We Keep Coding

Implement ADFS with asp.net roles

I have been working on a project where I have a simple web page integrated with AD FS. The authentication and website are working as expected. I am using VS 2015. My goal is to limit what users can access at the site, "roles" from what I have read and researched. If the logged on user is an admin, grant full access, but if logged on as a regular user limit what pages are available.
Here is the scenario, go to my project URL which is redirected to AD FS sign on, after successful sign on you are at my website. Not much to it.
I have read so much online about different ways to achieve my goal that I am unsure which course is best or simplest to configure. What are my best options here? Keep in mind I have never developed in asp or any other code for that matter. Any help would be appreciated.

There is policy based authorization that is probably the current best practice, however it sounds like role based authorization may be sufficient for you.
To perform role based authorization you'll first need to setup a claim rule in your ADFS for the Relying Party Trust of your application that sends the Role claim type "http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/role". The claim rule would look like this,
c:[Type == "http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/windowsaccountname", Issuer == "AD AUTHORITY"]
=> add(store = "Active Directory", types = ("http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/role"), query = ";tokenGroups;{0}", param = c.Value);
Then when your roles arrive at your application in these claims, you'll process them with Windows Identity Foundation (WIF), which is integrated into .NET Framework 4.5+. I believe referencing System.Security.Claims is sufficient to get WIF in your project for processing roles. This "processing" however is done for you by WIF.
At this point you should be able to simply decorate controllers and methods like the following to perform role based authorization, with these Roles equating to the names of groups you are a member of in Active Directory.
[Authorize(Roles = "Administrators")]
public class AdminController : Controller
{
}

Just for interest, there are other ways to do this.
Once you have the roles, you can use IsInRole(role).
You can also use the web.config e.g.
<location path="Page.aspx">
<system.web>
<authorization>
<allow roles="Admin, OtherAdmin" />
<deny users="*" />
</authorization>
</system.web>

How can I protect controller actions in an MVC app that doesn't contain a db or user data?

I'm looking to understand the nitty gritty mechanics of authorization so I can devise a strategy for my situation.
My situation is that I am part of a distributed application. My part is an MVC5 application that basically just consists of a couple of controllers that return single page app views. So hit controller A and get back single page app A. Hit controller B and get single page app B. Etc. This application contains no database or user data. Some other application on a completely different website/server does. I want to ask that other application if a user is valid or have users ask the other application directly themselves and only allow access to my app views if the answer is yes. So, in essence, I want to protect my controllers based on the word of a remote application that contains an exposed api for login/user validation.
It has been suggested to me that token authentication is the way to go. It's a bit daunting with my lack of experience with it, but I've buried myself in some reading and video presentations. Here is my current, weak attempt at summarizing the task based on limited understanding. Please correct as needed:
An access token needs to be generated
Getting an access token is not part of the Account controller, it's part of OWIN middleware
The access token will be sent along with the requests for my contoller actions
My controller actions, decorated with the [Authorize] attribute, will parse the token and do the right thing
Questions:
Q1: Should I generate the token or should the other app - the one with the db and user data?
Q2: My controllers don't know anything about users. That data is in the other app. What specifically are the controllers parsing for under the hood in order to do the right thing? In essence, what specifically tells them, "yes, this request is OK. Return the view."
Q3: I started my project awhile back using a standard MVC5 project template that comes with VS2015 because I figured I'd be handling users/login etc. That turned out not to be the case. Am I going to have to go back and redo this project from scratch because that template doesn't fit this requirement or can I do some surgery on it and continue? For instance, I don't know if that template has all the OWIN stuff I need or maybe has too much extra junk (bloated Account controller, Entity Framework, etc.) to be easily transformed/maintained.
Q4: Is token authorization overkill here? Is there an easier way to keep unauthorized users from accessing my controller actions that makes more sense given the nature of the project?
Any insight would be appreciated.
Update: What I meant in Q2 was, at it's simplest, how does [Authorize] work? Details? I'm guessing I have to tell it how to work. For instance, a silly example to illustrate. If I wanted to tell a controller decorated with [Authorize] to let anyone in who has the username "fred", how and where would I do that? I'm not so much looking for code. I'm thinking conceptually. My app must know something about the tokens the other app (authenticating app) is genenerating. In general terms, what would I add to my MVC app to tell it how to decode those tokens? Where do I add it? Is there one standard place?

