I need to create multiple users in same AD and need to isolate the resources created by one user from other user.Is it really possible.since I am new to Azure I am not aware that this is really possible.It would be great if some one render their hands to advice on this.
There is no absolute isolation, there are only certain restrictions.
The users created in the AAD tenant are all the Members by default, they have the default permissions e.g. Read all properties of groups, Read properties of registered and enterprise applications. So if user A created some resources e.g. group, application, the user B will also be able to read the properties of them.
There are some restrictions, like Manage properties, ownership, and membership of groups the user owns, Manage application properties, assignments, and credentials for owned applications. This means some properties of the resources can just be managed by the Owner of them.
For more details about the default user permissions, you could refer to https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/fundamentals/users-default-permissions
And if the user is assigned as the admin role in the tenant, he will have more permissions than the default users, see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/users-groups-roles/directory-assign-admin-roles
Related
My goal is to have the user authenticate with Azure AD and then be presented with a drop-down of profiles they want to access. Based on which profile is selected, the user will have different permissions on the site. I'm trying to avoid a user having to have multiple logins to enforce the different permissions per profile.
Can Azure AD handle this or do I need to tie in custom code in a database?
No, Users have one identity and can have a set of roles on an app.
Well, just one role unless you have group-based role assignment available :)
This concept sounds like something you will have to build in your app.
Or you will have to have multiple users registered for this one person.
I can Authenticate user in Active directory but I need to know can we authenticate a specific user in group if we have multiple groups.
Basically I am redirecting to http://[mydirectory].onmicrosoft.com and validating the user but I need to know do we have mechanism to validate a user from specific group so that I can give access according to that.
Assuming this is Azure AD (and not on-premises Windows Server AD), then you have three options to restrict access to an application via groups.
Option 1: Require user/group assignment to application
This is the only option that does not require adding authorization logic in your application.
When configuring your application in the classic Azure portal, you can set the application to require user assignment:
Then, under "Users and Groups" for that application, you can choose which individual users or groups should have access to the application.
The most important thing to consider here is that this will only apply to direct members of the group, not to nested members.
Option 2: Request group claims
This option will allow you to request that the token returned to the application after a user has signed in contain the list of groups that the user is a member of. This includes groups that they are transitive members of (i.e. nested groups).
From your application's configuration page in the classic Azure portal, you can download and upload the app's manifest JSON file. In the manifest, locate the "groupMembershipClaims" attribute, and set it to "All" or "SecurityGroup" (the latter will exclude distribution lists).
Once this is set, after the user signs in, the resulting token will have a groups claim that contains a list of group object IDs that the user is a member of. Your application can then use these claims to decide whether or not the user should have access.
Dushyant Gill goes into group claims in detail in his blog post: http://www.dushyantgill.com/blog/2014/12/10/authorization-cloud-applications-using-ad-groups/ (archive.org link)
The important consideration here is that there is a limit to the number of groups that can be returned. If the user is a member of more groups that this limit, then an "overage" claim is issued, and your application will need to make an Azure AD Graph API call to get the full list. (This is also described in Dushyant's blog post.)
Option 3: Use the the Microsoft Graph API or the Azure AD Graph API directly
The final option is to simply call the Microsoft Graph API (or the Azure AD Graph API, they both act almost identically for this) to establish if the signed in user is a member of a given group. Your application can then make the authorization decision.
There are several approaches you can take (these are all transitive checks, so nested groups are supported):
isMemberOf to check whether a the user is a member of a specified (single) group. This is the simplest if a single group should grant access to your app.
checkMemberGroups to check if the user is a member of any groups in a list of groups. This is useful if different groups grant different roles or permissions in your application.
getMemberGroups to return the full list of groups the user is a member of. This is generally not particularly useful for doing authorization checks.
Is there a way to combine access rights for a Sitecore item?
For example, I have a page that I would like to lock down to users who are a member of two different roles rather than just just one, and a user who has just one of the roles should be denied access.
I know you can have roles within roles but wondering if there was a simpler way to achieve this?
I'm using Sitecore 7.2.
If you are trying to check this in code, you can easily do so using
var user = AuthenticationManager.GetActiveUser();
return user.IsInRole("Role1") && user.IsInRole("Role2") ? "Granted":"Denied";
But if you are trying to achieve this in Sitecore Security on an item, then an AND of those 2 roles will be assigned. Ex: If I allow access to an item in Role1 but deny in Role2, the user with Roles 1 and 2 will have his/her access denied.
