2/v2.0/authorize?client_id=2d4d11a2-f814-46a7-890a-274a72a7309e&scope=https%3A%2F%2Fgraph.windows.net%2Fdirectory.read%20https%3A%2F2Fgraph.windows.net%2Fdirectory.write
The main decision point if you should use v2 is: Do you need to support Microsoft accounts which are not in an Azure AD? If yes, you need to use v2. Otherwise there is no problem using v1 (well, lack of dynamic permissions).
Since you are using Azure AD Graph to modify things, I'm going to guess pure Microsoft accounts will not work for you. I would recommend sticking with v1.
v2 also has some limits: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/develop/active-directory-v2-limitations
B. How to manage the reply URL when our clients have different sub-domains?
I could not find documentation on a limit for URLs. It could be that you can add however many you want. But I am not sure :)
If your subdomains look like this: https://customer.product.com, you can configure the reply URL as:
https://*.product.com
It will then allow any subdomain to be specified in the redirect_uri.
Though note that at the time of writing this, wildcard reply URLs are not supported in v2.
C. How to manage authorization to the Graph APIs (AzureAD and Microsoft Graph)
Using multiple keys makes no sense as they are all equal anyway :) Any of them could be used to call another tenant.
You can store the secret/certificate in an Azure Key Vault, and then use Azure AD Managed Service Identity to get it on app startup.
I would prefer using delegated permissions, but if the users of the app won't have the rights to do the things your app needs to do then that does not work.
I would just make sure it is not possible for a customer's instance to call to the APIs with another tenant id. And also make sure token caches are separated in such a way that it is not possible to get another tenant's access token (an in-memory cache on the instance would be good).
Looking for a pointer in the right direction ...
Is there a mechanism which allows you to configure SharePoint in such a way that:
if a user has been successfully authenticated within a SharePoint site that there is some kind of "authentication token" what can be passed or is available to 3rd party sites
or a way for 3rd party sites to "recognize" that the user is currently authenticated within a sharepoint environment
all 3rd party apps can be modified to accommodate whatever needs to be done
but the constraint is: SharePoint may or may not be a hosted (by a separate service provider) and how the original authentication took place is irrelevant i.e. just need to know they authenticated ok, not how
EDIT
scenario to help clarify:
authenticated SP users require access to a 3rd party service provider for additional content. a "link" on their SP site redirects through to the 3rd party. the 3rd party needs to recognize the referrer (based on a collection of evidence supplied by the request) so that it need not challenge for a secondary authentication process.
one of the 3rd parties is me. the SP instances are many and varied and would be any one of my clients (which i don't offer support to, just provide a content service to).
so the attempt is to solve more of a general "community/ecosystem" problem.
Going on the small amount of information available here.... You are probably going to use Windows Authentication (via Active Directory) or Forms based authentication.
If you are using AD within your organization and the other server you are authenticating to is using the same AD, it's a no brainer. If it's AD based but both servers are using different domains, it's much more complex. One option would be to setup a trusted share between the ADs.
If you are using Forms Based authentication it becomes a bit more of an issue. If both servers are using the same FBA, you could create the authentication cookie in SharePoint and then add the cookie as a header to a Request object and then redirect to the server.
If they are different authentication methods totally, you need to determine if your security requirements will allow users to authenticate via some URL based mechanism (like querystrings) and then develop the logic on your SP box to create the URL to authentication.
Your requirements are a little vuage but this should point you in the right direction.
Plan authentication methods (SharePoint Server 2010)
Specifically Claims based authentication.
I'm guessing that by "3rd party sites" you mean sites that aren't hosted in your domain. If that's the case, then the servers won't be able to use your AD authentication (unless you share them, which probably isn't worth it).
I would suggest modifying the way users are authenticated on the 3rd party servers, as you have control over how you send your users over there. You could easily encrypt their usernames/emails/unique IDs and a timestamp (to make sure they can't bookmark that link) in a query string.
The information is then decrypted on the 3rd party server. Invalid information and they are redirected to your login page. Valid information and the 3rd knows that they were authenticated in your sharepoint app.
Your question is very confusing.
SharePoint may or may not be a hosted
What do you mean by that?
Are you invoking a 3rd party web app from a SharePoint page? You can get the current user using SPWeb.CurrentUser property and make use of it.