I think you are on the right track and are right about the steps you have mentioned. I will answer your questions based on what I understand:
Q1. The other application is the one that needs to authorize and generate a token (whatever be the authorization mechanism they use) and you should receive this token before showing your views. Since the data is coming from the other application , they have to give your controllers access to their data. This is why you need to ask the other application for the token/authorization. With a valid token got from the other application your application can send valid and authorized requests to their data.
Q2. What you can do from your side is to add a check as to whether the request for your action/view is coming from an authorized user. For this, you need to check if this request has a valid token.
Q3. I don't know what you mean by "template" here. But if you need to integrate your controllers to the other solution, you do need to know what the other solution does and what it offers in terns of authorization and of course the data. They should provide your application access to a public api for this purpose.
q4. THis is something the other application needs to do. From what I understand, I think you are only adding a web API to an existing system so I think you need to really know how you can integrate with the other application. They should have clear APIs that are public for you to do this to access their features and data.
Since you have not mentioned if this other application is something like a secure enterprise solution or a Google API (has public API ) it would be difficult to tell exactly what you can expect from the other application.
I think you would need to try JSON web tokens (JWT )
I have not used it myself though . stormpath.com/blog/token-auth-spa –
It is useful for authenticating if a request to your controller. Here is a similar question as you have (I think) and how JWT could solve it How to use JWT in MVC application for authentication and authorization? and https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/876870/Implement-OAuth-JSON-Web-Tokens-Authentication-in
You can override the AuthorizeAttribute like this : https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee707357(v=vs.91).aspx . Your authorization logic of checking for whichever tokens/auth mechanism you decide to can be added to this new action filter. Then add that new attribute to your actions. So if your custom authorization attribute when overriding looks like this:
public class RestrictAccessToAssignedManagers : AuthorizationAttribute
Then your action would have the attribute decoration like this:
[RestrictAccessToAssignedManagers]
public ActionResult ShowallAssignees(int id)
Found a good article which could also be of help - https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/martinkearn/2015/03/25/securing-and-securely-calling-web-api-and-authorize/

My answer to your question will be based on:
I want to ask that other application if a user is valid or have users
ask the other application directly themselves and only allow access to
my app views if the answer is yes. So, in essence, I want to protect
my controllers based on the word of a remote application that contains
an exposed api for login/user validation.
Yes, to my humble opinion, oauth token-based approach is overkill for your need. Sometimes, keeping things simple (and stupid?) is best.
Since you are part of a distributed application, I suppose you can (literally) talk to the team in charge of the "other application/website" where requests that hit your controllers will be coming from.
So, I will skip your questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are oriented towards the token-based oauth approach, and suggest a rather different, "simplistic" and faster approach, which is the following:
For clarity purpose, let's call the other application "RemoteApp", and your application "MyApp", or "The other team" and "You", respectively.
-Step 1: You (MyApp) exchange a symmetric secret key with the other team (RemoteApp);
-Step 2: MyApp and RemoteApp agree on the algorithm that will be used to hash data that will be posted to MyApp when a user from RemoteApp requests a page on MyApp. Here, you can, for instance, use MD5 or SHA256 algorithms, which are well documented in MSDN and pretty easy to implement in C#;
Step 3: MyApp tells RemoteApp what its needs to be part of the posted data to validate/authenticate the request.
Here is an example:
Step 1: BSRabEhs54H12Czrq5Mn= (just a random secret key. You can choose/create your own);
Step 2: MD5 (this is the algorithm chosen by the 2 parties)
Step 3: The posted request data could include (at least 3 - 4 parameters or form fields, plus the checksum):
- UserName+RemoteApp fully-qualified domain name + someOther blabla data1 + someOther blabla data2 + checksum
The above information will be concatenated, without space. For instance, let's assume:
UserName = fanthom
RemoteApp fully-qualified domain name = www.remote.com
someOther blabla data1 = myControllerName
someOther blabla data2 = myActionName
The checksum will be generated as follows (function prototype):
generateMD5(string input, string secretKey)
which will be called with the following arguments:
string checkSum = generateMD5("fanthomwww.remote.commyControllerNamemyActionName", "BSRabEhs54H12Czrq5Mn=")
Notice that in the first argument the above 4 parameters have been concatenated, without space, and the second argument is the secret symmetric key.
the above will yield (actual md5 checksum):
checkSum = "ab84234a75430176cd6252d8e5d58137"
Then, RemoteApp will simply have to include the checkSum as an additional parameter or form field.
Finally, upon receiving a request, MyApp will simply have to do the same operation and verify the checkSum. That is, concatenate Request.Form["UserName"]+Request.Form["RemoteApp fully-qualified domain name"]+["someOther blabla data1"]+["someOther blabla data2"],
then use the md5 function with the secret key to verify if the obtained checksum matches the one sent in the request coming from RemoteApp.
If the two match, then the request is authentic. Otherwise, reject the request!
That'all Folks!