The simplest way to approach this is to define a new role with appropriate access rights and assign the relevant users to it, either manually or by script. That keeps your access rights transparent. You could code your way around the issue, but you could end up creating an admin nightmare, where it's near to impossible to see which roles and users have access to which items. E.g. what would you expect to see in the Access Viewer when looking at one of the roles, or at a user with one or both of the roles? There's a big difference between assigning access rights programmatically and evaluating them programmatically.
One way that you could achieve it via the Security Editor is by utilising Sitecore's Roles in Roles functionality.
Essentially you will want to create a New Role in the Role Manager that will contain the two roles, Role A and Role B. Select your New Role in the Role Manager and click Member Of button. In the modal click Add and select the two roles this New Role needs to contain.
In the Security Editor select the New Role and assign the read, write, create etc permissions to the required Items.
Now when users access those Items they must have Role A and Role B before given access - they will not need the New Role assigned to their account.
If you have a large number of roles to manage and combinations of those it will be very time consuming to manually create those combinations.
We managed to install weceem plugin and could map with user roles. But we need more control as follow. There are tenants in the system, users of which have the same roles. But each tenant in the grails app is fully isolated from other tenants. So we plan to create one space for each tenant. Then we want to grant access for users of one tenant to their specific wecem space. This way users of one tenant can't access the content of another SPACE meant for another tenant. We can't isolate based on roles, because users of all tetants will have same role - like 'Tenant Admin'.
Can we write an intercptor in the controller (or somewhere else) which will be invoked by the security framework, and we want to write custom code in that intercptor to determine that the tenant is accessing only his specific SPACE and that allow access, else deny ?
can we create SPACE progamatically from the main application ? like, when a tenant is created in the system, we want to create a SPACE for him.
There is a default weceem-security bridge (weceem-spring-security plugin) that defines user management system between application and weceem. You can implement your own security decision that takes tenants into account and define credentials to the specified Space. Check the weceem-security plugin sources to get the ideas https://github.com/jCatalog/weceem-spring-security/ . According to second question - you can create Space programmatically from the application if you need.
I'm using AzMan (1.0) for an ASP.Net web app, and I have a question about nested Roles.
Say I have the following roles:
MyApp
MyAppUser
MyAppAdmin
MyAppSupport
For the most part, all users (MyApp) can access the app, but some functions will be specific to the other roles.
I want to declaratively restrict access to the web pages to members of the MyApp role.
[PrincipalPermission(SecurityAction.Demand, Role = "MyApp")]
I will check User.IsInRole or use the AzMan API to check for operation permissions within my code.
The users are assigned to the lower level roles (user, admin, support) and those roles are added to the MyApp role.
The problem is that when I check if the user is a member of the MyApp role, they aren't, even though the role they are in belongs to the MyApp role. Is the only way to check this is to recursively go through all the roles? That'd mean I cant use the declarative security, or to do so I'd have to add all users to the top level group as well (not ideal).
It sounds like you're expecting composite Role Definition (where a Role Definition is defined to include other Role Definitions) to be supported in the call to IsInRole(). I think you'd get the results you want if you used Group inheritance and Role Assignment instead.
In other words, rather than depending on IsInRole to follow the Role Definition for "MyApp" to determine that the Role Definition "MyAppAdmin" is part of that definition, create the inheritance using Groups instead, and then assign one or more groups to your Role Definition using Role Assignment. You could create an "Administrators" group, which might be a member of the "Everyone" group.
I'm really thinking that your role names are really better group names. A role signifies certain capabilities, not a classification of users based on their rights. That's what a group is for.
For example, suppose that most users (not admins or support) have read-only access to your app. I tend to call that role "Viewer" and I assign it the tasks or operations that allows users in that role only the ability to view, not edit, any data. I would assign everyone to that role (whether I do that with just one group or several doesn't really matter). The "Support" role allows users assigned to it to perform certain operations (or tasks grouping operations). Only some people would be assigned to that role (again, maybe they are assigned individually, or I have a group named "Customer Support Reps" -- doesn't matter).
In my app, I could check IsInRole("Viewer") and everyone who is a user will be in that role. But if I check IsInRole("Support"), only the people in the "Customer Support Reps" group assigned to that role would return True.