I am attempting to our company's Jenkins from the Jenkins user database + matrix based security to using Google Login Plugin and Role based strategy plugin to give us better control of our user accounts.
With this new set up I am wondering how I could go about creating a designated user which is used by scripts which trigger Jenkins jobs remotely. I would like to do this without having to add a user to our company's GSuite account as this costs a few $ per month. Before the switch to Google Login I could just create a user manually in the Jenkins user database and take the API token from there but since switching to Google Login there is no option to add a user (which makes sense given than the users are managed by Google now). At the moment it seems like I have to choose from:
Use the old approach and forget about authenticating through google. This is not a great result as we want to minimize the number of user accounts we have to set up for new people joining the company to overhead of onboarding.
Use Google Login Plugin and create a new dedicated "Jenkins" user in GSuite for these scripting / requirements. This costs money.
Use an existing users API Token to avoid the cost of a new Google User in our GSuite account. This seems like bad practice which I'll regret at some point.
Is there a workaround which doesn't require a designated GSuite user or repurposing an existing Google users credentials just for this purpose?
I did a similar research a while ago and it seems like there is no way to do so right now.
However, I'm using SAML plugin with GSuite instead of Google Login Plugin, but from Jenkins security perspective I assume they work in the same way.
When you're using such plugin, Jenkins creates a securityRealm in its config. In my case it is:
<securityRealm class="org.jenkinsci.plugins.saml.SamlSecurityRealm" plugin="saml#1.0.7">
Therefore, to have SAML and Jenkins security matrix work simultaneously, you have to have several security realms.
Here is a ticket, which describes this issue, but it's still open
Regards!
I was also looking at how to trigger builds remotely when using the Google Login Plugin.
I ended up using the "Build Token Root Plugin" which solved this problem, without any need to create a dedicated user for this.
This plugin offers an alternate URI pattern which is not subject to the usual overall or job read permissions. Just issue an Http GET or POST to buildByToken/build?job=NAME&token=SECRET. This URI is accessible to anonymous users regardless of security setup, so you only need the right token.
https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Build+Token+Root+Plugin
Related
I want login system in my capsule so that i can provide user more recommendation based on their profile of interest. So far, neither I am able to find any document related to login facility nor any example. It would be appreciated if will get any document or example.
Bixby supports logging in through OAuth 2.0, and this is the best way to guide your users through a login flow.
You will need to provide your own service to handle this OAuth flow, as Bixby Developer Center does not offer any web hosting services.
https://bixbydevelopers.com/dev/docs/dev-guide/developers/actions.using-oauth
Also is there a possibility that user can user can use app as a guest
user if no login credentials?
When you define your endpoints, you can define Actions that require OAuth and other Actions that do not require OAuth and the latter ones will define the "guest user" flow that is capable within your capsule prior to logging in.
If you don't need all the features of OAuth, and only need to store a few things between sessions with the same user, you may use the $vivContext.bixbyUserId value as an anonymous, but unique identifier for a user, and store their preferences using that id as a key, in a 3rd party database that you maintain.
I've done this with the "My Brain" capsule, to store quick memories/notes for users, without any requirement that they login or establish an account. I've created a tutorial version of the My Brain capsule that outlines the steps you need to use AWS for this purpose. Please feel free to clone or fork it and customize it for your needs.
I have a running website, where users already have accounts. And I am trying to create a Google Assistant agent, accessible on Android, to help users access their information.
My issue is that I can't detect returning users on Android Smartphones, each time they have to sign in.
I tried Anonymous User Identity, but it is soon to be deprecated.
Is there an other way to keep track of users?Using some kind of userId that I can store, so I can make "my own Acount Linking" linking the person/Smartphone with already existing user accounts.
There are a few angles to your question.
Is there any way to keep track of users?
Yes... but...
You can store a userId that you generate in the user storage area. You do need to treat this like you would a cookie, so some jurisdictions might impose restrictions on this, but this is one approach to moving from the anonymous ID that is being turned off soon.
But...
How do I let them log into my service through the Action?
That is the problem. The General Policies states the following limitation for collecting user data:
Authentication Data
(including passwords, PINs, and answers to security questions)
Don't collect authentication data via the conversational interface (text or speech).
After a user's account has been linked, PINs or passwords may be used as part of a second verification process.
So you need to use Account Linking to connect to the existing account on your service.
How can I do Account Linking if I don't require Google Sign-In?
You can still use Google Sign-In for Assistant if it will (or may) provide the information as part of the profile that match what you have. So it doesn't need to use the same account - just have the same email (for example).