I seems you need to implement an OpenID/OAuth2 process.
This way, your apps will be able to utilise single-sign-on (SSO) for all your apps, and all you would have to do is set up your MVC5 app as an OpenID/OAuth2 client.
Take a look into Azure AD B2C which is perfectfor this (I am currently implementing this right now for 3 projects I am working on).
https://www.asp.net/mvc/overview/security/create-an-aspnet-mvc-5-app-with-facebook-and-google-oauth2-and-openid-sign-on
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/active-directory-b2c/
https://identityserver.io/

So your app is publicly addressable? I can't tell for sure from your description.
Well you only have these issues if a public client is requesting certain page views from you...
Now here's where i'm confused. If it's an external client accessing different parts of your distributed app, ALL the parts have this problem.
Generally the client authenticates itself at one place (say written by Team A), any other subsequent view requests would need to be checked as well (HTTP being connectionless/stateless), including others done by Team A? So your problem would already be solved (because it would be a problem for everyone, and they would have done something using an auth cookie + checking service, use the same checking service...)?
Which leads me to believe that the view requests are internal and not client facing, in which case... why is auth such a big deal?
If you could clarify your scenario around what requests you need to authenticate...

you are on right track. But instead of you implementing OAUTH and OpenIDConnect user third party which does the heavy lifting. One such tool is IdentityServer
https://identityserver.github.io/Documentation/docsv2/
Now answering your question from IdentityServer point of view
An access token needs to be generated -- true
Getting an access token is not part of the Account controller, it's part of OWIN middleware -- yes, for better design
The access token will be sent along with the requests for my contoller actions
My controller actions, decorated with the [Authorize] attribute, will parse the token and do the right thing -- Yes as a part of response header
Questions:
Q1: Should I generate the token or should the other app - the one with the db and user data? The identity server will generate token that you requested.
Q2: My controllers don't know anything about users. That data is in the other app. What specifically are the controllers parsing for under the hood in order to do the right thing? In essence, what specifically tells them, "yes, this request is OK. Return the view. - usually the token is sent back to the identtyServer to check for validity and to get access_token which will check if the user has access rights. if not [Authorize] attribute will throw error message and return
Q3: I started my project awhile back using a standard MVC5 project template that comes with VS2015 because I figured I'd be handling users/login etc. That turned out not to be the case. Am I going to have to go back and redo this project from scratch because that template doesn't fit this requirement or can I do some surgery on it and continue? For instance, I don't know if that template has all the OWIN stuff I need or maybe has too much extra junk (bloated Account controller, Entity Framework, etc.) to be easily transformed/maintained. - Yes u can delete the extra stuffs
Q4: Is token authorization overkill here? Is there an easier way to keep unauthorized users from accessing my controller actions that makes more sense given the nature of the project? -- It is not an over kill. It is the right thing to do for your scenario

