So I am very interested in using Cloudkit but the documentation on anything over the basic features is horrible. I am looking to establish two basic user types: standard user (someone that can read records only) and an Admin user (can create and modify records). I setup security roles to reflect this and changed the access modifiers on each of the record types to include these roles. However, I cannot find anywhere how to change a user from one role to the other. I have implemented an Admin login of sorts in the app. Once they enter in the appropriate credentials, I want to allow that user to start editing records.
Does anyone know how to do this?
Thanks
I think it's still not possible to assign a security role to a user using code. Then this answer is still valid: How do I access security role in cloudkit
Related
I need to implement an authentication system where a super admin can create multiple different roles with different rights for users. That is, not a system with a set number of roles, but have the option to create as many roles with different combination of rights as the superadmin wants, and then assign them to new users. Also with the option of editing these roles, deleting them etc. I'm fairly new at Node Js. Is this something hard to implement? Are there any articles/videos I can read/watch, to start understanding the process? Where do I start? I'd really appreciate any help. Thank you in advance!
You're thinking about Role-Based Access Control (RBAC). I have actually implemented this in Node.js before, feel free to checkout how I implemented it here: https://github.com/JLCarveth/nodeblog.
It's relatively simple. You need a table for tracking roles. Each role has 0 or more permissions. These permissions can be comma-separated strings, or IDs referencing a permissions table. Each user is then assigned a role.
Each route is protected with a middleware that specifies the needed permissions. If a user accesses this route, check that they have the necessary permissions and continue, reject if not.
I have a web-application secured with Keycloak. To keep the description of the service short, we have Users and Documents as entities in the service. The users may have access to none or more documents and may edit or read the document.
Currently we have roles such as Admin, EndUser, Developer etc. We then keep a database table outside of Keycloak that maps the documents to users and what user has what access level to what document. All our end-users have the EndUser role in Keycloak. Every single time an EndUser tries to read/edit a Document, we have to make a lookup in the database table for authorization.
We would like to migrate that table to Keycloak. As I understand it I basically have two options:
Create a lot of roles, two for each document with names such as doc_read_[DOCUMENT-ID] and doc_edit_[DOCUMENT-ID] and so on. Then assign the correct role to the correct user. The downside here is that the number of roles will grow A LOT. Also, the number of roles attached to a user will be very large.
Create a group for each document, with the name of the document id. Have different sub-groups for read/write and then add the users in the correct groups. The downside is that the number of groups will be very large. Also, I will rely Authorization on group names, so the list of group names has to be mapped to the token.
I do not want to add a user-attribute with the document-ids to each user. With this approach I can not get an overview of a document and see what users have access to a given Document.
What is the best practice here? Are there any other solutions to solve this issue? This must be a very common setup.
This is just my opinion.
From what I understand both solutions are suboptimal, adding a role per document is unnatural and too finer grain. And as you already mention this would lead to too many roles that probably you will have to add them into the token.
I would personally use Keycloak just for the authentication part and do the authorization part in the backend. I would also try to group the documents in a way that reflect which user roles are allowed to manipulate them.
Alternatively you might try to use Keycloak's Authorization features to handle that use-case, however I have never used it, so there is not much that I can say about this option.
In my opinion what you want to achieve is something that is very tied to your business logic, I wouldn't recomend depending on keycloak to do it. Your token would constantly grow and management would be a nightmare really.
I see no problem in having a service with good cache to lookup permissions, the bulk of the data won't change much over time.
I'm new in sails and I have a PostgreSQL database. I want to implement a user management. I have some users, each user can be assigned to multiple groups, each group can be assigned to multiple roles and each role can have some permissions! I checked document of sails permissions but I didn't get it well. for example, I want some groups not to be able to add or edit users or I want some roles not to be able to see user management menu. what should I do?
I may be a little late to post answer here, But there is a way available for access control in sails.
Sails has built-in policy based access control system.
Policy
Policies in Sails are designed for controlling binary ("yes or no") access to particular actions. They work great for checking whether a user is logged in or for other simple "yes or no" checks, like whether the logged in user is a "super admin".
But for Dynamic permissions,
Helpers
Link for documentation of helper, access-control-and-permissions
For more complex permission schemes, like those in which a requesting user agent's access rights depend on both who they are and what they're trying to do, you'll want to involve the database. While you can use policies to accomplish this, it's usually more straightforward and maintainable to use a helper.
One can find example here,
Using helper for access control and permission
So you can use postgreSQL for storing roles and their respective permissions and retrive user role and check permission on need in policy/helper.
Sails.js has no ACL managment
You have to use 3rd party middleware like roles or role-acl
Sounds like what's most important is the association of the user to the permission (or role). So you could consider making models for each tier (user, role, group) or you can make a model for each kind of group and/or role (though that sounds like it could get out of hand) and then have the models associated with eachother. Then in the view action you can set what the permissions are (aka what groups or roles are allowed to see that page). Also in the markup you can set who is allowed to even see a button.
For example:
isSales could be a boolean on your group or roles model for a user that is in sales and they are allowed to see the edit button to change the price of something. So in your markup you have:
<div v-if="user.isSales">
<button> Edit price </button>
</div>
How can I limit access to user profiles so that only users with a specific role can be viewed globally.
What I'm trying to do is make accessing users with "writer" role possible for all users, but leave normal members inaccessible to all but admin.
(Originally posted this as a comment but I guessed it helped so I'm posting it as an answer.)
You might want to see whether the Profile 2 module might be able to help you. The writer role would then have permission to create a profile for all to see while others do not. Also, you could modify the way users list other users' profiles. You could use the Views module use a filter so that it only shows users of a certain role
Is user profiles an appropriate place to store things like number of items per page in a custom grid user selected? (I you can store it in the view, but it won't be per user this way).
My first though was to store these settings in user profiles, but there are problems with access permissions for programmatically creating user profile properties boiling down to you either have to give every user 'Manager User Profiles' permission in SSP or you have to run the application pool under a domain user, not NETWORK SERVICE. Both scenarios are unrealistic for me, so I'm now looking for another way to store such 'per user' settings.
Thanks!
Edit: I'm now considering ASP.NET profile mechanism with an additional DB to store user properties.
Given that the information is not sensitive a simple database with values stored against AD login should suffice.
And as you have the ASP.Net user database already, storing the information there would be the best option.
Maybe a Global List, that is only accessible for the SHAREPOINT\SYSTEM User and that you can then Query in a SPSecurity.RunWithElevatedPrivileges Function.
Disadvantage: You require Custom code to read/write to that list.
Cookie?
Sure they have limitations, but it is fairly easy to create the control to run javascript to add/edit the value