We want to implement SSO functionality in our organization, but we're not really sure what our options are, and what the benefits / disadvantages for the different solutions might be.
-We have multiple old ASP(Active Server Pages) sites which should use SSO
-We have multiple ASP.net web-Applications which should use SSO
-We want Sharepoint to use the SSO
-CRM (Biztalk?) integration (Additional information about the user, such as Address, company, etc )
Since we're primarly .net, c#, Microsoft oriented, my first idea was to use Active Directory.
I've also noticed that there is something called ADAM (Active Directory Application Mode), and ADFS (Active Directory Federation Services), but I can't really say I understand when/where these should be used.
Here is a brief overview of the different web-applications
-"My Personal Page" : User log's into an application where they can modify their personal information along with their company-information and their employees. (Asp.Net)
-E-learning application (ASP)
-CMS system for web-publishing (ASP.Net)
-Sharepoint sites
I haven't really been able to find any articles that can tell me "AD is a great choice! , you can use it everywhere", so If anyone has got any experience /feedback to give me on this, it would be really helpful.
Also: How should rights/roles be managed ? Should all access/rights/roles for each application be stored in AD, or should this be stored in the applications themselves.
IE : AD stores the roles:
"Cms" <-allowed to login to the cms system
"Cms.Article.AddAllowed" <-allowed to add article
"Cms.Article.DeleteAllowed" <-allowed to delete article
Or should this information be split up, so that AD holds information about which applications the user is allowed to log into, while the application itself holds information about what the user is allowed to do within the application when logged in
AD rights:
"Cms" <-Allowed to login to the cms system
Cms rights:
"Article.AddAllowed" <-allowed to add article
"Article.DeleteAllowed" <-allowed to delete article
So, when the user logs in, they are first authenticated against AD, and if that goes ok, the rights for the Cms application is fetched from a rights-table in the cms system ?
What are my options ? What other solutions other than AD do I have ?
Thank you for any feedback, its much appreciated !
We have done something similar in my organization. Here is the overall flow:
User requests web page
User is redirect to login screen along with SAML request
User authenticates against Active Directory
User is passed back to request web page with SAML response
User group/rights information is retrieved from database
If user requests page from another website same process occurs however if the user still has a session or selected the "remember me" feature then user does not have authenticate and gets logged in directly.
We use Sharepoint, but have not setup SSO yet. I believe Sharepoint gets the rights of the user from its own backend database/system. We also have a homegrown system to update user's groups/rights. I know Sharepoint can use web services so you could possible update Sharepoint when using a centralized user management system (of course you'd have to build that). The main thing is finding out where Sharepoint gets its information about the user and how you can tie your existing system to it...
I wouldn't rely on Active Directory to store group/rights information. It a pain to deal with compared to a database and is not flexible. It's fine for authentication and password management you just have to tie the user on Active Directory to your database system.
As far as I know, Active Directory is only practical for users within your domain. You would need an administrator to manage all those users and to add new users.
I've been working on a project myself where I wanted users to sign in, just to know their identity. I did not even care about their access rights but just wanted an identity on every visitor, something more reliable than an IP address, cookie, session key or whatever else. So I first asked my administrators if I could use Active Directory for this project. Sure, I could. But the webhost wasn't connected to our company domain so I would end up with only one user. Yeah, my administrator is a bit sarcastic sometimes.
So I started to explore SSO options. OpenID like this site is a good option and you could even implement your own OpenID server and require all visitors to sign on there first. It's a very powerful technique and you have less worries about managing users in your project. (Because the OpenID provider takes care of this.)
However, I ended up using CardSpace instead. :-) With CardSpace, every user can create their own user-token and store it on their own system. To log on, the website just asks for the card and the user just clicks on it. Those cards can be migrated to other systems but tend to be tied to a single computer and user, most of the time. (Although users can share a card!)
Rights and Roles are a different matter than Authentication. People always think they're connected while in reality, these are two different things. First, use OpenID or CardSpace or another authentication technique to verify the identity of the user. It doesn't matter how they're identified, you just need an identifier.
Next, you need rights and roles. Roles are basically just user-groups and you can connect an identity to a group. Or to multiple groups. And rights would be linked to roles, not users. But how you're going to divide these roles just depends on the applications. Just remember that someone who is an administrator in your version control system should not be an administrator in your customer database. Roles tend to be application-defined, thus every application could manage their own rights and roles and just needs a way to link these to an identity.
I myself just needed identities so I knew whom to blame when something ended up messed up. Then again, when there's only 5 users, things tend to become quite simple.
Related
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.
We're currently investigating what kind of authentication we want to use for a sharepoint portal site : Forms Authentication or Windows Authentication. The latter has my preference.
What suprised me (I'm a sharepoint noob), is the fact that MS didn't provide a component/web-part that handles account management when using Windows Authentication.
Do you now how to do this? Without resorting to buying an additional product. Shouldn't it be very easy to access the Active Directory by code (C#)?
Windows Authentication
I echo Justin's thoughts regarding AD management. Adding users to your domain also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with adding them to SharePoint. However perhaps there is an IIS add-on that does this if you wish to pursue it.
If you don't already know, SharePoint can automatically import user profiles from your Active Directory domain. This makes them available for assigning permissions within the sites.
Some additional info from Justin's comment about changing the AD structure to administer security: With SharePoint 2007 you no longer need to rely on Active Directory to manage groups of users. It's possible to also use SharePoint groups (which can contain AD users or AD groups). This works really well when you need to create a group for a purpose that isn't applicable outside SharePoint and you don't want to bug the infrastructure team. The downside is that without education, end users probably won't manage this well and it can become a mess.
Forms Authentication
It's true there is very little provided by Microsoft for managing this. However the Community Kit for SharePoint provides this functionality. From memory I had to tweak their code a bit but I was generally happy with it.