Using Windows Domain accounts AND application-managed accounts

It's easy to create an ASP.NET MVC application that authenticates based on windows domain user. It's also easy to create one that uses individual accounts stored using Entity Framework. In fact, there are project templates for both.
But I want to utilize BOTH kinds of authentication in the same application. I tried to combine the code from both project templates. I have a problem in Startup.Auth.cs.
// from "Individual Accounts" template
app.UseCookieAuthentication(new CookieAuthenticationOptions
{
AuthenticationType = DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie,
LoginPath = new PathString("/Account/Login"),
Provider = new CookieAuthenticationProvider
{
OnValidateIdentity = SecurityStampValidator.OnValidateIdentity<ApplicationUserManager, ApplicationUser>(
validateInterval: TimeSpan.FromMinutes(30),
regenerateIdentity: (manager, user) => user.GenerateUserIdentityAsync(manager))
}
});
The existence of cookie authentication owin middleware seems to cause domain identities to become un-authenticated. If I take this line out, the domain authentication works. But without it, I can't seem to support individual user accounts.
I've downloaded the katana project source code and examined CookieAuthenticationHandler.cs, but I don't quite understand how it works in the context of an OWIN pipeline.
How can I use the ASP.net identity framework to allow my application to authenticate users from the windows domain OR an application-specific user store?

The simplest approach is to have 2 different presentation Projects only for Authentication/Authorization.
This has the advantage of leaning on existing framework and standard configuration.
From there, you decide to either
create an AD user for every internet user, or
create a DB/Internet user for every AD user.
Creating an Identity user for each AD user is easier to implement further. Then the same cookies and filters can exist in the entire app.
In that case you can either
use subdomain(s) for your app
AD Authentiction Project can have the singular purpose of Authentication / Authorization, then the Web App can represent the rest of your app.
Alternatively, If you want a truly Unified Solution, use MohammadYounes/Owin-MixedAuth
MohammadYounes/Owin-MixedAuth
Install-Package OWIN-MixedAuth
In Web.config
<location path="MixedAuth">
<system.webServer>
<security>
<authentication>
<windowsAuthentication enabled="true" />
</authentication>
</security>
</system.webServer>
</location>
In in Startup.Auth.cs
app.UseMixedAuth(cookieOptions);
:
:
How it works:
The handler uses ApplyResponseChallengeAsync to confirm the request is a 401 challenge. If so, it redirects to the callback path to request authentication from IIS which is configured to query the AD.
AuthenticationResponseChallenge challenge = Helper.LookupChallenge(
Options.AuthenticationType, Options.AuthenticationMode);
A 401 challenge is caused by an unauthorized users attempting to use a resource that requires Authentication
The handler uses InvokeAsync to check if a request is coming from a callback path (IIS) and then calls AuthenticateCoreAsync
protected async override System.Threading.Tasks.Task<AuthenticationTicket>
AuthenticateCoreAsync()
{
AuthenticationProperties properties = UnpackStateParameter(Request.Query);
if (properties != null)
{
var logonUserIdentity = Options.Provider.GetLogonUserIdentity(Context);
if (logonUserIdentity.AuthenticationType != Options.CookieOptions.AuthenticationType
&& logonUserIdentity.IsAuthenticated)
{
AddCookieBackIfExists();
ClaimsIdentity claimsIdentity = new ClaimsIdentity(
logonUserIdentity.Claims, Options.SignInAsAuthenticationType);
// ExternalLoginInfo GetExternalLoginInfo(AuthenticateResult result)
claimsIdentity.AddClaim(new Claim(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier,
logonUserIdentity.User.Value, null, Options.AuthenticationType));
//could grab email from AD and add it to the claims list.
var ticket = new AuthenticationTicket(claimsIdentity, properties);
var context = new MixedAuthAuthenticatedContext(
Context,
claimsIdentity,
properties,
Options.AccessTokenFormat.Protect(ticket));
await Options.Provider.Authenticated(context);
return ticket;
}
}
return new AuthenticationTicket(null, properties);
}
AuthenticateCoreAsync uses AddCookieBackIfExists to read the claims cookie created by AD and creates it's own Claims based.
AD users are provided a Claims based Cookie identical to Web Users. AD is now like any other 3rd party authenticator (Google, FB, LinkedIN)

