How would I retrieve all valid sessions for a specific user? For example, if the user is logged in from multiple devices and decides to change password, or reset password. I need to be able to expire all active sessions and log the user out of all devices. This is specially important if the user is suspecting that his/her account has been compromised and needs to change the password. Currently I can retrieve RMEs but not sessions. I know this is doable from the UI but I need to put this feature in an SDK or API. Is there a curl command to easily achieve this?
Sarah,
Currently there is no endpoint that will let you invalidate all user sessions.You would need the session token of each session and then call the /json/sessions/?_action=logout REST endpoint multiple times (once per session).
That being said you can use the following class to get the list of sessions for a particular user:
com.iplanet.dpro.session.service.SessionCount
You can read the javadoc here.
There are some constraints for using this method though. Session Quota must be enabled. You can enable Session Quota on the admin console by going to Configuration -> Global -> Session page and:
Set the number of "Active User Sessions"
Turn on "Enable Quota Constraints"
To sum up, you can create your own custom endpoint that will take the User ID and invoke SessionCount.getAllSessionsByUUID(uuid) to get the list of active sessions. After that, you can iterate through the list of sessions and invalidate them one by one.
Hope this answers your question.
Related
This is the my web-app "User Settings" page.
I have simplified it to a minimum to better highlight the problem.
To authenticate users I use Auth0, I wanted to use the sub claim user_id to identify the users inside my MySQL database for update and retrieve user's info. Unfortunately the user_id is different for each provider, for example, if the same user with the same e-mail logs-in via Auth0 he gets a user_id if he does it via google he gets another one.
I thought about using email to link logged user to his info.
The problem is in my API. Before the change it was "localhost: 8080 / api / users /: id"
each time it created a new id and in any case it was impossible to recover the data of the single user. Now that I have replaced "id" with "email" my API has also changed in "localhost: 8080 / api / users /: johnsmith#xxx.com".
Before:
After:
In a few words, the request url on the client side has also changed.
I would like to make sure that the GET and PUT requests are made based on the e-mail of the logged user without going to modify the whole back-end.
Sounds like something is wrong with how you authenticate users. If you have multiple ways to authenticate a user, those methods need to be in a one to many relation with the user. For example each user has a list of auth-methods, and whenever an authentication is made you check your table of authentication methods and find the one user it maps to.
Im not sure if you are doing this yourself or if the framework you are using is handling that, but it sounds like you need to change the model to allow many Auth methods for a single account.
Also you could use email, but that is also an "old" way of uniquely identifying users almost every single person has multiple active email accounts nowadays, so you should also have a one-to-many relation for users to emails. What if the user has different email accounts for their Facebook and Google accounts?
See account linking here: https://auth0.com/docs/users/user-account-linking
It is dangerous to trust that the external providers are truthful about what email belongs to who. What if I open a new account using someone else's email on one of the providers? Then I can log into that users account in your application, which is a pretty big security risk.
A strange situation that I am unable to find other people having to deal with. We are using Microsoft AspNetCore.Identity to handle our authentication. Everything is working fine.
The problem is that for a user to perform certain actions, they MUST get another user to 'sign' that action. This act of signing of course requires that other user to use their user name and password to sign the action.
The issue with this is that the other user's details are readily visible in the request payload. So if I am sneaky, I can open the developer tools in my browser (and hide it), then ask my admin to come and sign my action, and when they have gone i can go to the network tab and see their username and login in plain text!
Of course this is all over https but still, we can't allow one user to see another's sensitive information.
How are we to manage to allow a second userB to 'sign' an action for userA while in user A's active session, while removing the capacity for userA to steal userB's credentials??? Any ideas? (Front end is angular.js)
I imagine it's a big rework, but instead of having the "admin" sign the request on the user's machine, the admin could receive a "user A requires this action to be signed, proceed? [ok] [cancel]" on their account, the action would be stored in the database (perhaps temporarily?) & then all of the sensitive information is kept within each user's session with no cross over.
Then the authentication of who is permitted to approve actions can be handled in the backend via standard identity methods.
The user's "Please wait while an admin signs this action" modal (assumption) could then poll an API to determine the status of the action and then proceed once accepted.