If you are considering this option also read this MSDN article.
It's much easier to just use the regular AD management tools provided with Windows rather than trying to manage your users' permissions through a web interface (for groups and such).
...of course you'll need access to make changes to your AD structure to administer the security.
Another alternative you may want to consider is using Forms Authentication using the Active Directory provider. It'll allow you to use the Forms Auth user admin tools and still authenticate against an Active Directory environment.
IF this is for users who are not a part of your actual domain (i.e. extranet users), I suggest you take a look at ADAM, Active Directory in Application Mode. It behaves the same as regular AD, can be administered through the windows.
Also, take a look at the following codeplex project, ADSelfService, it allows users to edit their own AD profiles. Perhaps you can extend the code yourself to allow admins to edit all profiles.
AdSelfService Project
I'm starting on a project to allow an existing web application to use active directory for authentication but leaving authorization within the application. I want to start off simple so I was thinking a user would type their AD username/password into my existing login form, I would then do an ldap bind against the AD server to authenticate the user.
Once the user is authenticated, I would pull that user from my database which has all the authorization information as to what functions the user can see.
My question is what is the best AD element to store in my table to make the association? In the past I've used username but after looking at some of the elements that AD returns I was wondering if I should use the security ID or GUID or something else?
I've been burned when a username changes like an employee gets married or divorced... so I know that is brittle.
I was targeting windows 2003 AD and above if that makes a difference; this is for a product where some clients have large AD forest and some are small networks.
Storing the SID is the most reliable approach; this is the unique ID that all Microsoft AD things use, security groups, permissions, etc.
If you're building on .Net you should seriously consider .Net 3.5, there's a new namespace System.DirectoryServices.AccountManagement that greatly simplifies code here and gives you nice neat objects to go against.
Unless users share computers, why not use Windows integrated logon? Much easier on the users, easier on yourself as developer, and more secure (one less place a password can be sniffed).
Need I mention that allowing user identities to change is poor corporate security policy? Makes traceability harder, permits some novel attack vectors, and gives you this headache.
As Nick mentions, the SID is a stable identifier, but not something you should ask a user to enter for him/herself!
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.
In Moss 2007 you have the ability to set the target audience for each individual web part within a page. Is there a way to preview how the page will look to another user without logging in as that user? What I am looking for is a way for someone with full control/design permissions on a site to be able to preview how the site will be displayed to another user. Any suggestions?
I have a few test accounts that our IS department uses to preview pages, however we do not allow non-IS departamental staff to use those accounts. Those staff members only have access to their one account. So, if a user makes changes the target audience on a web part on one of their pages, right now they have no way to preview how the page will look to someone else other than asking someone else to login & watching over their shoulder. I can't give out the account information for the test accounts, nor can I create new test accounts.
Thanks!
Edit: I have the ability to preview. The problem is that other users with full control of a site can't preview the page. Here's a scenarios: In my school division each school has a site. The principal has full control of his school's site. On the landing page, he wants all the school announcements to be visible. However, some should only be visible to teaching staff, while others need to be visible to the students. He uses audience targetting but cannot preview to see at a glance that the targetting is correct. A lot of the users are not computer savy so things need to be as simple as possible. Also, that was just one scenario, there are other scenarios that are not divided by school. There are many users with full control of a site with different requirements - so it's not feasible to create test accounts for all scenarios.
First I don't think it is possible to have a preview feature if you are using NT security. Maybe it is something you can do with forms authentication but I never used it.
On that subject. I think when you are developing new features or integrating stuff on a MOSS/WSS server you need a little flexibility.
With what I see you have to following things you can do. It is surely more cost effective than developing a custom solution. I assume you are using NT Security.
User accounts : Ask your domain administrator to have dedicated user accounts to play with.
Virtual Machines : Ask to have some virual machines to be able to play with that server combined with tests accounts
Sandboxed environment : Ask your IT dept to create a sandboxed MOSS environment to have to possibility to replicate your actual MOSS environment and create custom user scenarios.
Edit: After re-reading the question I released that you want the users to be able to preview a page. I think you will need to look into writing a preview control that uses Impersonation to load the page. Not sure how feasible this is, but surely someone has created a preview feature. Sounds like a pretty common scenario to me.
Old Answer:
Could you not fire up a non MS browser such as Firefox, which will prompt for the username and password.
You can then just clear the session cookies to be prompted to log in as someone else.
This is the technique I used for an ASP.Net site that used authentication against the domain in a similar manner to SharePoint.
Alternatively, you can create a control/webpart that hooks into the audiences for the site and displays the audience membership to the user (maybe from the GetMembership call). This does not preview the site, but it will give your editors a heads up on who is in each audience. Something that will help them get the audiences correct.
We have made a similar webpart for security group membership.
I think there are two approaches you can take:
Do make use of test accounts to preview the pages. You can ease the "pain" to log in as another user by making use of the RUNAS command (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490994.aspx). So it's possible to just create a shortcut on the desktop that opens a browser making use of another account's credentials. Only that browser instance will work with the test account.
Make a copy (or more copies) of the page that you want to preview, store it in a secured site (so it's only accessible for the principal for example), and tweak the Audience Targetting properties of the web parts on that page/pages.
For previewing target audiences only, the only way to do it is to create a target audience that runs based on a properties in the SSP User Profile Properties.
You can then have a control that allows the editor to change the value stored thier profile, re-compile the profiles and voila (for some description of voila) the user will have change thier audience targetting values to something else.
This would need quite a bit of coding and some thought put into the rules for the audience targetting.
At the end of the day, the most cost effective way is to push back to your infrastructure guys for an account solution that will allow you to have an "reader" account people can use for this function.