It's for this reason that I haven't been able to use pre-baked solutions for authentication. In our project, the passing years (and agile approach) have left us with 4 different ways to authenticate which is annoying, but we support all legacy versions of apps in the field so we have to preserve it all (at least for now).
I ended up creating a factory that figures out the authentication mechanism (through any of several means such as token format, presence of some other thing) and then returns a wrapper that carries the logic for validating that authentication method and setting the principal.
This gets kicked off in a custom HTTP module so that the principal is built and authenticated before the request gets to the controller. In your case, windows Auth would be the final fallback, I think. In our Web API application, we took the same approach but through a delegating handler instead of HTTP module. It's a type of local token federation, you could say. The current implementation allows us to add or modify any validation procedure, or add any other token format; in the end, the user ends up with a proper identity or gets denied. Only took a few days to implement.

It seems to me the best answer to this question is to use an authentication and authorization framework. There are plenty to choose from (both commercial and free). You could, of course, write your own but I would discourage it. Lots of very smart people get this wrong.
I would take a look at IdentityServer3. It's certainly not the only solution but its a pretty good authentication and authorization framework. It's open source and pretty easy to get up and running in a hurry. Your use case is a common one and you will find some very useful information at the link above. Clean separation between authorization and authentication, social authentication options, easy to work with json web tokens that encapsulate user claims, etc.
How it can help you
IdentityServer3 allows you to configure Identity Providers to handle authentication and there are plenty of extension points that will allow you to implement a chain of responsibility that can handle both of your scenarios. From the docs:
IdentityServer supports authentication using external identity providers. The external authentication mechanism must be encapsulated in a Katana authentication middleware.
Katana itself ships with middleware for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft Accounts, WS-Federation and OpenID Connect - but there are also community developed middlewares (including Yahoo, LinkedIn, and SAML2p).
To configure the middleware for the external providers, add a method to your project that accepts an IAppBuilder and a string as parameters.
IdentityServer3 supports AD as an identity providor via a browser login window and will support a more programmatic implementation via a custom grant. You can also take a look here for some more information on IdentityServer3 and AD authentication.
It will support windows authentication as well and you can take a look at here for information and examples on implementing that.
There is a pretty good getting started example here as well.
With the right configuration IdentityServer3 can handle your requirements. You will need to implement your own authentication providers and plug them into the framework but there isn't much more to it than that. As for authorization goes, there are plenty of options there as well.

Where to stick the configuration of Custom Provider in ASP.NET that implements ProviderBase?

I am trying to figure out a small dillema. I have a piece of functionality that is not supported by the SqlMembership, SqlRole, and SqlProfile providers. The requirements call for using the EF, and also multiple custom features within both the Membership and Role providers.
More over I have the need to add a 4th provider to the mix - One that manages User - to - group membership.
So the question here is:
Add the code for group membership in the Role provider.
-- or --
Add the code for group membership to its own GroupProvider inheriting directly from ProviderBase.
I am leaning more towards #2, however there are a few considerations to iron out:
How to provide configuration settings to the GroupProvider? - I know i can potentially use a custom section in my web.config, however I wanted to add it under the <system.web> section along side the Role, Membership, and Profile providers.
When in the execution life-cycle of the provider do the public override void Initialize(string name, NameValueCollection config) fires? What causes this to be executed?
Thanks,
Martin

Well, i couldn't find any info on this so I decided to stick my custom code into the RoleProvider. Accessing the custom functions of the RoleProvider is as simple as:
string providerName = "MyProvider";
CustomRolesProvider provider = Roles.Providers[providerName] as CustomRolesProvider;
Whenever the provider is accessed it fires the Initialize event if it is not yet initialized - which reads the config settings from the Web.Config under the System.Web section

ASP.NET MVC authentication using custom database instead of ASPNETDB?