But that still may not be enough.
For other cases, you can look into setting things up to work with an OAuth server that you control.
So why use Google Sign-In if I setup an OAuth server that uses Google Sign-In?
Google Sign-In is good for a more streamlined flow, if you can use it. It can be done completely with voice, such as with a smart speaker, instead of requiring the user to go to a phone to complete the login. So if you have the user's email address in your account system, and you also get this from Google Sign In, then you can connect the two accounts.
In some cases, such as if the user is expected to have logged into the account on your website first, they won't even need to do that. If both the voice client and web client use the same Google project, then authentication will take place automatically.
I'm building a Windows 8.1 store app and need to incorporate authentication. This is an enterprise app used in house. We load the app onto a tablet and a team may check that tablet out for weeks at a time, go out to the field to collect data and then we put in on a shelf until another team needs to use it. Now different teams may work for difference clients so when we authenticate users not only do they get access to the app but we also check what groups they are in to determine what clients they can work on or what previous records they can search for.
I've followed various ADAL tutorials and am able to setup everything in Azure and in my app I am able to authenticate a user successfully and get their groups. This relies on ADAL handling the username/password. What happens when the app shuts down and the user in a place where there is no internet (or even a reliable cell connection)? Specifically how can I have the user type a username/password to re-authenticate and get the same groups they were in when they can't access Azure services?
It appears they isn't available as the guidance always points to that is a risky proposition to have the app handle username/passwords. I understand that stance and can appreciate the caution behind it. However, in all of the ADAL documentation that I find that says this, none of them tell me how to handle an offline authentication scenario.
I have found links such as ADAL v3: How to authenticate using UserPasswordCredential? that tell me how to bypass the ADAL login page. I may have to move to that route and handle all of the username/passwords securely within the app, but first I would like to reach out and see how others tackle this scenario. Is it really as simple as avoiding best practices and just handle the username/password within the app?
If anyone has some guidance, ADAL (or other oauth providers) documentation, or other articles/advice I can follow up on to help achieve offline authentication I would greatly appreciate it!
Additional Information:
My scenario that I'm trying to cover is what happens when I have 1 device, 1 app, and many different users? These users will be in different groups that will determine how data fields get populated (filter data in combo boxes) and what previously submitted forms they can query for. All users would need to login when online to cache their information (say on Day 0) before they can ever use the app. On Day 1 user 1 uses the app and doesn't log out. I would expect the app to have a timeout timer to log that user out after 2 hours of no activity. On Day 2, user 2 just grabs the device off the shelf and takes it out into the field. He has no internet and needs to log in to determine who they are and what group they are in. I would expect since he has logged in once and verified his credentials already that we can enable this sort of scenario.
What I'm looking for is guidance if ADAL as a library can handle this or is it truly up to me the app developer to handle this sort of scenario. As I see it currently I need to store all user credentials, but at the same time it seems like everyone advises against that. I feel like I'm in a situation where I need to create a custom login screen and store the user data, SECURELY of course, even though its not recommended. It seems like all articles on how to use ADAL are written from a consumer app standpoint (or a BYOD) and don't take into account how a mobile app would be written for the enterprise.
That depends on your app design, if the first time(app online) , user login and app store all groups ,user information .After that user doesn't need to use token to get related information again(send request to server to acquire groups/user info). If app is offline , user doesn't need to re-authenticate(app controls the user session) , just get group/user information from cache . When using resource owner flow , you still need to send authenticate request to Azure AD server which need internet.
I've read about security best practices saying that inactive user accounts should be disabled and even deleted to avoid security issues like unauthorized use. I can see that being true for regular username and password authentication sites, however my application was built to work only with Facebook groups and as such the only way to login or create a new account is to use the Facebook login.
The argument can be said that someone malicious could take control of one of my users' Facebook accounts and then use it access my application. Although that is true if they have control of a Facebook account my application would never know it's a malicious person so I don't see that as a valid criteria to use in determining if the account should be disabled.
Furthermore if a user is inactive and wants to become active again since it's Facebook login there really is no reason for them to go through some kind of reactivation process like confirming their email or changing their password.
I must be missing something here because it's certainly mentioned as a best practice to disable accounts but since my only login method is Facebook (OAuth) I can't come up with a valid reason to disable/delete inactive accounts.
Regarding other methods of unauthorized access I have security measures in place so I'd like to keep the answers relevant to the login method.
Please enlighten me if I've missed something.
If you have decided that your application needs to use Facebook authentication, then your system's identities will only be as traceable as Facebook's identity management permits. (And don't expect Facebook to help you by disabling / blocking users at their end ...)