I second #justcompile's answer if you need an authorised and authenticated user to sign/confirm the action, more work but the only secure way.
If you just need a second pair of eyes to confirm you could message a private group or slack channel that only "authorised" people have access to with a one-time URL containing a token (that maybe expires after a period of time too).
Assuming admins only access that channel they can follow the link, the app can validate the token and confirm the action.
Saves a second (admin) user logging in on their own machine and the need to build a workflow and UI etc, but again exposes you to risk if nefarious types get access to the channel or the links sent to it.
Depends on your appetite for risk I guess.
another user performs signing action on your local system? and you are sly?
there is no way to protect their password.
use two factor authentication.
The way this would normally be handled is for the user to request an action. This (unsigned) action-request is recorded in the database. The admin user is able to see this unsigned request in their account, and make an (authenticated) request to sign it. The user would be able to see the status of their request, and whether it has been signed yet.
Im running a Azure Webapp with application insight.
I know Microsoft cant show the real IP (Client_IP) so I add the real IP address to all requests (Ip).
I have a visitor client_id="h9zbt" that in the last 24h is using 48 different client_IP adresses.
The same user also has several real IPv6 adresses.
I like to block this IP from my website, but I think this looks so strange.
Is it really the same user?
How is Application insight tracking the User_Id?
Image link
Usually application insights is automatically opening a session automatically for each user (look for the ai_session key). Therefore the default user scope would be a session scope.
You can override this behaviour by sending a user context if you have some kind of sign-in. (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/application-insights/app-insights-usage-send-user-context)
I find it likely that it's the same user on the same device, just using several IP-addresses, maybe as an unsuccessful attempt to stay anonymous.
User IDs should persist across user sessions to track how users behave
over time. There are various approaches for persisting the ID.
A definition of a user that you already have in your service.
If the service has access to a browser, it can pass the browser a cookie with an ID in it. The ID will persist for as long as the cookie
remains in the user's browser.
If necessary, you can use a new ID each session, but the results about users will be limited. For example, you won't be able to see how
a user's behavior changes over time.
The ID should be a Guid or another string complex enough to identify
each user uniquely. For example, it could be a long random number.
If the ID contains personally identifying information about the user,
it is not an appropriate value to send to Application Insights as a
user ID. You can send such an ID as an authenticated user ID, but it
does not fulfill the user ID requirement for usage scenarios.
mentioned in Azure doc.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/application-insights/app-insights-usage-send-user-context
Let me start by saying I really like Deployd. I want to use it in production, but I want to incorporate OAuth and social logins, so I installed the dpd-passport module. It works great, except for two little (big) problems:
When a user signs in via an OAuth provider (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Github) a new user record is created...but if the same user clears their cookies or uses a different browser to log in, a new user record is created.
If I do something clever (read: hacky) and assign users with social logins an ID based on the socialAccount and socialAccountId (something unique but constant for each social account), someone could use the standard method of user creation to spoof a user by making a POST request to the /users endpoint if they knew that user's socialAccount and socialAccountId.
My question is: How can I A) prevent #1 from occurring, or B) disable the standard method of user creation without also preventing OAuth user creation?
Has anyone ever successfully used Deployd and dpd-passport in production? If so, I want to speak with you...
Thanks in advance!
First of all, I think you haven't added the custom fields per the docs.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/dpd-passport#requirements
I hadn't either, and observed the new user feature (because it couldn't lookup the response from the auth service to find the user from before). Adding these fields fixed it.
Also, there is a google group here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/deployd-users
Hope that helps.
I am storing all the session id's in a variable with the username and system ip, I am using this data for only one login for username. Now I have two problems where sometimes the new session in the browser is generated automatically without user action or if user removes the cookie related to my server. So the user is with the new session, I need to remove the username, system ip and session id from my list.
Since the user didn't do anything explicit on your site you can't know the difference between "lost the cookie" and "haven't been to the site for a while". The best you can do with a scheme like this is to just expire sessions that haven't been active for a week, a month or a year or whatever is appropriate.
You should consider to use an encrypted/hashed cookie with the user id of the logged in user instead of a session if you want to allow users to stay logged in "forever" without taking resources on the server.