I already have a User table in my primary application database with an email address (which will act as the user name) and a password. I would like to authenticate using my database instead of the default authentication database (ASPNETDB).
Questions:
Is this a bad idea? Is it a huge can of worms to use my own DB for authentication?
How much work am I adding by doing this? I already have code for hashing the password and a query that will check if the email and password match the DB. So, I wouldn't be starting from scratch.
What would I need to do to use my database instead of ASPNETDB? I'm hoping this can be described in a few simple steps, but if not, could you point me to good source?
Update
I'm still looking for a little more detail here on my third question. Do I need to write my own MembershipProvider? What changes do I need to make to my web.config file? Will the [Authorize] attribute still work if I write my own solution? Can I use the automatically-generated AccountController with some minor modifications or do I basically need to rewrite the account controller from scratch?

It's quite simple, you need to derrive MembershipProvider and implement the ValidateUser method. Take a look at this post. I'm using custom membership provider with Postgres and MVC just fine.

I'll answer your updated questions:
Do I need to write my own MembershipProvider?
If you (a) want to continue using Forms Authentication, and (b) have an authorization table structure that doesn't follow the same conventions as the ASPNETDB, then yes. If you don't need FormsAuth (see below), then you can do away with the MembershipProvider entirely, but I wouldn't recommend it. Or, if you're using the exact same security tables as ASPNETDB but just want to point it to a different database, you can continue using the default provider and simply change its configuration.
What changes do I need to make to my web.config file?
If you are using your own custom MembershipProvider, then you need to register it in the <providers> section of the <membership> element and change the defaultProvider property. If you are using the standard AspNetSqlProvider then you probably just need to change the connection string.
Will the [Authorize] attribute still work if I write my own solution?
Yes, if you stick to Forms Authentication (either use the AspNetSqlProvider or write and register your own membership provider). No, if you abandon Forms Authentication (again, not recommended).
Can I use the automatically-generated AccountController with some minor modifications or do I basically need to rewrite the account controller from scratch?
You should rewrite the AccountController anyway - don't leave demo code in a production app. But if you must - yes, the AccountController will work under the same conditions as above.

No. And I would suspect most people do not trust that cruddy mechanism
Not much at all, especially since you have the table already.
Take a look at this for example: http://forums.asp.net/t/1250726.aspx

Hi ,
Just follow these simple steps :
First, you can delete the .mdf file in App_Data folder. Since we don’t need any of these tables.Then, we need to update the default connection string in the web.config to point to our database.
<connectionStrings>
<add name=”DefaultConnection” connectionString=”Data Source=SERVER\INSTANCENAME;Initial Catalog=DBNAME;Integrated Security=True” providerName=”System.Data.SqlClient” />
</connectionStrings>
Third, Open Nuget Package Manager and write the following commands:
Enable-Migrations
Add-Migration Init
Update-Database
Check out your database, all ASP.NET membership tables with Prefix Asp have been create and then you can test it out by running your application and execute membership actions such as Signing up or Signing in to your application.
Created tables after running above commands:
AspNetRoles
AspNetUserClaims
AspNetUserLogins
AspNetUserRoles
AspNetUsers
__MigrationHistory
Source : https://blogs.msmvps.com/marafa/2014/06/13/how-to-create-asp-net-mvc-authentication-tables-in-an-existing-database/

We're doing exactly this in one of our applications, and find it quite simple. We have an authentication service (called from the controller) that handles the mechanics of hashing the entered password to see if it is a match, then simply returns a bool for a method we call "IsValidLogon".
In our case, the purpose was to keep the management of what should be a pretty trivial task as lightweight as possible.
We bascially ignored ASPNETDB entirely. If we get a valid response from our user/password check, we simply call the standard FormsAuthentication.RedirectFromLoginPage(username, createCookieBool);
Hope that helps.

just building the same, so answer to 1 must be NO :)
I'm using the standard asp.net forms authentication, where i use the FormsAuthentication.RedirectFromLoginPage(username, createCookieBool) method to log a user in.
I gave a user a unique guid (you can use any other user id) and i'm storing it in the UserName parameter along with the username (to display on the masterpage: Html.Encode(Page.User.Identity.Name.Split("|".ToCharArray())[1]))
In each controller/method in which i must know which user is logged on (via User.Identity.Name, split the string and get the userguid).
Also i decorate those routines with the [Authorize] attribute.