You need to design it accordingly:
Don't make any assumptions that users will behave properly.
Don't rely on login controls to keep out malicious users.
Put in your own (sufficient) defenses against malicious behavior into your own system.
You are correct that disabling an account in your system won't achieve much if you also allow the user to (easily) reenable it. Given that it is easy to create (effectively) untraceable Facebook accounts, the chances are that a typical malicious actor will not just rely on old accounts. They may use a brand new account and connect from an IP address that you have never seen.
There are some things that you could do though. For example, implement mechanisms to do the following:
Make sure that users simply cannot upload dangerous content (e.g. files with trojans, web content with dangerous links or scripts.
Allow administrative locking an existing account or OAuth identity,
Allow blocking of creation of accounts or access in from specified IP addresses or ranges,
Keep an audit trail so that you can watch the history of user behavior.
First, a little background: We have an intranet site based on WSS 3.0 that is hosted on a server in DOMAIN_A.LOCAL and set up to use Integrated Windows Authentication to authenticate users against Active Directory user accounts of DOMAIN_A.LOCAL.
This setup works just fine for users who are logged into Windows using an AD account from DOMAIN_A.LOCAL, but when users try to access the site from a PC logged into Windows using an AD account from a different domain (i.e. DOMAIN_B.LOCAL) the following problems occur:
The user must manually enter their credentials as DOMAIN_A\UserName rather than just UserName because otherwise, Internet Explorer automatically inserts DOMAIN_B and causes authentication to fail.
Once logged in, if the user does something that requires the browser to pass their authentication through to a client app, such as clicking on a Microsoft Office document in a document library in order to open it for editing, it appears that invalid credentials (presumably DOMAIN_B) are passed automatically, thus forcing the user to manually enter their DOMAIN_A credentials again.
My question, then is this:
Is there any way to implement a "default domain" type of behavior when using Integrated Windows Authentication (as can be done when using Basic clear text authentication) so that if a user on DOMAIN_B does not enter a domain before their user name, DOMAIN_A is inserted automatically for them?
Of course, I realize this deployment may be fatally flawed, so I am also open to suggestions for a different implementation.
In summary, the main problem stems from two different kinds of users needing to access the same content on one SharePoint site. The users in DOMAIN_A all have their own full-time workstations where they log into Windows as themselves. The users in DOMAIN_B unfortunately have to use shared computers that are logged on using generic "kiosk" type accounts that have no permissions in SharePoint -- thus the requirement that the DOMAIN_B users must provide their credentials on demand when accessing a given page in SharePoint. I would like to preserve the convenience of the Integrated Windows Authentication for the "static" users of DOMAIN_A while minimizing the amount of manual authentication that the "kiosk" users in DOMAIN_B have to endure.
DOMAIN_A.LOCAL must trust DOMAIN_B.LOCAL, otherwise users from DOMAIN_B.LOCAL will receivie a credential prompt since their DOMAIN_B.LOCAL account is unknown within DOMAIN_A.LOCAL.
Given that DOMAIN_B.LOCAL is for kisok users, you probably do not want to trust this domain.
You will need to extend the web application into a new zone and either implement forms based authentication, or use Windows Authentication with a reverse proxy such as ISA server.
I was searching the internet for SharePoint user accounts with multiple domains and came across an interesting tool called Microsoft Front End Identity Manager. Have you heard of it?
So… If your using a multi forest deployment where user accounts are distributed across two or more forests. This is often seen when two organizations merge and need to access domains from both organizations. You can use the distinguished name (ms-ds-Source-Object-DN) attribute in the user object to create an association between the user accounts. In this association one account is considered the primary account and the others are the alternates of the primary account. There is a tool called Microsoft Front End Identity Manager to create this relationship between user account objects. One feature of Microsoft Front End Identity Manager is that SharePoint server can maintain a list of alternate accounts by which the profile is identified. When you use either account to find the profile of a user, SharePoint server returns the primary account profile example (domain\username).
Probably not what you want to hear, but you may want to resort to forms based authentication.
Unfortunately if you want to retain the Microsoft Office integration (which is what it seems you want), you will have to stick with Windows Authentication. Using Forms Authentication will remove most of the features you seem keen to preserve, there is more information here.
Ideally you want to use the suggestion that Jason mentioned, which would be some sort of reverse proxy. However there would probably be a cost implication if you don't already have something like ISA server, so in reality it's probably best for the DOMAIN_B's to learn to type DOMAIN_B\ before their username.